The informal coalition of concerned residents that opposed the original plans for an independent senior living facility at 12 Irma Ave. has withdrawn their objection to the project in light of changes made by the developers.

The developers for the proposed facility in Port Washington presented amended plans to the coalition at a Feb. 13 meeting that were intended to address the residents’ reservations.

This was the first time the development plans were changed in response to the concerns of the residents. The new plans were submitted to the zoning board.

The proposed plans, which initially included three full stories and a partial fourth floor, were changed to only have two full floors and a partial third floor.

The original plans also included 18 units and 18 parking spaces, and now would only contain 10 units and 16 parking spots.

The living facility would be for seniors 62 and older, and the developers said they anticipate the units to be market-based rentals. The residential building will not provide assisted senior care.

In a prior interview with Blank Slate, Cheryl Littman, one of the organizers of the coalition and a Port Washington resident, said the initial plans had her concerned about the traffic that additional residents might bring to an already traffic-dense street.

This was compounded by the prior plans only offering a single parking space per unit. She said she was also worried about environmental impacts from the previously proposed four-story building blocking the sun.

In a meeting Monday night, the coalition convened to discuss the amended development plans and work to craft a unified response – discussing whether the new plans were acceptable for them or if they needed to request further changes for the well-being of their community. There were no guarantees that the meeting would result in an official response, pending the comments and concerns of the residents.

Linda Maryanov, a coalition member and Port Washington resident of 28 years, said that not everyone who is a member of the coalition was able to attend the meeting held over Zoom, but those who were reached a consensus to approve the revised plans for the development.

The coalition ultimately opted to withdraw their opposition to the development when they determined the plans were adequate. Members plan to sign onto a letter stating this, and it will be provided to the zoning board.

Maryanov said each person who spoke at Monday’s meeting noted the revised plans appeared to be a “significant improvement” and that they addressed most of the community’s concerns.

She said the new plans do not address every aspect of concerns the community proposed, but they “met the community’s needs in important ways.” 

Maryanov said she is satisfied with the revised development but is still worried about the impact of parking. But she also conceded that parking would be a concern regardless of the residential use in the location.

Maryanov has been communicating with the developer’s attorney Kathleen Deegan Dickson and emailed her Tuesday morning with the coalition’s decision to withdraw their opposition.

“It could have been a long battle,” Maryanov said. “Now it won’t be, so that’s good because now we can turn our energies towards other possible projects.”

Deegan Dickson told Blank Slate in an email that her clients are “very pleased” that the residents withdrew their opposition.

“We would like to thank community members who participated in this process and provided their input, and believe that the current plan will be a real credit and complement to the area,” Deegan Dickson wrote. “We look forward to introducing this much-needed new housing option to the residents of Port Washington.”

The plans now have to face the zoning board because they include multiple variances, or aspects of the development that are contrary to local zoning regulations governing the structure’s height, parking and density.

With the changes, the development now only has four variances to present to the board: becoming compliant with the density regulations, the approved number of parking spaces, the height, and now the lot size, parking and building setbacks.

The next zoning board meeting for the Town of North Hempstead is scheduled for March 22, but it is not known yet whether the 12 Irma Ave. development will face the board on that date. The following meeting is scheduled for April 5.

Now that the coalition has withdrawn its opposition, Maryanov said their action going forward will be to ensure that the developers abide by the plans and the community’s needs.

She said that a community member involved told her that “the end result here is a perfect example of a small, realistic community-approved project that can work in our community.”