The Village of Roslyn's board of trustees held a public meeting on the proposed row house development plan for downtown Roslyn last Tuesday night. Although there was some opposition to the plan, BOT members all acknowledged that such development was what the village officials had in mind when they drafted and adopted a Master Plan for future construction in Roslyn.

Up to 35 people attended the meeting, which featured comments by BOT members, personnel with B.I.T.I., II, LLC (the firm that hopes to build in Roslyn) and local residents. The plan calls for 126 row houses, a recreation building, a waterfront promenade, a public park, open space, and municipal parking to be constructed on property that B.I.T.I. already owns. The original plan called for 112 row houses to be constructed.

The property is located south of the Roslyn Viaduct, west of Bryant Avenue and north of Old Northern Boulevard.

Peter Mineo, an attorney for B.I.T.I. led off the meeting by noting that his clients had already made four presentations to the BOT on the plan and are now seeking a "response" from the board.

"We are at the stage where the applicant (B.I.T.I.) needs feedback," he said. "We are anxious to hear what the village has to say."

In fact, BOT members had plenty to say about the updated plan, which includes three-story town houses, duplexes and flats, pedestrian cafes, parking distribution centers, and a village green.

The BOT is hoping to draft an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), something that is necessary for any significant construction site, but one that will also help the village identify how the row house plan will affect Roslyn in a variety of ways, including traffic and stormwater runoff, and how the village could then deal with any potential problems.

As with other BOT members, Marta Genovese noted that the B.I.T.I. plans fall within the Master Plan. A major challenge for the village, she said, is how it can integrate such a highly developed area into the rest of the village. The village, she added, does not want the development to become a "gated property."

Other than that, Ms. Genovese listed some positives that could come from the proposed plan. It might, for instance, help the village with its sewer maintenance problems. In addition, the plan contains a needed waterfront park, one that could run all the way to the Grist Mill. And finally, the development could help to alleviate the village's perennial "serious lack" of parking, a problem that in Ms. Genovese's view, continues to hamper downtown revitalization.

And so, the main questions for the BOT is how the proposed development could "help us solve some of these problems while meeting the challenge [of having the row houses] becoming an integrated part of the village."

Furthermore, Ms. Genovese noted that while B.I.T.I. has lowered the height of the units in the front of the development, they still "seem large." She encouraged the developer to meet with local residents and listen to their concerns.

"[This is] the type of development the board has sought for the property," Ms. Genovese concluded. "It's not 100 percent of what they [the developer] wants, but it's what they've chosen for the site. [To adopt] a moratorium after the developer has gone this far is not a wise thing to do. For now, let's try to integrate it [into the larger community]."

Trustee Marshall Bernstein listed such issues as stormwater runoff, traffic, building a proper promenade to any new waterfront, sewage capacity, parking, and especially, the unit size and density as major sources for concerns as the discussion over the proposed project goes forward.

While also confirming that such housing fits the Master Plan, Trustee Nolan Myerson expressed his own concern over the aesthetics of the proposed plan, noting that the rear of the buildings would remain exposed. Otherwise, B.I.T.I., he said, is "on the right track. [This is] what the village wants for the property."

Meanwhile, Kevin Cameron, an engineer for the village, said the village is preparing a scoping document, one that would address many of the issues already mentioned by BOT members: Traffic, stormwater, density, and drainage design. Such a document, he said, he would provide direction for the applicant during the EIS process.

Most of the plan's opponents were residents of Roslyn Village. In addition, a member of the Roslyn Landmark Society and the Roslyn Preservation Corporation presented a letter stating those organization's views about the plan to the BOT.

The letter, signed by Jefferson Mansell, executive director of both organizations, called for a building moratorium in order to "[update] the Comprehensive [or Master] Plan and the need to maintain the status quo." It also stated its opposition to the project, at least at how it now stands.

"The boards of both organizations...feel that the proposed row house development threatens the integrity of our historic district and will have a detrimental impact on the village itself," the letter claimed.

The letter noted that when the Master Plan was adopted in 1996, there was a recommendation that it should be reviewed every five years by the Planning Board, all in accordance with Village Law 7-772. It noted changes in the area in question, including those to storm water regulations and "the area's subsequent designation as a heritage area," plus the desire of the Planning Board that the Master Plan be reviewed.

"We think that a prompt review is legally required and particularly advisable given the density and scale of the development proposal...and its potential impact on the historic district and the historic structures found within that district," the letter stated. "RLS [Roslyn Landmark Society] and RPC [Roslyn Preservation Corporation] have reviewed the plans that have been submitted and it appears that the plan is overly urbanized for its location and does not adequately reflect its location at the head of a scenic harbor adjacent to an historic village. The scale and density are not at all in keeping with the scale and density of the village. Further, considering the proposed parking areas and the potential movement of historic buildings, the development may in fact result in the degradation of the streetscape of the village."

Marshall Ward recalled earlier construction at Davis Lane in Roslyn. He expressed concern that underground streams from Davis Lane might flow under the proposed development. Kevin Cameron assured him that the applicants are doing a study on such a possibility, all as part of the EIS.

Phyllis Minkoff, another Roslyn resident, said that the applicants need to be "more creative" in their planning. What is needed is "more attractive" row houses, similar to those recently constructed in parts of Baltimore and Boston.

Ian Zwerdling worried that the village was "losing ground on the amenities" of the plan. He cited stormwater retention, the increased number of units, the possibility of less parking, the lack of both traffic controls and retaining walls, and the heights of the buildings. Zwerdling added that the Master Plan was drafted in 1996 with information from the 1990 census, implying also that much has changed since then, including the Forest City Daly project. He, too, called for a building moratorium while the plan is studied further.

BOT officials reiterated that there was "no reason" for a moratorium. They also said that traffic circles are planned for the proposed project.

More public discussion on the housing development will take place at the next village meeting, one scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 16.