Village of Great Neck property owner seeking home demolition

Joe Nikic

Village of Great Neck trustees said Tuesday they would consider allowing a property owner to demolish a home on North Road if he takes out a bond with the village ensuring that he would properly maintain the property.

Matt Hakimi, who owns the home at 7 North Toad and the commercial building adjacent to it, appeared at Tuesday’s Board of Trustees meeting seeking a demolition permit for the home because he said it would be too difficult to rent out and too costly to renovate.

“It’s in really bad condition, but I can’t say that bad because people were living on it,” Hakimi said. “But for me to be able to rent it or anything, I don’t think that would be possible.”

He also said he had no plans to build a new structure on the property, but instead wanted to landscape the area.

Village of Great Neck Mayor Pedram Bral said while he was not opposed to demolishing the house he wanted Hakimi to submit a landscaping plan so the village could have an idea of what the area would look like post-demolition.

“I think we would like to see at least a suggestion of what you’re going to do in that area if you are going to knock it down,” Bral said.

He also said leaving a vacant house unattended could create a safety hazard for the community.

Building Department Superintendent Robert Barbach said he believed demolishing the property was a better idea given the poor condition of the home.

“I believe that this is a situation where as much as I want to see the house remain, it’s only going to deteriorate. It’s only going to become a problem,” Barbach said. “We’re only going to face a situation where I’m going to have to issue a violation or someone is going to get hurt.”

Resident Jean Pierce said she feared that if the board approved the demolition then the applicant would not keep his promises to maintain the area.

“We’ve gone through this for years where someone buys a piece of property, they tear down the place so they don’t have to pay the taxes,” Pierce said. “Then they just let it go.”

Barbach said he agreed that property owners in the past have not conformed to submitted plans whether it be for construction or for landscaping, but if the village wanted to allow the applicant to take out a bond, then that could prevent any non-conformity to plans.

“They get their bond back if they do what they say, so it’s not necessarily a bad situation,” he said.

Hakimi said he would be willing to take out a bond to assure the board that he will hold himself accountable for sticking to the landscaping plan.

The board asked Hakimi to submit a landscaping plan to them within the next two weeks and they will discuss with Village Attorney Peter Bee what type of bond would be most “appropriate.”

The village has previously allowed the Everfresh supermarket to take out a bond to hold them responsible for maintaining an area of their property that residents had complained was left neglected.

Village Clerk-Treasurer Joe Gill said Everfresh took out a $10,000 bond with the village.

The next board meeting is on May 17.

Share this Article