By Peter A. Sutters Jr.
The board was approached by the three groups in December, presented with the plans for the homes and asked to vote on the issue as a show of support. The board's vote for or against supporting the homes at campus in Glen Oaks would not prevent them from being set up because the board has no authority over the project due to the small number of clients involved. The discussion was heated nonetheless.Board members went back and forth over the pros and cons of having the homes at the Creedmoor campus, with opinions appearing to be evenly split. The residents of the homes, described as mentally ill but having a level of independence, would not come only from the surrounding area but across the city and state. Those against the homes cited issues such as residents being allowed to leave the grounds during the day for work and not being required to return until 11 p.m. along with an increase in the number of people who gather outside the buildings on the grounds of the hospital.”I want to go on record to say we don't support it,” said board member Seymour Finkelstein.Board members supporting the homes said they would be located in an already existing building, which would not change the footprint of the campus and if nothing were built there the state could sell the land to a less desirable institution. They also said state Sen. Frank Padavan (R-Bellerose) was in favor of the homes. “To oppose it is moot because we have no standing,” said board member Corey Bearak. Others reminded the board that the number of patients at Creedmoor was once considerably higher than it is today and the addition of the proposed 151 clients would not even bring the population close to the numbers once housed there and would not crowd the campus.A second hot button issue at the meeting was the vote on whether or not to recommend the sale of city-owned land to a development company which plans on building senior housing on the property that is now a parking lot. Board members raised a number of concerns about the sale of the land, which borders the Long Island Rail Road tracks, Francis Lewis Boulevard and Brookville Boulevard, including the price, the length of the no-sale clause, lack of public disclosure of the contract's details, and the possibility of the site being used as a future location for the long sought after precinct for what is now the southern half of the 105th.The deal for the land sale is not dead, according to CB 13 Chairman Richard Hellenbrecht, who said the next step is for the Queens Borough Board to vote on the matter. CB 13 had voted in favor of the plan for the building a few months ago.The price of the 47,000-square-foot piece of land was set for $800,000, which some board members said was too low. Some also complained that the details of the contract would not be made public until after the land was sold.A representative of City Councilman James Sanders (D- Laurelton) attended the meeting and said Sanders supported the deal.Before the vote was taken a clause was added to prevent the land from being sold for 30 years rather than the five years that was proposed. Board members said they did not want to see the developer, Stoneridge Organization Inc. of Rosedale get a good deal on the land only to sell it for a profit in five years rather than providing housing for seniors. The vote to recommend the sale was voted down by a 18-10 margin, with one abstention. Reach reporter Peter A. Sutters Jr. by e-mail at news@timesledger.com or by phone at 718-229-0300 Ext. 173.
