A proposal for condominiums in the Village of Great Neck Estates has spurred controversy from residents who say the project is too large in scope and would compromise the character of their community.
In response to this, the developers have scaled down aspects of the project, which previously required variances for approval, to now comply with the village’s code.
“We’ve listened to the board, the public, to study this in depth as best as we could to make the appropriate proposal here,” development designer Mason Sofia said.
Despite now conforming to the village’s requirements, residents still are pushing back in opposition.
“I think our emphasis should be on our Estate residents as they are right now. As we bring in more [residents], what is the impact?” Great Neck Estates resident Barry Smith said, which was met with applause from the audience.
The development at 200 Middle Neck Road has gone through a series of changes over the past year, diminishing in scale over time.
What was shown at the village’s Board of Trustees’ meeting on Monday, July 14, was the first iteration of the project that fell completely within code.
The board did not vote on the approval of this site plan, and the public hearing will continue next month.
The four-story, 143,724-square-foot development is for a proposed 65-unit condominium with four townhomes, of which all will be priced at market rates. The village’s code permits up to 82 units.
The property also falls within the permitted density of the lot at 47%. A maximum of 50% is permitted.
The developers had previously proposed a five-story building, of which the top floor was a penthouse unit. That has been removed in its most recent proposal.
The property previously required variances for its height, side yard and number of floors exceeding what is permitted in the code. That is no longer needed under this latest plan.
“Over the last few months we, so to speak, went back to the drawing board quite a bit,” Sofia said.
Resident concerns centered on how the condominiums and its associated new residents in the village would impact the community and its amenities.
They cited overcrowding already at its public pool and parks. Comparable amenities are not included in the proposed development.
Resident Daniella Gershel said the developers failed to explain how their condominiums would benefit the existing community.
Jay Corn, a resident of the village for five decades, said this proposal would change the character of the village that has drawn in so many residents.
“I have yet to hear one person stand up and say, ‘I am for this application,’” Corn said. “Not one. You as trustees and mayor represent the people in this village. I feel, and most of the people I’ve talked to feel, that this will significantly change the character of the village.”
Corn suggested the property be used as a retail space, which he argued would bolster the community as it is.
Along the rear of the Middle Neck Road property are three homes on HIlltop Lane, which have been the center of discussion on the development’s impact on its immediate neighbors.
To diminish sightline impacts of those three homes, the northern wing of the proposed building was cut back by 63 feet away from the abutting property line. It would also include the plantings of evergreen trees along the property line, which developers say would virtually block all views of the new building.
Steven Roth, who resides in one of the Hilltop homes behind the proposed development, requested that a fence be installed along the adjoining property line as well.
Plantings would continue on the Middle Neck Road portion of the property, including native plantings and trees.
Traffic was another concern for residents, who spoke of high volumes of traffic on Middle Neck Road already.
As part of this proposal, the developers would be moving the building’s vehicle entrance and creating a traffic intersection in line with the entrance to the property across the road. The developers said this would promote greater traffic safety.
This plan would be reveiwed and approved by Nassau County if the site plan is approved.
After heated backlash from residents, Trustee Howard Hershenhorn reassured them that the board members are also residents of the village and want what is best for the community.
“We all live here,” Hershenhorn said. “I promise you, we love this place as much as you love it, if not a lot more than you love it. We promise you. We live here just like you do and we volunteer for the village and we give our blood, sweat and tears for the village.”
The public hearing for this proposal will continue at the village’s next Board of Trustees meeting on Aug. 11.
