Glen Head and Glenwood Civics Revive Civic Council

Civic groups in Glen Head and Glenwood Landing have officially united under the umbrella of the United Civic Council of Glen Head and Glenwood Landing, a group incorporated in 1978 that has been dormant for nearly three decades.

The civic groups involved are the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association, the Todd Estates Civic Association, the Hill Terrance Civic Association, the Harbor View Civic Association, the Glen Knolls - Glen Head Civic Association, and the Radcliff Manor neighborhood association.

The Council encourages people from all areas of Glen Head and Glenwood Landing to join an existing civic group or form a group of their own.

In recent years, area civics have often joined forces and spoken with one voice on issues of mutual concern. The revitalization of the United Civics Council will strengthen these efforts.

North Hempstead BZA Approves Variances for Apartment Building on Glenwood Landing Waterfront

The Civic Association has received an unconfirmed report that the Town of North Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals this week approved variances for the apartment building proposed by Glen Harbor Partners for the Glenwood Landing Waterfront south of the Glenwood Landing Power Station. The move clears the way for site plan review by the Town of North Hempstead Planning Board. Public participation will be vital in the site plan review process and can help shape the appearance of the building, the landscaping, and promised public esplanade.

No Athletic Field for Tappen Beach

July 15, 2008: The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor reports in the email message below that the Town of Oyster Bay (TOB) has announced that an athletic field will not be installed at Tappen Beach. The Civic Association hopes that TOB will reconvene the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Steering Committee and hold meetings to gather community input about people's vision for Tappen Beach with a view toward updating or creating a new Tappen Beach Plan.

- - - - - - -

There will be no artificial-turf field at Tappen Beach! That was the good news today at the TOBAY board meeting! Following about two hours of public hearings, Supervisor John Venditto opened the meeting up for public comment, and when the issue of the Tappen Beach artificial-turf field proposal came up, he stated that the plan has been stopped and that he had made a mistake and miscalculated the public sentiment over the project, and he admitted to being bombarded with calls and e-mails opposing the project.

You all made this happen--everyone who took time to write or call the supervisor's office, write letters to the editor, and sign the petition. (We had nearly 700 signatures on the petition that was circulated to halt the artificial-turf-field proposal.!) This is a victory for the community not only in ensuring that public health and environment will be protected, our quality of life preserved, and our treasured beach park protected from a use that is not in harmony with coastal activities, but also for our faith in the public process. The voices of individuals count, and together we can make a difference in events that shape the future!

We could leave it at that and say we're done, but we're not. First, please take time to write to Supervisor Venditto and thank him for listening to the community. (It took him long enough, but he knows that he made a mistake and that the town's public information system is flawed.) Then tell him you are still concerned about the potential health hazards that artificial turf poses to the town's children and environment and that you encourage the town to initiate a townwide moratorium on construction of artificial turf fields until all the information is in from the appropriate health and environmental agencies--see that attached document that was submitted to Supervisor Venditto and the town council this morning. (The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor has never been a NIMBY organization; we don't want to shift the problem to another community.)

And there's this last request. The Coalition is used to operating a shoestring, but the string has become quite thin these days. In addition to all the support you have offered, we need your financial support as well to be able to keep things going so that when the need arises, we will be ready to act. We have downsized our operation, but we still have rent to pay and internet, phone, mail expenses, etc. We have obtained grant money to fund our water program, but we do not have sufficient funds to cover our activist activities. We have not asked for membership dues in a long while, but we are asking now. If you can afford $25 or more, we would greatly appreciate that or any amount you are comfortable donating. Please make checks payable to the Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor and send them to P.O. Box 159, Sea Cliff, NY 11579. Also, please include your mailing address so that we can acknowledge your contribution as required for tax purposes.

Best regards,
Carol DiPaolo
Programs Director

Civic Letter to the Editor re Proposed Athletic Field at Tappen Beach

June 6, 2008: Letter to the Editor, Glen Cove Record Pilot

Looking for Answers to Tappen Beach Changes

There is perhaps no more significant natural resource in Glenwood Landing and Glen Head than the Glenwood Landing Waterfront. The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association believes that the installation of an artificial turf athletic field at Tappen Beach is a major change in, and intensification of, use for that resource. We believe that such a change requires public input in an open forum that provides all residents with the same information and the same opportunity to comment. Such a forum also would require the town to respond to the various concerns expressed by residents.

Having heard vague rumors that another athletic field might be in the works for Tappen and having had no luck in confirming the rumor through normal channels, I attended a Town Board meeting last June and waited until midnight to request information during the public comment period. Several weeks later, the Parks Department contacted me and a meeting was arranged.

At that meeting, I asked many questions including but not limited to: Is there a plan for the design, construction, management, and continued maintenance of the field? How does the plan address such concerns as the impact of an athletic field on view corridors, mature trees, the picnic area and other green space, and recently installed improvements, such as the play area? How will the field be integrated into the park? Will there be lights? If so, how bright, how tall, how late will they be on, and what will the electric bill be? Will the field be like the one recently installed at Center Island or the one at John Burns? Will there be fences? If so, how many and how tall? Will tarps be placed on the fences? Will there be bleachers? What will the hours of operation be? Will players who do not belong to clubs be accommodated and if so, how? Who will maintain the artificial turf? Is artificial turf safe for children and the environment? How many teams and how many clubs use fields in the area? Few answers were provided.

I said the situation highlighted the need to update the plan for Tappen Beach and that no major changes to the beach should be made until such a process is completed with plenty of public input. I said the plan should include three scenarios: a vision for the park if the utility lots are acquired; a vision for the park if the utility lots are not acquired; and a list of projects that can be implemented while the disposition of the utility lots is resolved. I also said that a recreational needs assessment for the community should be conducted, a suggestion made in the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan.

