The on-again, off-again saga of condominium development in the Village of North Hills went through two major phases in the past week.

On Monday, Aug. 29, village officials asked that a hearing on a restraining order be postponed until Wednesday, Sept. 14. The hearing would take place at State Supreme Court in Mineola.

On that date, a judge is expected to decide whether the restraining order on current construction should continue until a lawsuit filed by three Long Island environmental groups against the Village of North Hills and the project's developer is ruled upon.

Earlier, opponents of the development went to court to force a temporary halt to the construction project.

On Wednesday, Aug. 24, State Supreme Court Judge Anthony Parga issued a favorable ruling for the opponents, one that stopped the developer, North Hills Holding Company of Great Neck, from clearing out trees and doing grading work on the 18-acre site where the 58-unit condominium is set to be constructed.

The bid for a restraining order was in response to an Aug. 17 public meeting in which the Village of North Hills board of trustees repealed a covenant in order to allow for residential development on a site in that village's Grace Forest land area. After that meeting, local residents reported that some trees had already been cut down.

On Friday, Aug. 26, local environmentalists gathered at North Hills Village Hall to demonstrate against the development. Carrying signs that said, "Save Grace Forest Again," the demonstrators noted that the site was once, in their words, "permanently preserved" in 1988 by North Hills Village trustees from future development.

The Long Island Pine Barrens Society, along with the Long Island Drinking Water Coalition and the North Shore Land Alliance, have all gone to court, arguing that the land was preserved to offset an earlier condominium project and as such, cannot now be taken out of preservation for a similar condo project.

"Permanently preserved doesn't mean 'until the politicians change their minds,'" said Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society. "The village only permitted the first condo project on the condition that these 18 acres were saved. It cannot now allow a new condo project on the land needed to protect drinking water and preserve open space. That's not just irresponsible, it's against the law."

Environmentalists have also warned that permitting the development would set a dangerous precedent. They have noted that there are thousands of such preservation covenants across Long Island.

"If the Village of North Hills can undo 'permanent preservation' where will it stop?" asked Joseph Lorintz, executive director of the Long Island Drinking Water Coalition.

Previous drafts of the development called for residential housing on 15 acres with the remaining three acres set aside for open space. However, published reports claim that the final proposal will allow for seven acres to be preserved as open space.

After the Aug. 17 meeting, a spokesman for the Long Island Pine Barrens Society predicted that legal action may be in the offing.

Opponents to the plan have also included the Nassau County Planning Commission and the North Shore Land Alliance.

The NSLA has opposed the development on environmental grounds, noting that the land is home to "ecologically important wetlands, and rare old growth trees," plus a Special Groundwater Protection Area.

Supporters of the development, including North Hills Mayor Marvin Natiss note that up to 36 percent of the land will not be developed, a compromise that he believes should satisfy environmentalists.

Some North Hills residents have supported the development for a variety of reasons, namely the possible acquisition of a golf course for the village and monies that it would receive from the developer under incentive laws currently in place in the village.

North Hills could receive up to $12 million from North Hills Holding Co. According to published reports, the company, once it purchased the property, made an agreement with the village to pay it $1 million on top and $192,000 for each new home in return for the repeal of easement laws.