This summer, the Park District Board of Commissioners and the Kings Point Village Board of Trustees faced a critical issue that can irrevocably alter the Great Neck Peninsula. The problem is whether a waterfront parcel of 1.35 acres, adjacent to Steppingstone Park, should be privately developed, or preserved as part of the park. If the park district takes no action, this environmentally sensitive property, once part of the George M. Cohan Estate, will contain a 9,300 square foot home with a height of up to 30 feet facing Steppingstone Park. The park district commissioners feel that we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to save a vacant parcel of property with 240' of waterfront that could extend Steppingstone Park.

The park district asked the Kings Point Board of Trustees for permission to negotiate or condemn this parcel. The response was a disguised denial (explained later in this article.) This action has forced the park district to pursue an alternate legal means to acquire the property. To hear the full details of the park district's new plan, we invite Great Neck park residents to a public hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 26 at 8 p.m. at Great Neck House on Arrandale Avenue.

In order to understand why we have come to this decision, park residents need to know some of the history of the past two years. The park commissioners had long been interested in obtaining the entire 6.24 acres that comprise the former George M. Cohan/Walter H. Annenberg Estate that abuts Steppingstone Park on its north boundary. In 1984, the board of commissioners sent a letter to John Gross, the owner, to request a right of first refusal if he should sell. When Mr. Gross passed away in October 1998, his heirs contacted the park district. The hope of the commissioners was to preserve an historic site and save waterfront property by incorporating it into Steppingstone Park. The heirs opted for a quick, unconditional sale to a developer, Kings Point Heights, LLC.

At the time of the sale, preservationists were actively pursuing landmarking status for the entire estate. In December 1998, the village board of trustees adopted the recommendation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission and landmarked the George M. Cohan home and its immediate property. One month later, at a Kings Point Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, Paul Bloom, attorney for the owner admitted that the buyer knew the house might be landmarked and conceded that, "He knew there was talk of it, but talk is cheap."

The new owner, Kings Point Heights, immediately pursued a subdivision which would create four plots at 100 Kings Point Road and one at 99 Kings Point Road. The parcels would require numerous variances. Throughout many months of meetings, the developer continued to insist that the Village had created undue hardship for him and that he hadn't known about the possibility of landmarking prior to the purchase. Of course by now, there was documented proof that he did know about the pending landmarking, as his lawyer had admitted. While the park district made ongoing attempts to negotiate with the developer, he was intent on pursuing his subdivision plan. Meanwhile, the park district commissioners investigated every means of raising funds through grants, the entertainment world, and other personal contributions and state and federal organizations. However, without ownership of the property, we were stymied.

Village of Kings Point meetings continued, with ardent supporters of the park board attending to express their concerns regarding the subdivision. This past spring, the Kings Point Planning Board gave preliminary approval to Kings Point Heights for the subdivision and recommended approval of all variances. At the same time, the planning board gave a negative declaration (denial) to a formal written report prepared for the park district by a planning and environmental consulting firm. This would have required the developer to conduct a full environmental study because of the sensitive nature of the property. In another injurious action, the board approved a private road which gave the developer greater acreage for construction.

The park commissioners also attended the Village of Kings Point Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meetings, the Board that grants or denies variances. By this summer, the number of requests by the developer was up to 11. The BZA approved variances for two parcels, announcing they would amend their resolution for the next meeting when they would approve variances for parcels 1 and 5 as well. (Parcel 5 is the nonconforming parcel of less than one acre at 99 Kings Point Road.) This long resolution was read to the audience but no one was permitted to speak.

When it became apparent to the park district commissioners that Kings Point intended to give the developer virtually everything he had asked for, we made the decision to move in a different direction. For months we had expressed our concerns about a huge home looming over Steppingstone Park, and the effect this would have on park district residents visiting Steppingstone Park. The proposed new home would face the park just 70 feet away and 90 feet from the water's edge - not 230' as required by the zoning code. The serenity and lovely view for all residents of the park district, which includes Kings Point residents, would forever be ruined. Our crown jewel of the park system, which looks more beautiful this year than ever before, would never be the same.

Thus on June 20, the park district requested permission from the Kings Point Village Board of Trustees to negotiate or condemn waterfront parcel 1 of the former George M. Cohan Estate. The mayor of Kings Point responded that if the park district would agree not to build any structures on this parcel and did not use it for active recreation, they would consider granting the request. The park district agreed. However, as negotiations began between attorneys, the village escalated their demands beyond what the park commissioners felt was reasonable or appropriate. Kings Point wanted a covenant that would permanently prohibit use by non-district residents in perpetuity for the entire park. Kings Point knew that the park district has a non-resident ruling limiting entrance to summer shows to park residents and their guests. This however, did not satisfy the village. Our attorney informed them that this would be illegal. Continuing to pursue this line of negotiations, Kings Point next requested that the park district work with them to get the law changed. Our response was that this was unacceptable. No further attempts were made by the village to negotiate throughout August.

At the Kings Point Village Board of Trustees meeting on Aug. 28, a resolution was read declaring that permission would be granted only if the park district board of commissioners would agree to seek special legislation from the New York Legislature to be adopted prior to July 1, 2001. The resolution required (a) that the park district agree to the recording of a covenant permanantly prohibiting any use of Steppingstone to any non-resident of the park district and (b) that the legislation assure the legality and enforceability of such agreement. Since the commissioners had already told the village that we would not agree to changing the law, our reaction was one of surprise and anger. The board of trustees knows that decision-making with respect to non-resident use is a statutory responsibility of the commissioners of the park district, who are elected by and answerable to all the residents of the district. Commissioners have successfully managed the parks since 1916. This resolution would require us to seek permission from Kings Point to deviate in any way. Such control by Kings Point is unwarranted and inappropriate. Adding insult to injury, the angry and confused residents at the packed board of trustees meeting were told that they could not speak.

We had hoped that the Village of Kings Point would want to preserve some of the beauty, green space and waterfront of their own village. Other communities on Long Island are beginning to protect their communities from overdevelopment. Why can't Kings Point take a long-term view that would benefit the public for generations? It really cannot be because of the issue of taxes. Some taxes will be lost on this parcel, but it would be only a tiny fraction of the total taxes collected in Kings Point. The park district commissioners believe this is a unique opportunity to preserve a parcel of waterfront for our children, grandchildren and generations to come. Please join us at the public hearing on Sept. 26, at Great Neck House.