The Town established a strong precedent for public participation in its northwestern hamlets by preparing and adopting the GWL Waterfront Plan. While we are certain that the athletic field project is well motivated and that an athletic field of some type may be needed, the procedure that has been used to advance the project undermines this precedent. I know of no public meetings or agendas that included an artificial turf athletic field at Tappen Beach. Although I certainly could have missed one, I sure have been keeping my eyes peeled. Furthermore, private meetings between the Parks Department and various user groups do not constitute an open, public process.

This Civic Association is committed to balancing the competing needs and interests of the community, recognizes the role of compromise, and has the track record to prove it. We contend that the athletic field that the Parks Department seems so intent on installing cannot result in balance because of the flawed method by which the project is being advanced. We urge the Town to reconsider the matter pending updating of the Tappen Beach plan; a needs assessment; and a town-conducted, community-wide informational mailing and public meeting held in Glen Head.

Comments and correspondence from the Civic Association about the possibility of an artificial turf athletic field at Tappen Beach can be viewed at www.GlenwoodGlenHeadCivic.BlogSpot.com.

Patrice Benneward, President, Glenwood/Glen Head Civic Association

Meeting to Highlight Practical Ways Community Character Is Being Preserved in Hamlet of Oyster Bay

Come the meeting below to learn about positive measures to preserve community character that have been implemented in the unincorporated hamlet of Oyster Bay that could be applied in Glenwood Landing and Glen Head.

Save the Jewel By the Bay in cooperation with
The Town of Oyster Bay
A COMMUNITY MEETING for the 

HAMLET OF OYSTER BAY

In 2005, this community called for a moratorium to protect the Hamlet of Oyster Bay Residential Community from the demolition of homes, the subdivision of residential properties, the building of over-sized homes on sub-standard lots, and the cutting down of mature trees within this historic community. Since that time, much has been accomplished through the spirit of cooperation between the Town of Oyster Bay, Save the Jewel By the Bay, and Hamlet residents.

Come and hear about the legislative changes that have resulted from the moratorium, including:

· the creation of new Zoning Laws unique to our Hamlet
· the new Town-wide Tree Preservation Ordinance
· an update on where we are now
· a look at what is being considered for the future

Hofstra University will also present an Historical Perspective of Oyster Bay

Date: Monday, June 16, 2008
Place: The First Presbyterian Church
60 East Main Street, Oyster Bay, NY
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Bring: Family, friends, and neighbors

Glenwood Landing and Glen Head Open Space Acquisitions Proposed at Oyster Bay SEA Fund Meeting

The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association appeared at the Town of Oyster Bay's Save Environmental Assets (SEA) meeting at Town Hall on Tuesday, March 4, to support two acquisitions in Glenwood Landing (GWL) and Glen Head.

The first is the propane field on Shore Road, which has made every town and county open space bond priority list. The second is a lot on the southwest corner of Glenwood Road and Glen Cove Avenue where a building was recently razed. Five area civics submitted a proposal for acquisition of this lot in a letter to the town dated January 8.

The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor also appeared at the meeting and offered support for both of these acquisitions.

The propane field has been fully remediated. It is directly on Hempstead Harbor. Its acquisition would create a spectacular GWL Waterfront Greenway that would connect with Tappen Beach. The town has received a small state grant to help offset the cost of the purchase. The NYS Open Space Plan specifically states that establishing a GWL Waterfront Greenway is a state priority, as does the town’s own GWL Waterfront Revitalization Plan. 

The town stated that it has approached National Grid with a formal proposal for acquisition of the propane field and is awaiting a response.

It was our impression that, under the town’s first SEA fund round, the propane field was not acquired because much of the funds were needed for the very worthwhile Underhill purchase, which the Civic Association actively supported. It was our impression that, under the second round, the propane field was not purchased because it was not perceived as threatened—an attitude that may have been misguided given the recent sale of KeySpan to Nation Grid. We can only hope that National Grid will be receptive to a deal.

At the meeting, the Civic Association pointed out that the community tolerated the installation of two new generators several years ago largely out of hope, born out of many informal conversations with involved parties, that the propane field would soon enter the public domain. It seemed like a reasonable compromise: a few new generators across the street from the water in exchange for prime waterfront access directly on Hempstead Harbor. But the community has now been waiting more than six years for reclamation of Glenwood Landing’s industrial waterfront to move forward.

The second property is a vacant lot in central Glen Head on the southwest corner of Glen Cove Avenue and Glenwood Road, where a building was recently razed. In a joint letter, civic associations in Todd Estates, Hill Terrace, Harbor View, and Glen Knolls/Glen Head Estates and the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association suggested that the town explore acquiring this property under the SEA fund for use as a village green. The civic associations said that they believe village greens are important for attracting businesses, maintaining property values, and creating vibrant, pleasant communities that can compete with neighboring incorporated villages.

The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association also requested that the town provide a comprehensive updated report of all SEA fund activities to date. 

During the last several years, the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association has distributed more than 10,000 flyers supporting the town and county open space bonds and has appeared before the town board and county legislature to support several acquisitions, including the Underhill property in Jericho.

North Hempstead Zoning Board Takes Up Proposal for Waterfront Apartment Complex in Glenwood Landing

The Town of North Hempstead (TNH) Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will resume deliberations on the Glen Harbor Partners proposal for a condominium apartment complex on waterfront property on Hempstead Harbor in Glenwood Landing south of the Glenwood Landing Power Station on Wednesday, April 2, at 1 p.m.

The meeting will be held at North Hempstead Town Hall, 210 Plandome Road, Manhasset 11030. BZA agendas are subject to change. Contact the BZA to confirm: 869-7667.

Please express your views, whether again or for the first time, about this proposal and appropriate uses for the parcel. Your presence at the hearing, as well as phone calls and written messages, will let TNH know that the residents of Glen Head and Glenwood Landing take great interest in Hempstead Harbor and the Glenwood Landing Waterfront and may improve this proposal or result in a different use for the parcel.

