The Village of Kings Point is urging its residents to sign a petition asking state Sen. Jack Martins (R-Mineola) and state Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel’s (D-Great Neck) to support legislation that would allow the village to keep its public works building on a portion of Kings Point Park.
The legislation would allow the village to avoid the demolition of the public works facility as required under a 2014 state Court of Appeals ruling that found the village had violated state law in building it there in 1946.
“Kings Point residents need to show lawmakers our unified support in favor of the adoption of this state legislation,” the newsletter said. “Please don’t allow complacency to dictate an outcome that will have severe financial consequences for our community.”
The newsletter, which was sent to village residents in December, presents the cost of razing the public works building and constructing one on another site and asks that they sign the petition.
Village of Kings Point attorney Stephen Limmer said it will cost the village $1 million to comply with the court’s ruling.
“The cost would be to find a place for a new facility and to build the new facility and the combined cost of everything estimates to one million,” Limmer said.
This, he said, does not include the demolition of the existing facility. The Great Neck Park District has jurisdiction over the park and would be responsible the cost of tearing down the building, he said.
The state Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a state Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling that the Village of King Point’s plan to raze the 5.45 acres of Kings Point Park for a department of public works building violated state law, and ordered the removal of a village salt shed on the property.
The court said the salt shed, which had been built in 1946, is a “continuing wrong” and should be removed immediately.
The seven-judge panel said in its ruling that the western corner of the park was “parkland” and that any plan to use the parcel for “non-park” use had to be “authorized by the state Legislature.”
In June, Schimel introduced a bill that would designate 1.56 acres of a 5.45 acre piece of land in Kings Point Park for public works facilities.
The other 3.89 acres would remain parkland, said Limmer, who on behalf of the village asked Schimel to introduce the legislation.
Everything is on hold until the legislative session opens on Jan. 6, he said, but the village wants Martins to sponsor a companion bill to Schimel’s.
“It would be waste of village taxpayer funds to demolish the existing facilities only to have to reconstruct them at another location,” Schimel’s bill A08133 reads. “It is critical to the village that it be able to maintain the minimal 1.566 (29 percent) of the 5.455 acres DPW site for DPW purposes as its location is the most feasible to residents of the village.”
To use the 1.56 area for non-park functions, the village must also designate another area of the village as parkland, the bill reads.
The bill calls for a 6.64 acre parcel of land on lower Manhasset Bay along East Shore Road to be the substitute parkland. Some 1.57 acres of this land is above mean high water.
Limmer said that the waterfront property is very valuable.
“We want to put in a waterfront property on East Shore Road for people to walk along and fish,” Limmer said. “It can be fixed up and made pretty subject to whatever environmental regulations are involved. It would be a beautiful entrance to the village and it could be a beautiful park.”
The village first circulated the petition via email in September but reintroduced it to attempt show its legislators resident support of Schimel’s legislation.
“There is not a set number of signatures but we would like to show Jack Martins and Michelle Schimel the support of the residents and for them to show that support to the state Senate and Assembly,” Limmer said.
Village of Great Neck residents Daniel Capruso, Alan Berkower, Elizabeth Allen and Julian Kane, filed a lawsuit in 2009 to block Kings Point’s plan to construct a new public works building on the parkland.
The village lost that case in state Supreme Court in 2011, with the court prohibiting the building of the facility and ordering the removal of existing village structures at the site.
The court also ordered the village to pay plaintiff attorney fees. The village filed an appeal in June 2013.
Limmer said that while the court ordered the village to take down the shed initially, the court stayed the enforcement of the order because of Schimel’s proposed legislation.
He also said he was informed in June that Schimel’s bill was introduced too late to be adopted in that legislative session.
Capruso said the bill should be amended to make sure no existing forest is cut down. He also questioned the location of the land that the village has offered in exchange for the land on which the public works building sits.
“The problem is Manhasset Bay is very shallow there with a typical depth of one to two feet at low tide,” Capruso said. “You also have a sewage treatment plant near there; I don’t think that’s a very good trade for the public.”
Capruso also the parcel proposed for the exchange had issues with parking.
Currently, parking is illegal on East Shore Road, Capruso said, and even if it were to be made legal near the proposed parkland, it could be dangerous.
