Dozens of residents expressed anger and frustration over a proposed residential development at 30 Sagamore Hill Drive at a public forum in Manorhaven on Thursday, June 19, accusing village leaders of ignoring community concerns and fast-tracking a project that many believe will strain the village’s already burdened infrastructure.
The proposed development, a multi-story apartment complex on a former industrial site, has become a flashpoint in the small waterfront village.
Although the project has already received zoning variances, it must undergo a final site plan review by the board of trustees, which is scheduled for next week.
Mayor John Popeleski, who convened the forum, opened the meeting by announcing the formation of a panel to help guide the discussion. The panel included Village Clerk John Hommel, Board of Zoning Appeals Chairperson Michael Masiello, Village Engineer Rebecca Goldberg and Village Attorney Christopher Neumann.
Popeleski opened the forum by acknowledging criticism over the forum’s timing, which coincided with a federal holiday.
“Obviously, no disrespect was intended by scheduling a community forum for this evening,” Popeleski said. “This was the only available weeknight before next week’s trustees meeting.”
He emphasized that the forum was informational and not a formal decision-making session.
But his comments did little to ease tensions in a room filled with residents holding signs and voicing opposition.
Sandra Alvarez, a Port Washington Union Free School District trustee and a Manorhaven resident for nearly 40 years, said the project represents unchecked overdevelopment.
“This is the epitome of overdevelopment,” Alvarez told the board. “Your community is still saying, and asking, that the trustees vote no.”
Alvarez also pointed to issues like flooding and outdated infrastructure, recounting how she had to drive through waterlogged streets just to reach the meeting.
“It was pretty ironic driving here… in flooded streets,” she added.
The project’s attorney, Philip Butler, defended the proposal, arguing that it complies with zoning laws and will help beautify the area.
“This project is consistent with current zoning and meets the standards of site plan review,” Butler said. “It has been designed to manage parking and stormwater, and it will contribute to the revitalization of an area that has long contained blighted industrial properties.”
But many residents were not persuaded.
Several criticized the village’s board of zoning appeals for granting variances without sufficient public engagement and called for an independent review of the village’s overall development strategy.
“There has been no meaningful public input,” said Sherry Den, who urged the board to enact a development moratorium. “This is not anti-development. It’s a call to pause and ensure growth happens responsibly.”
Den also raised ethical concerns about Trustee Jeff Stone, a local real estate agent who she said may benefit financially from the project.
“This presents a conflict of interest,” she said, calling for Stone to recuse himself or pledge not to profit in any way. “Even if no impropriety has occurred, the dual role represents an appearance of conflict.”
Stone responded during the forum, calling the accusation “unfair” but acknowledging residents’ concerns.
“I’m a real estate agent, but I don’t look to profit on things I shouldn’t be involved in,” he said.
Christian Hommeich, a Tom’s Point resident for 25 years, said the approval process was rushed and based on outdated traffic data.
“The traffic study used to support this project was done before or during the pandemic,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect today’s reality.”
Hommeich also noted that the state funding initially expected to help upgrade the village’s aging sewer system has been revoked, calling for the zoning variances to be re-evaluated. “The developer bought the property knowing the limitations,” he said. “It’s not our job to rewrite the rules for them.”
Other residents echoed the call for a building moratorium. Thomas Plominski warned that proceeding without caution would “open Pandora’s box.”
“This is your opportunity to change the perception that Manorhaven is being sold to the highest bidder,” Plominski said. “What legacy do you want to leave behind?”
Concerns about evacuation during emergencies were also raised.
Den and others reminded the board that Manhasset Isle, where the development is proposed, was a mandatory evacuation zone during Hurricane Sandy and has only one road in and out.
Popeleski said discussions are ongoing and pledged to form a working group with local residents.
“We’re going to talk about the concerns and what they want to see in that area,” he said.
But many residents left the meeting unconvinced and determined to keep pushing back.
“We are not going away,” said Rob Schneider. “What’s in it for the people who actually live here?”
“It appears that our village government has awakened a sleeping giant on Manhasset Isle, and possibly the rest of our waterfront village,” said Ken Kraft, a Manorhaven resident and former village trustee.
The board of trustees is expected to hold its final vote on the site plan for the 30 Sagamore Hill project at next week’s meeting, June 25.