North Hempstead Grants Extension on Glenwood Landing Waterfront Rezoning

Manhasset, November 20—At a Town Board meeting held tonight, the North Hempstead Town Board voted to extend for one year a zoning change from industrial to multi-family residential on property located on the Glenwood Landing Waterfront south of the Glenwood Landing Power Station.

The vote was six to one in favor of the extension, with Councilman Fred Pollack dissenting. Before voting against the extension, Councilman Pollack said that he thought the zoning change represented bad public policy for waterfront property.

Before voting in favor of the extension, Supervisor Jon Kaiman said that no alternative use for the property had been proposed and that the threat to public health and marine water quality from contamination at the site was substantial.

The zoning change was triggered by an application from Glen Harbor Partners to build a condominium apartment building on the site. Glen Harbor Partners would clean up the contamination as part of the project.

The Town Board originally granted the zoning change on November 14, 2006, with the stipulation that the site be cleaned up and ground broken within one year. That vote was five to two in favor of the change, with Councilmen Fred Pollack and Wayne Wink dissenting. Mr. Wink, who was elected to the county legislature last year, no longer sits on the town board.

Several alternatives suggested

Because the site is located directly on Hempstead Harbor and because the Town of North Hempstead already owns a portion of the property, the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association formally proposed that the town purchase the privately owned portion of the site under the town's Environmental Legacy Fund. The Coalition for Hempstead Harbor proposed the site for acquisition under another public funding mechanism: the Nassau County environmental bond. That application included a letter of support from the Civic Association. The site has not been included on the TNH or county acquisition lists.

At several standing-room-only hearings, many residents expressed the desire for the site to be reclaimed and managed as public open space. There was general concensus from residents that nothing should be done with the property until funds could be found for such acqusition. A few residents also suggested that the the possibility of active industrial use was preferable to the proposed multi-family residential plan.

Another suggestion was the creation of a special intermunicipal district to manage the site. Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor John Venditto said he would be willing to discuss the idea if the Town of North Hempstead took the lead since the property is within North Hempstead.

Many residents from the TNH and TOB portions of Glenwood Landing, as well as from surrounding communities, said they would be willing to pay to clean up and maintain the site as open space.

The Civic Association and others also suggested that a waterfront zone created by the Town of North Hemptead a few years ago might be a more appropriate classification for the site. Although the code specifies that the zone is for larger parcels, the Civic Association is unaware of any practical or legal reason that would preclude applying the waterfront zone to the Glenwood Landing site.

Contamination concerns

According to the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, the contamination at the site is contained and does not represent an immediate threat to public health or to marine water quality.

Water testing data at the Glenwood Landing outfall (located between Powerhouse Park and the Power Station) suggest that the most significant threat to water quality in Hempstead Harbor is so-called nonpoint source pollution (contaminated stormwater runoff, including bacteria).

Thoroughness of EIS debated

The Town Board considered the zoning change after accepting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the applicant at the direction of the town. At a hearing held in connection with the EIS, the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association, Town of Oyster Bay, and Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor stated that the document was inadequate and requested that North Hempstead reject it.

The Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee, an inter-municipal organization made up of the of municipalities surrounding Hempstead Harbor, also suggested areas where the EIS could be strengthened.

Next steps

The plan that Glen Harbor Partner proposes requires several variances, including one to permit a four-story building. At a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing last year, the ZBA indicated that a variance for four stories would be unprecedented and suggested that the applicant present a different plan. Glen Harbor Partners submitted documents this past October. A December hearing is antiticpated.

The town line runs through Glenwood Landing. The vast majority of Glenwood Landing residents live on the Oyster Bay side. The North Hempstead portion of Glenwood Landing is not contiguous with any other unincorporated area in the North Hempstead.

At the Tuesday hearing, the town confirmed that the site is being used to receive materials destined for the Roslyn viaduct reconstruction. A resident requested information on the amount of money that is being paid for this use and the names of the recipients. She suggested that these funds be designated to help the town acquire the privately owned parcel and to clean up the site.

Statement concerning the extension of the change in zone made by the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association:

Since the summary of agenda item 31 contains virtually no identifying information, I arrive tonight guessing that resolution you are considering for action pertains to the rezoning of the waterfront property in Glenwood Landing on which Glen Harbor Partners proposes construction of a condominium apartment building.

Last year when the board granted the zoning change, the board wisely made the change contingent upon the site being cleaned up and ground broken within a year.

As I hope you will recall, on more than one occasion, this room was packed with people opposed to the rezone and on at least two occasions the room remained packed for many hours while people waited for the item to be called.

I must tell you that in the last year community interest in the project—and opposition to it, at least in its present form—has not waned.

Considering the interest that the people in Glenwood Landing and surrounding communities have shown in the matter, I would think that the town would recognize that the public is entitled to both better notice that action is contemplated and to be heard.

I therefore ask that you postpone voting on this resolution and that you schedule an opportunity for the community to comment on the pros and cons of an extension. On the other hand, if you voted tonight against the extension, you would make many people in Glenwood Landing and the surrounding community happy.

I also would like to thank Glen Harbor Partners for providing the civic association with the most recent plan submitted to the ZBA. I am, however, disappointed to note that the plan seems to differ little from the previous one and does not appear to have been substantively revised based on the ZBA’s comments.

I also have the impression that over the last year discussions have occurred between the town and the applicant. I am disappointed that in that time there has been virtually no outreach to the community. The civic associations would very much like to sit down together with the applicant and representatives of the town to discuss various elements of the plan and how at least some community concerns might be mitigated.

Zoning Change on Glenwood Landing Waterfront Up For Extension

On Tuesday, November 20, the North Hempstead Town Board is scheduled to vote on a resolution that would extend a zoning change from industrial to multi-family residential on waterfront property south of the Glenwood Landing Power Station.

The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall. Call TNH at 869-7646 to confirm. The zoning change would permit construction of an apartment building by Glen Harbor Parters. The project includes land that once housed Harbor Fuel as well as a town-owned parcel.

