Cedarmere, once the home of the influential 19th century Romantic poet, journalist, and man of letters William Cullen Bryant and now a historic site owned by Nassau County, appears to be threatened with permanent closure (see Important Local, Publicly Owned Historic Site in Jeopardy, March 9, 2009).
And there is no need: If properly managed, the site is likely to produce a reasonable income stream, and a Friends group is forming to explore the possibility of a partnership with the county. The ad hoc Friends group can be reached at wcbryant@optonline.net.
The Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association urges neighbors to contact County Executive Tom Suozzi, Legislator Wane Wink, Majority Leader Diane Yatauro, and Minority Leader Peter Schmitt, who can be reached through the Nassau County website or at 1550 Franklin Avenue, NY 11501, to ensure that these and other elected officials know that Cedarmere has a constituency.
A suggested letter is below.
If the site is not properly maintained and does not reopen in a timely fashion, it could revert back to Bryant's heirs. Grants totaling several hundred thousand dollars already have been secured for much of the needed repair and maintenance of the facility.
Located on Bryant Avenue in Roslyn Harbor about a mile north of the Bryant Memorial Library in Roslyn, Cedarmere has great historic significance. Bryant (1794 to 1878) helped to shape the Romantic Movement and wielded a great deal of political influence for most of the 19th century. Indeed, the man and his works are still included in most high school curricula. Recitals, weddings, film and photo shoots, educational events, and other activities have been held at the site in recent years.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Elected Official:
I am contacting you to request assurance that Cedarmere, the historic, county-owned museum property in Roslyn Harbor, is properly maintained and reopened in a timely fashion and that the dismantling of exhibits and the removal of priceless artifacts stop pending an explanation of why these items are being removed and when they will be returned to the site.
An ad hoc Friends group recently formed to explore the possibility of a formal partnership with the county to jointly operate the waterfront facility located on Hempstead Harbor. The group is committed to helping the site reach its full potential. I urge you to support such a partnership.
Cedarmere is a rare surviving jewel of the Romantic Movement. As the home of William Cullen Bryant, it was a gathering place for the most influential public figures of the 19th century. Bryant, himself, was a poet, editor of the New York Evening Post (now the New York Post) for more than 50 years, and friend and confidant of Abraham Lincoln. The library in Roslyn and Bryant Avenue, as well as the park on the west side of the main branch of the New York Public Library, are named for him. Today, Bryant and his works are included in many high school liberal arts curricula, including the curricula at Roslyn and North Shore high schools.
Bryant’s heirs donated Cedarmere to the county in 1975, along with $100,000 of seed money and the stipulation that the estate be open to the public and used for educational purposes. The facility finally opened in 1994. Since then Cedarmere has hosted school groups, art classes, recitals, weddings, commercial still photography and film shoots, and other events. With proper management, these activities could grow and produce a reasonable income stream. English, history, and art departments in the Roslyn and North Shore school districts are interested in utilizing the site. Other districts throughout Long Island are likely to share this desire when informed about the treasures Cedarmere holds.
Over the years, the furnace and plumbing in the main house have been replaced, the gardens have been largely restored, exhibits have been created, and some restoration work has been completed. At present, $500,000 is allocated through the hotel tax, Environmental Bond Act, and grants to repair the roof of the main house and continue other restoration projects. There is need for an additional investment of perhaps $500,000. The ad hoc Friends group is prepared to help raise these funds and help market and staff the site. In addition, Benjamin Moore has offered to donate paint.
It appears that the county has put all maintenance and restoration projects at Cedarmere on hold. If Cedarmere is not properly maintained and reopened in a timely fashion it could revert to Bryant’s heirs. This development would be a serious disservice to present and future generations. One cannot help but wonder how the county can justify spending Environmental Bond Act money for new acquisitions—as important and desirable as these acquisitions may be—when Cedarmere and so many other significant cultural sites already dependant on proper county stewardship need attention.
