After receiving approval from the Nassau County Planning Commission, the Village of Great Neck Plaza is closing in on amending affordable housing laws for the village’s C-2 zoning district.
The Board of Trustees began talks to amend village affordable housing laws on Dec. 2, after settling a federal lawsuit in October that alleged the village had violated fair housing laws by denying minorities equal opportunity to affordable housing units at The Maestro, a 94-unit rental apartment complex at 255 Great Neck Road in the C-2 district.
“The Village of Great Neck Plaza is committed to making affordable workforce housing units available in the village,” Village of Great Neck Plaza Mayor Jean Celender said. “The legislation is being amended to set aside the age and local preference provisions that were at the crux of the lawsuit claims. Remaining an open inclusive community that offers a wide range of rental and co-op apartments, condominium units and private homes has always been a goal of village officials.”
Village Attorney Richard Gabriele said at the Jan. 20 board meeting the amended law came back from the county’s Planning Commission with full approval.
Trustees voted last Wednesday to approve the affordable housing law amendments, but then voted to rescind the approval after realizing the vote had been scheduled for its Feb. 3 meeting.
The trustees said they wanted to stick to the Feb. 3 schedule so residents who wanted to attend could ask questions or add comments before the board voted on the change.
The proposed code amendments would eliminate age and residency requirements for affordable housing units, as well as remove the village from the screening of potential applicants. That responsibility would fall to developers.
In May 2014, Long Island Housing Services and the Fair Housing Justice Center filed a complaint in Central Islip’s Eastern District Court of New York, claiming the village was violating local, state, and federal laws by enforcing discriminatory age and race requirements for affordable housing.
The plaintiffs claimed current village code favored “long-term residents of the predominantly white surrounding municipalities” and was “discriminating systematically against African-Americans” and “perpetuating residential racial segregation,” court documents said.
In 2005, the village enacted an affordable housing ordinance requiring newly constructed or converted residential buildings with at least 20,000 square feet of gross floor area to utilize 7.5 percent of that area for affordable housing units.
Persons eligible for affordable housing units, at the time, were required to be either under the age of 30 or over the age of 65 and have lived in the village for at least 10 years, court documents said.
The current village code, which was amended in 2013 after Village of Great Neck Plaza Mayor Jean Celender said it was difficult to attract applicants who met the village’s eligibility requirement, requires applicants to be either under the age of 40 or over the age of 65 and have lived in the village for at least 10 years.
The village settled its portion of the lawsuit on Oct. 1 by agreeing to pay $200,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.
The village also agreed to amend the village code to allow a 20 percent density bonus, a zoning tool that permits developers to build more housing units, taller buildings, or buildings with more floor space. The village also agreed to issue building permits for seven new affordable housing units after four years and 14 new affordable housing units after six years.
Also at the meeting, the board discussed amending affordable housing laws in the village’s RT and RD zoning district.
While the two districts were not the subject of the lawsuit, Celender said she wanted to make sure the village appropriately addressed affordable housing laws in each district.
She said she had spoken with a consultant from engineering firm VHB, who also works with the county’s fair housing plan, to analyze the districts’ zoning laws.
“I think they would be the right firm to hire to do the analysis that I think we need to do,” Celender said.
Discussions for the two zoning districts were adjourned to the March 2 board meeting.