The zoning change was originally granted November 14, 2006, with the stipulation that the site had to be cleaned up and ground broken within a year.

A portion of the property has recently been used for delivery of materials destined for the Roslyn viaduct project.

Please attend the board meeting to to support the following:
• the community is entitled to notice that an extension is being considered;
• the community is entitled to be heard on the matter;
• action should NOT be taken until a public hearing on the extension has been conducted.

If you cannot attend the hearing, please contact Supervisor Jon Kaiman (869-7700) and Councilpersons Robert Troiano (869-7799), Thomas Dwyer (869-7696), Angelo Ferrara (869-7716), Lee R. Seeman (869-7692), Fred Pollack (869-7698). Email addresses and FAX numbers are posted on the TNH website (www.northhempstead.com).

Glen Harbor Partners has submitted revised plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals. A December ZBA hearing on the variance application is anticipated. It will be important for as many people as possible to attend.

Town Environmental Commission to Review Developer's Proposal for East Side of Motts Cove Road

Reported in the October edition of News from the Hill, the newsletter of the Hill Terrace Civic Association:

UPDATE ON COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPERS, LLC, PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, MOTTS COVE ROAD

The letters you wrote in August to Patricia Baranello, Chairwoman, Town of Oyster Bay, Zoning Board of Appeals, (ZBA), (with a copy to Neil Bergin, Commissioner of Environmental Resources, Town of Oyster Bay), resulted in over 200 letters being received, with most of them being in opposition to the proposed subdivision. This, according to James McCaffrey, Executive Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals. At their August meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a “Reserved Decision” on the petition by Country Club Developers for a variance to permit flag lots at their proposed development. The ZBA referred the developers application to TEQR; TOBAY’s Environmental Quality Review Division, of it’s Department of Environmental Resources, for review. It is anticipated that this will require at least two months to complete before it is returned to the ZBA for action.

Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Comments on Flag Lot Variances for Motts Cove Rd

Thursday, July 26: The Town of Oyster Bay Zoning Board of Appeals held a variance hearing for flag lots on a 6-unit subdivison on the east side of Motts Cove Road. The property straddles Glen Head and Roslyn Harbor. Five lots would be in Glen Head; one would be in Roslyn Harbor. The application was last on the agenda and was called around midnight. The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association's remarks, made in concert with the Hill Terrace Civic Association, are below:

Good evening. My name is Patrice Benneward. I am the president of the GW/GH Civic Association. The civic association believes that this proposal requires a positive declaration under SEQRA based on the physical characteristics and location of the parcel, the density requested, the parcel’s proximity to two small state- and federal-listed wetlands across the street, and the potential impact on wildlife.

As I hope you have observed firsthand, the site is located in an area that receives a tremendous amount of runoff. Much of this runoff is destined for Hempstead Harbor, a state and federally protected water body. Numerous county, village, and town storm drains are in the vicinity. There also is a water district pumping facility. The impact of the proposal on the harbor and on this infrastructure needs to be thoroughly understood and addressed.

The parcel is sloped, densely wooded, and contains two small ponds. If the proposal is accepted as is and at the requested density, the result will destroy virtually all of these characteristics. The ponds will be gone, the site will be stripped of virtually all vegetation, and the slopes will be significantly recontoured. The implications of so great an alteration need to be thoroughly understood and addressed, particularly in light of the state’s emphasis on proper stormwater controls. The Planning Dept. has prepared a map of slopes in Glenwood Landing and lower Glen Head that documents steep slopes on the subject parcel. I am submitting a copy of that map for your review.

The town’s own recent study of land use in Glenwood Landing and Glen Head has documented two small state- and federally- listed wetlands across the street in Roslyn Harbor. I am submitting a map prepared by the Planning Dept. showing these wetlands. The wetlands are surrounded by other valuable water features and slopes in an area where three more new homes are planned. The impact of altering the subject parcel on these features and the three additional homes soon to be constructed need to be thoroughly understood and addressed.

Peregrine falcons and red tailed hawks are frequently seen in the vicinity. The potential impact of this proposal on their nesting and feeding behaviors needs to be thoroughly understood and addressed.

Finally, development of the parcel will require relocation of the golf club’s maintenance road to a position much closer to Hill Terrace than the current maintenance road. The impact and details of such a relocation need to be thoroughly understood and addressed, particularly since the new location will be much closer to many more property owners than at the present location.

For these reasons, we believe that the only responsible route to an informed decision on this application is a full SEQRA-mandated Environmental Impact Statement with public scoping. I underscore the importance of public scoping.

I would like to add that virtually all of the conditions I have mentioned pertinent to SEQRA review could and should have been known to the applicant before he purchased the property or submitted this application.

There also is a great deal of concern about some of the construction practices that have recently been employed in the neighborhood, both in general and by this applicant in particular.

A moment ago I mentioned that the site contains two ponds. Well, there were two ponds until an attempt was made to fill one of them in. At least one stop work order was issued in connection with this activity, but not before a considerable amount of damage was done. I am happy to report that the pond is gradually restoring itself and has made considerable progress toward this end. I respectfully submit that this application should NOT move forward until the applicant restores the pond to its previous condition. Such flagrant disregard for the procedures and regulations mandated by town and village codes MUST NOT be tolerated by this board or any other board in any jurisdiction.

In addition, as you know, the applicant is currently building six homes on a sloped, one-acre site nearby. Unfortunately, no attempt appears to have been made to preserve or accommodate the natural slope of that parcel; virtually every tree and bush has been removed from the site; and construction-related stormwater controls have been less than exemplary. In addition, the project is taking a long time to complete, subjecting nearby property owners to dust, mud, noise, and a view of a portable bathroom. Another temporary concern is inadequate security, of particular importance because of the proximity of Glenwood Landing school and the large number of children who live nearby. The permanent end result is entirely too many homes for the site and a detrimental change in the leafy, gardenlike atmosphere of the community.