Please support the restoration, proper maintenance, and reopening of this important local and national landmark. Thank you for your consideration.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Glen Cove Master Plan Available On Line
The City of Glen Cove will hold a public meeting on Monday, March 30, about the city’s draft master plan and draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS). Written comments will be accepted until April 13 and should be addressed to Mayor Ralph V. Suozzi at City Hall, 9 Glen Street, Glen Cove, NY 11542, or rsuozzi@cityofglencoveny.org. The documents are posted on the City of Glen Cove website.
Glenwood Waterfront: Apartment Site Plan Submitted
The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor reports that Glen Harbor Partners recently submitted a site plan to the Town of North Hempstead (TNH) for the condominium apartments the company has proposed for the site located south of the Glenwood Landing Power Station on the west side of Shore Road at the western terminus of Scudders Lane (a parcel across the road also is involved). TNH may schedule a site plan meeting as early as April. Information will be posted as it becomes available. A search of this site for previously posted items will retrieve background information about the application, which included rezoning (complete) and an environmental impact statement with public scoping (complete).
North Shore Country Club Considers Selling
North Shore County Club appears to be seeking a developer to build homes on part—or even all—of the 158-acre golf course property. The main entrance of the club is located on Shore Road. The property spans the Village of Sea Cliff and the hamlets of Glenwood Landing and Glen Head in the Town of Oyster Bay (TOB) and is about equally divided between the two municipalities. TOB rezoned the Glenwood/Glen Head portion of the parcel from quarter-acre residential use to half-acre residential use based on a recommendation in the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Revitalization and Redevelopment Plan completed in 2002. Zoning in the Sea Cliff portion also is half-acre residential.
The property contains may natural features and some structures worthy of preservation. During the waterfront planning process, the public and members of the task force expressed concern about the catastrophic consequences the potential subdivision of the club would produce. The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor (CSHH) nominated the property for open space acquisition under the town’s Save Environmental Assets (SEA) bond fund and recently wrote to TOB to restate the request. The Village of Sea Cliff is considering a building moratorium to study possible preservation methods.
The potential development of the club raises concern about the effectiveness of ongoing stormwater improvements at Scudders Pond. Located on the outskirts of the club, the pond collects and filters stormwater runoff before the runoff is discharged into Hempstead Harbor. Proper treatment of the runoff is critical for maintaining and improving water quality in the harbor. Years of highly commendable inter-municipal planning has resulted in several million dollars of grant awards for critical stormwater improvement projects that are or soon will be underway. Development of the club would impact these efforts.
Please consider contacting TOB Supervisor John Venditto, the Town Council, and the SEA Fund III Committee to express concern about the possible development of North Shore Country Club and to request that the town purchase and preserve the property. Town personnel can be emailed through the TOB website or reached via U.S. Mail at Town of Oyster Bay, 54 Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY 11771-1592. A suggested letter is included below.
Sea Cliff Mayor Eileen Kreib can be reached at P.O. Box 340, Sea Cliff, NY 11579, or e-mailed at villagesc@aol.com; Bruce Kennedy will be sworn in as mayor in April. Contributions to CSHH (516-801-6792) can be sent to P.O. Box 159, Sea Cliff, NY 11579.
- - - - - - - - -
Supervisor John Venditto, Town Board Members, SEA Fund Committee Members:
I am contacting you express my concern about reports that the North Shore Country Club, a 158-acre parcel that spans the Village of Sea Cliff and the hamlets of Glenwood Landing and Glen Head, may be seeking to develop the property under its current zoning (half-acre residential).
Development of this site would have a catastrophic impact on this community, including the school district, the Scudders Pond watershed, and Hempstead Harbor. In addition, the property contains several buildings and many natural features worthy of preservation. The public, as well as members of the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Revitalization and Redevelopment Plan advisory committee, overwhelmingly expressed such concerns during the planning process held in connection with formulating the waterfront plan.
I urge you to purchase the property for preservation as recreational and/or open space. In addition, please re-post the GWL Waterfront Plan on the town website.
Thank you.