In light of these concerns, we question the wisdom of issuing any variances, site plan approvals, or building permits to this applicant until he proves he plans to employ best management practices and unless the town is willing to follow through with vigorous monitoring and enforcement. I have contacted the Planning Dept. to ask that any warnings, concerns relating to possible code violations, or actual code violations issued to the applicant on this or any other project in the Town of Oyster Bay or the Village of Roslyn Harbor be incorporated into the record of this hearing and I ask you to be certain that this occurs.

Finally, because this parcel spans two jurisdictions, I urge you to reach out to the Village of Roslyn Harbor on this application and to communicate and coordinate with the village in every possible way in order to achieve an outcome that will be acceptable to both communities.

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of this application.

Athletic Field Proposed for Tappen Draws Community Comment at Oyster Bay Town Board Meeting

Tuesday, June 26—Several community groups today addressed the Oyster Bay Town Board about the possibility of a new athletic field at Tappen Beach. The statement made by the civic association follows:

Good evening. My name is Patrice Benneward. I am speaking to you on behalf of the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association. I am here because, although I have no details, I have heard through the grapevine that you may be considering installing a second athletic field at Tappen Beach.

First, our organization wants to thank you for considering an additional athletic field in the Glenwood / Glen Head area, as well as for several recent improvements at Tappen Beach—including a gazebo, playgrounds, benches, landscaping, and repair of the boat launch.

All of these initiatives are very much appreciated. The civic association does have some concerns, though, about locating another athletic field at the beach. While these concerns may not be insurmountable, we do feel that they present some serious challenges.

I served on the steering committee that created the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan. I believe the plan noted that a study examining the recreational needs of the area would be useful. I suggest that it is important to conduct such a study now, both to get a better grip on the demand for specific types of activities and to survey the possible locations for facilities that could address these needs.

I also think that the addition of an athletic field at the beach represents a major change in use and that such a project requires considerable public input and a formal public hearing.

Our organization, for example, has concerns about the impact of an additional athletic field on view corridors, the picnic and play areas, mature trees, the sitting area north of the pool, and parking. Public input and a formal hearing would provide a forum for these concerns—as well as the concerns of others—to be taken into consideration.

We also wonder whether the new facility would be open to all residents or just to members of particular clubs or groups. It seems to us that a public discussion about the pros and cons of each approach is necessary before moving forward one way or the other.

Our organization is also a strong supporter of planning. We advocate an updated comprehensive plan for Tappen Beach as a means of avoiding piecemeal development; ensuring that we get the most bang for the buck; and guaranteeing that improvements remain viable over the long term. We suggest that the time is ripe for such a plan and urge that it be created now—and with ample public participation.

I also would like to mention that the civic association is a strong supporter of the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee (HHPC). A representative of the civic association has attended almost every HHPC meeting for the last decade. To the best of my knowledge, HHPC has not been informed that this project may be in the works and, in fact, often seems to be left out of the loop on many projects that impact the harbor. In my view, it would be a real advance if, as a matter of policy, all departments were made aware that they should bring HHPC into the loop on all matters that affect the harbor.

Finally, for a very long time and as I believe you are all aware, this community has been patiently waiting for the utility properties adjacent to Tappen Beach to be brought into the public domain. When the back-up generators were installed across the street, all parties assured us, albeit informally, that the propane field would, in all likelihood, be purchased by the town and the wetland lot would be donated to the town.

Since then, the propane field has made both the county and town bond act lists, and the town has even received grants to put toward the acquisition of the property and the initial planning. Yet, as far as I know, we are not any closer to acquiring either lot today than we were five or six years ago. In fact, the pending sale of KeySpan may actually be jeopardizing the exchange. It is essential that the town acquire these properties as quickly as possible and, yet again, I urge you to pursue them very aggressively.

On a personal note, although I have been actively involved in local waterfront issues for some time now, I have not mentioned my own personal desires regarding uses at Tappen Beach—and believe me I do have them—in any forum to date. This is because I have felt it would be premature in the absence of a community platform open to all. I have taken it for granted that once the utility properties were acquired such a forum would be forthcoming. However, as the purchase of the properties seems to be taking so long and only seems to become more questionable, I think it is perhaps important to begin planning for the future of the lands that are in the public domain now in an open forum that balances the competing recreational desires of all residents.

Thank you for your attention and interest in the Glenwood Landing Waterfront.

New Athletic Field at Tappen Beach?

The Town of Oyster Bay is apparently considering installing an artificial turf athletic field at Tappen Beach. As of this writing, how installation of such a field might affect view corridors and existing amenities—such as the picnic area, playgrounds, gazebo, roller hockey ring, trees, marina, sitting area north of the pool, and parking lot—is unknown to the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association.

Whether the field would be available to all residents or just to members of certain clubs also is unknown. The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association recognizes there may be a need for more athletic fields in the area. However, we believe a study is needed to assess this potential need and the possible locations for such fields.

We believe that the installation of an athletic field at Tappen Beach is a major change in use that requires public input and a formal hearing. We also believe that a new comprehensive plan for Tappen Beach that has been fully vetted by the public is a necessary precursor to such a change. Because the possible acquisition of the utility properties affects the ability to plan, we believe that the town should aggressively pursue acquisition of the these properties despite the pending sale of KeySpan.

In all cases, the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association is committed to maintaining and maximizing view corridors and to passive uses at Tappen Beach. We also believe that amenities at Tappen Beach should be open to all residents, regardless of whether or not they belong to a particular club.

TOB ZBA Hearing on Motts Cove Rd Subdivision Rescheduled

The Town of Oyster Bay Zoning Board of Appeals hearing for a subdivision proposed for the east side of Motts Cove Road just south of the footbridge has apparently been rescheduled for Thursday, July 26.

The parcel straddles Glen Head and Roslyn Harbor. Five lots are proposed for the Glen Head portion; one is proposed for the Roslyn Harbor portion. The parcel is sloped and irregularly shaped and contains water features.

TOB recently held a hearing on code amendments that could, potentially, reduce the number of lots permitted on the parcel. Among the most relevant is an amendment concerning steep slopes and wetlands (see Study Addresses Community Character in Glenwood Landing and Glen Head, April 6; Civic Documents Architectural Styles of Glen Head & Glenwood Landing Homes, April 2.

At a recent Town Board hearing on the amendments, John Chase, the attorney for the subdivision applicant, argued that Glen Head and Glenwood Landing should be exempted from such amendments. According to Mr. Chase, his client's land is the last parcel available for development in the area, steep slope protections have nothing to do with environmental concerns and everything to do with density in relatively densely populated areas, and a reduction in the number of lots would bankrupt his client.

Mr. Chase said that these so-called facts should exempt his client—and all of Glen Head and Glenwood Landing—from the code changes being considered. The Civic Association disagrees with Mr. Chase on all points and so stated at the Town Board hearing.

Most incorporated villages surrounding Glen Head and Glenwood Landing have adopted similar measures as those being reviewed in TOB, making it imperative that Glen Head and Glenwood Landing follow suite to avoid becoming an even more appealing target for spot developers interested in the quickest and easiest buck possible.

For more information about the ZBA hearing, contact TOB (624-6232) and see Civic Spot postings Zoning Hearing Scheduled for Subdivision on Motts Cove Road in Glen Head, April 16; Adjournment Requested for Motts Cove Variance Hearing, April 24. Agenda changes are common, so be sure to check with TOB if you plan to attend the hearing. You may also write to the ZBA at 54 Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY 11771.

Memorial Day Fireworks in Hempstead Harbor

Look up and west Saturday evening, May 26, for Memorial Day Weekend Fireworks from Hempstead Harbor and Bar Beach parks. Concert begins at 6 p.m. Produced by Town of North Hempstead.

TNH ZBA Hearing Continued on Glenwood Landing Waterfront Condo Application

Wednesday, May 16—The Town of North Hempstead (TNH) Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA) has continued the hearing on the Glen Harbor Partners application for a four-story condominium apartment building on the Glenwood Landing Waterfront.

Glen Harbor Partners has applied for four variances: three are height variances, and one variance would permit a building with four stories. The variances would clear the way for site plan review of a proposed 60-unit condominium apartment building next to the Glenwood Landing Power Station.

The property was once the home of Harbor Fuel. Some of the property is owned by TNH and would be sold to Glen Harbor Partners if the variances are granted and the site plan is approved.

ZBA Chairman David Mammina told Glen Harbor Partners that the ZBA could vote on the application today or the hearing could be continued to give the applicant time to produce a plan for a lower building with no more than three stories.

Glen Harbor Partners opted for the continuance. The ZBA requested that Glen Harbor provide the civic association with any plan it submits. An attorney for Glen Harbor told Civic Association Secretary Karen Greene that a plan or a letter would be produced within three weeks.

Six residents of Glenwood Landing and Glen Head spent the entire day at North Hempstead Town Hall waiting to comment on the application. All objected to the height and footprint of the building. The hearing started at 9:30 a.m. The Glen Harbor Partners application was the sixth and last item on the agenda. It was called at about 3 p.m.

Below is the text of a letter written and circulated by the civic association. The text forms the basis of the civic association’s testimony:

May 16, 2007: Appeal #18237 - Glen Harbor Partners, LLc/Town of North Hempstead , variance 70-68.A, to permit the construction of a 60 residential condominium units, exceeding the permitted number of stories and height; W/side of Shore Road & Intervale Rd., Glenwood Landing, Sec. 20, Blk. K, Lot 9, & Sec. 20 Bk. Q, Lots 45, 46, 47, R-M District.

Mr. Mammina and members of the board:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name is Patrice Benneward. I am president of the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association. As you may know, Glenwood Landing perceives itself as one community, and our civic association spans both sides of the town line. I am speaking to you today on behalf of my own civic association as well as five other civic associations or neighborhood groups representing all of the neighborhoods closest to the site under review. They are Hill Terrace, Radcliff Manor, Todd Estates, Harbor View, and Glen Knolls, as well as Glenwood Landing and “lower” Glen Heand.

The civic association has been following this application since it was submitted and has participated in every hearing that has been held. At each of these hearings we have expressed serious concerns about the scale, height, and footprint of the proposed building; the project’s impact on our community, and its impact on Hempstead Harbor.

Unfortunately, we do not believe that our concerns have been adequately addressed. We think the EIS is sketchy at best and are disappointed and not a little shocked that the town board chose to accept it without the improvements requested by us and other groups, including the Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor, the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee, and the Town of Oyster Bay. We certainly appreciated the no votes of Wayne Wink and Fred Pollack.

Today I appear before you to express our objection to the height and story variances the applicant requests. During the environmental review and rezoning process, the applicant repeatedly stated that the building would not require height variances. Now we find that the building does require these variances. I respectfully submit that the hardship claimed is entirely self imposed and that, therefore, the variances requested should not be granted.

In your deliberations, please weigh heavily that the height and roofline of the proposed building, and the mechanicals that may be on the roof, are extremely important to this community, particularly the neighborhood known as Rams Hill, where all the TNH residents of Glenwood Landing reside

As I imagine you have observed, the Rams Hill neighborhood is located on a hill overlooking Hempstead Harbor. There is currently a sweeping view of the harbor from the road and from the first floors of the homes on Rams Hill. Although some industrial properties are in the foreground of this view, the harbor is still quite visible.

At previous hearings, the applicant has stated that after the proposed building is constructed, the harbor may still be visible from the second floor of these homes. The application before you states that the view of the harbor will not be altered. These two statements are contradictory. The unnerving possibility of a rooftop water tower also has been mentioned from time to time. And there has been no discussion of whether mechanicals will be situated on the roof and, if so, how they will be disguised.