The property contains may natural features and some structures worthy of preservation. During the waterfront planning process, the public and members of the task force expressed concern about the catastrophic consequences the potential subdivision of the club would produce. The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor (CSHH) nominated the property for open space acquisition under the town’s Save Environmental Assets (SEA) bond fund and recently wrote to TOB to restate the request. The Village of Sea Cliff is considering a building moratorium to study possible preservation methods.
The potential development of the club raises concern about the effectiveness of ongoing stormwater improvements at Scudders Pond. Located on the outskirts of the club, the pond collects and filters stormwater runoff before the runoff is discharged into Hempstead Harbor. Proper treatment of the runoff is critical for maintaining and improving water quality in the harbor. Years of highly commendable inter-municipal planning has resulted in several million dollars of grant awards for critical stormwater improvement projects that are or soon will be underway. Development of the club would impact these efforts.
Please consider contacting TOB Supervisor John Venditto, the Town Council, and the SEA Fund III Committee to express concern about the possible development of North Shore Country Club and to request that the town purchase and preserve the property. Town personnel can be emailed through the TOB website or reached via U.S. Mail at Town of Oyster Bay, 54 Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY 11771-1592. A suggested letter is included below.
Sea Cliff Mayor Eileen Kreib can be reached at P.O. Box 340, Sea Cliff, NY 11579, or e-mailed at villagesc@aol.com; Bruce Kennedy will be sworn in as mayor in April. Contributions to CSHH (516-801-6792) can be sent to P.O. Box 159, Sea Cliff, NY 11579.
- - - - - - - - -
Supervisor John Venditto, Town Board Members, SEA Fund Committee Members:
I am contacting you express my concern about reports that the North Shore Country Club, a 158-acre parcel that spans the Village of Sea Cliff and the hamlets of Glenwood Landing and Glen Head, may be seeking to develop the property under its current zoning (half-acre residential).
Development of this site would have a catastrophic impact on this community, including the school district, the Scudders Pond watershed, and Hempstead Harbor. In addition, the property contains several buildings and many natural features worthy of preservation. The public, as well as members of the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Revitalization and Redevelopment Plan advisory committee, overwhelmingly expressed such concerns during the planning process held in connection with formulating the waterfront plan.
I urge you to purchase the property for preservation as recreational and/or open space. In addition, please re-post the GWL Waterfront Plan on the town website.
Thank you.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Important Local, Publicly Owned Historic Site in Jeopardy
Nassau County has disassembled exhibits and removed priceless artifacts from Cedarmere, the estate of William Cullen Bryant (1794 to 1878) in Roslyn Harbor.
A decision to close the facility appears to have been made separate from and before other closures were announced affecting other County facilities due to the current fiscal crises.
As of this writing, the County’s long-term plans for Cedarmere are unclear. A Friends group is forming to explore the possibility of a public-private partnership to help keep the facility open. Contact information will be posted here when it is available.
Please consider informing County Executive Tom Suozzi, Legislator Wayne Wink, Majority Leader Diane Yatauro, and Minority Leader Peter Schmitt that this important historic property has a strong constituency. Email messages can be sent through the Nassau County website.
Bryant’s heirs donated the estate to the county in 1975 with the stipulation that the property be open to the public and used for educational purposes. In recent years, the facility has been used for growing numbers of school groups, art classes, recitals, weddings, and other events. If the facility is not reopened in a timely fashion, the property could revert back to the heirs.
Bryant was a driving force of the Romantic Movement, editor of the New York Post for half a century, and a confidant of Abraham Lincoln. His estate was a gathering place for the 19th century’s most notable authors, architects, painters, and musicians.
Roslyn’s Bryant Library and Bryant Park, adjacent to the main branch of the New York City Public Library, are named for him. Several hundred thousand dollars from various grant sources have been awarded to continue needed maintenance.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
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
- - - - - - -
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
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
Saturday, May 31, 2008
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
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
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
Saturday, March 08, 2008
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, November 23, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, July 30, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 29, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 25, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 25, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)