It is our contention that view corridors represent an important public benefit and that the view corridor of Hempstead Harbor from Rams Hill must be preserved. We have already lost the view corridor from the Roslyn viaduct. We do not wish to repeat so tragic and lasting a public loss in our community.

During previous reviews, it also was stated that a variance for parking beneath the building would be required. However, we understand that the town recently passed an ordinance permitting under building parking. We regret, therefore, that we no longer have the opportunity to register a comment about this troubling aspect of the proposal.

However, in your deliberations, I urge you to at least consider the folly of parking so many vehicles in a new residential enclave so close to the water in so isolated a location. How and where will these vehicles be evacuated in the case of flooding? Any resident can tell you that flooding in this vicinity is hardly uncommon. How will the gasoline and motor oil from these vehicles affect water quality in Hempstead Harbor after a flood?

In addition, it seems unrealistic to locate residential property so close to several active generators.

Please be aware that sentiment in this community is overwhelmingly opposed to a project of this scale in Glenwood Landing, particularly on waterfront property that the vast majority of people believe should be preserved as open space. There was standing room only at the two rezoning hearings held for the project. We were the last item on the agenda and people waited till 11 p.m. to be called. No one spoke in favor on the project. Many people said they would consider paying to keep the town-owned land in the public domain, to bring the rest of the property into public ownership, to clean up the property, and to reclaim it as parkland. Yet the costs and logistics of doing so have not been explored.

I have seldom seen this type of unity on any issue. My sense is that you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Glenwood Landing or Glen Head who thinks this project is a good idea. Certainly, the people on Rams Hill, who are TNH residents, are virtually 100% united in their opposition to the project.

I think it also is important for you to weigh heavily that neither the TNH or the TOB portion of Glenwood Landing has apartment buildings, other than a few small-scale structures that can only be described as quaint. This apartment building will, in fact, more than double the population in the TNH portion of Glenwood Landing, which is the oldest portion of the hamlet—a significant impact if ever there was one. The height, footprint, and scale of the building is completely out of character. This community is, in fact, so small that it does not have mail delivery. We must actually go to the post office to pick up our mail. Homes are also modest in size. A single unit in the proposed building is larger than many of the single-family homes in GWL.

Note, too, that GWL is completely isolated from every other community in TNH, a fact that has permitted the hamlet to preserve a unique character. Therefore, what may be good for Port Washington or New Hyde Park is not necessarily good for Glenwood Landing. In fact, as much as we like and admire communities in other parts of the town, we would prefer not to be remade in their image. I urge you to be guided by this sentiment as you interpret and apply the town code.

The applicant has stated that the portion of the property on east side of Shore Road will be dedicated to the town. Although there are some aspects of the proposal that are appealing (such as privately funded cleanup of contaminated public and private land, and public access to a waterfront walkway), please be advised that the loss of public waterfront land in exchange for parcel that is steep, irregularly shaped, on a sharp curve, and not on the waterfront can hardly be considered a particularly good bargain for the people of Glenwood Landing or the people in the town as a whole. This also is the second time in roughly a decade that the town has divested itself of publicly owned waterfront land in Glenwood Landing. One such transaction is more than enough.

Furthermore, no details of the public walkway have been specified. What materials will be used in construction, how wide will the walkway be, how will it be maintained, what will the hours of access be, how much parking will there be for visitors? In addition, renderings show a lawn between the building hardscape and the walkway. Lawns have little wildlife value and are an unwelcome source of nutrient loading into nearby waterways.

Therefore, we believe that the area between the building hardscape and the walkway should be managed for wildlife. Furthermore, we believe that all of the outdoor property beyond the footprint of the building and its hardscape should be managed through a conservation easement held by a nonprofit organization such as the North Shore Land Alliance, which has expressed interested in such an arrangement. None of these issues has been resolved.

Finally, the issue of the sewer line remains unresolved. There are several underused parcels along Shore Road. How many times will Shore Road be opened for a sewer line given the amount of underused property there? Would a sewer line that permits hookups for certain areas in Glenwood Landing improve water quality in the harbor? The town has wisely, if somewhat belatedly joined forces with TOB and other nearby municipalities to apply for a grant to conduct a sewer feasibility study that may answer some of these questions.

Most importantly, will Glen Cove accept the sewer line? We understand that the applicant recently had a meeting with Glen Cove at which the mayor stated that the sewer has capacity. We, too, recently had a meeting with the mayor, who assured as that the city’s acceptance of the sewer line was not a done deal. The mayor told us that the applicant has said that if Glen Cove does not accept the line, Port Washington will. This sounds like strong arm tactics to us. It is also the first time that we know of that Port Washington has been mention as a possible route.

The entire EIS is based on a sewer line to Glen Cove, and we do not believe that a possible hookup to Port Washington has been investigated with any thoroughness at all.

For all of these reasons, we believe this application should be denied, or, at the very least, we believe the ZBA should delay action until the costs and logistics of keeping the town-owned portion of this property in the public domain, bringing the privately owned portion of the property into the public domain, and reclaiming and managing the entire parcel as fully remediated open space are fully explored; a sewer feasibility study is completed and the question of whether Glen Cove accepts the line is resolved; questions about the roof line and related issues are settled; and a conservation easement for all of the land surrounding the building is established.

Thank you for your consideration.

Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Comments on Lundy Environmental Impact Statement

The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Assocation today filed the comments below in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lundy Property. The Oyster Bay Town Board heard the application to rezone the property on March 27.

To: Aldona Lawson, TOB TEQR Division, 150 Miller Place, Syosset, NY 11791

Fr: Patrice Benneward, President, Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association, PO Box 23, Glenwood Landing, NY 11547

Re: MARCH 27 HEARING – Z-3-04 To consider the application of DUMOND ENTERPRISES, LLC, contract vendee, and TRANSTECHNOLOGY, CORPORATION, fee owner, for a Change of Zone, from an “LI” District (Light Industry) and “R1-7” District (One-Family Residence) to an “RMF-16” District (Multi-Family Residence) and “R1-7” District (One-Family Residence), to allow the development of 15 new single-family residences and 41 new townhouse units, which would replace an existing 112,135 square foot one-story industrial building on property located at One Robert Lane, Glen Head, New York. (M.D. 2/13/07 #22).

---------------

I understand that the hearing on the above application may be closed but that comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement may be submitted through today. The civic association wishes to add the comments below to the comments made at the hearing by Karen Greene.

• Traffic: Turning right or left onto Glen Head Road from Dumond Place is difficult due to poor visibility. In addition, when traveling eastbound on Glen Head Road, making a left turn onto Dumond Place (as well as onto other side streets in the vicinity) can backup traffic to Glen Cove Avenue. The problem is frequently exacerbated by trains at the Glen Head Station. The proposed subdivision cannot help but worsen these conditions. We believe these traffic issues require more thorough study and that they must be effectively mitigated if the subdivision moves forward, particularly since the only way to enter or leave the subdivision would apparently be via Dumond Place.

• Sewer Line: We question the wisdom of approving a privately financed sewer line without examining the sewer needs of the properties in the surrounding area. We think the public interest would best be served by examining whether hooking up specific areas in the vicinity of the proposed line would improve groundwater quality or water quality in Hempstead Harbor, as well as whether such hookups would help to mitigate any flooding that may occur on some properties. If such an evaluation determines that sewering specific areas would be beneficial, we think the public interest would best be served if the engineering specifications of the sewer line were rethought and mechanisms for funding such hookups were fully explored. We are under the impression that the proposed subdivision and sewer line are in the Hempstead Harbor drainage basin and that at least a portion of the sewer line runs through the special groundwater protection area. But even if this were not the case, we believe the concerns we have outlined relative to sewering would remain valid. Note that a sewer feasibility study is underway in Glenwood Landing, prompted at least in part by a privately funded sewer line that may be constructed along the Glenwood Landing Waterfront.

• Open Space: The density of the proposed subdivision is far greater than in any other subdivision in Glen Head, perhaps with two exceptions. As the area approaches build out, open space has become increasingly important to the public good. We think the community interest requires that the site plan include a generous amount of public open space, as well as private open space that is visible to the public. We urge that at least one single family building and one multi-family building be dropped from the plan with no corresponding increase in lot coverage. We urge open space to be maximized in areas visible to the public, such as front- and side-yard setbacks, particularly at corners. We urge the inclusion in the site plan of public green spaces and the use of creative and innovative architectural, design, and planning techniques that promote a walkable neighborhood ambiance and that minimize the bulk of buildings and the features (such as garage doors) that frequently detract from the perception of open space.

Finally, we thank the Town of Oyster Bay for requiring an environmental review and appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Variance Hearing for Motts Cove Road Subdivision Rescheduled

The Town of Oyster Bay Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on an application for variances to permit a six-unit subdivision on the east side of Motts Cove Road in Glen Head on the Oyster Bay - Roslyn Harbor line (see previous postings) has been rescheduled for Thursday, June 7.

Adjournment Requested for Motts Cove Variance Hearing

The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association and Todd Estate Civic Association have requested an adjournment for the Town of Oyster Bay Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing on a six-lot subdivision proposed for the east side of Motts Cove Road on property sold to a developer by Engineers Country Club.

Five of the requested lots are in Glen Head; one lot is in Roslyn Harbor. The hearing is currently scheduled for Thursday evening, April 26. A neighboring property owner also has requested an adjournment.

The parcel appears to be characterized by a number of features that complicate the application: It spans two jurisdictions permitting two different lot sizes, it is irregularly shaped, it is steeply and irregularly sloped, and it contains two ponds. The civic associations and nearby property owners would like the opportunity to learn more about these matters before the hearing.

We also understand that the two ponds on the property were recently disturbed by activity for which no permits had been issued and that at least one stop work order was issued. Furthermore, many people who frequently travel on Motts Cove Road have commented that the amount of silt escaping from the property has increased dramatically in recent months. This would appear to be inconsistent with the state’s current emphasis on increased stormwater controls. We would like the opportunity to investigate these matters as well.

In addition, the access road shown on the application appears to be uncomfortably close to the neighboring property, which contains a mature garden with many specimen trees, as well as one of the oldest and most beautifully restored homes in Roslyn Harbor. In addition, the use of the right of way would change dramatically, from a little used service drive to an active, full-fledge road. We would like the opportunity to evaluate the impact of these changes on the adjacent property.

Finally, we were puzzled when we learned that the application was originally filed with the county planning commission. We would like the opportunity to contact the county to determine whether the application was accepted; what direction, if any, was given to the applicant; and whether, in the county’s view, a positive declaration and full environmental review with public scoping may be appropriate and what jurisdiction might become the lead agency.

Variance Hearing Set for Glenwood Landing Waterfront Condo Application

The Town of North Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) application by Glen Harbor Partners for variances to permit a condominium apartment building on the Glenwood Landing Waterfront is on the ZBA agenda for Wednesday, May 16, at 9:30 a.m.

According to the ZBA application, three height-related variances are needed to build the project as proposed: a one-story variance to permit a four-story structure; a two-foot, four-inch height variance for all of the structure except the elevator builkhead; and a six-foot, one-inch variance for the elevator builkhead on the street side of the building.

Last fall, when the town board heard the application to rezone the property from industrial use to multi-family residential use, the board noted that a variance would be need to permit ground-level parking under the building. Subsequently, the town passed a regulation permitting underground parking. Thus, a variance for parking beneath the building is no longer necessary.

At that time, the height of the building appeared to be within the height permited by town code; the need for a variance to permit four stories was identified. For more information, contact TNH Planning / ZBA at 869-7755.