On May 13, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and New York State officials broke ground on a clean water infrastructure project at Plant 6 of the Hicksville Water District, located in Nassau County. This groundbreaking step represents just the initial phase of a comprehensive effort to implement a $9 million treatment system to remove a number of hazardous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals,” from Hicksville’s water supply, and secure clean drinking water for local residents.
PFAS are used in food packaging and in products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water, such as nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing and some cosmetics, among many other industry and consumer products. PFAS exposure has been linked to, inter alia, certain cancers, increases in cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzymes, and immune system and development damage to infants and children.Continue Reading Navigating the Waters: A Long Island Community’s Response to the EPA’s PFAS Directive
Surprise! During the summer of Covid-19, the Town Board of Oyster Bay passed 
On July 3rd, Governor Cuomo announced that the state was giving the Town of Oyster Bay a $10 million Downtown Revitalization Initiative award that will help underwrite four transformative projects in downtown Hicksville. These projects are aimed at increasing transportation access, improving walkability, and attracting new housing opportunities. Here’s what is planned with the Revitalization Initiative money.
Several Long Island municipalities have local laws that peg the issuance of certain building permits to a requirement that contractors and subcontractors be participants in a “qualified apprenticeship program” that is registered and approved by the New York State Department of Labor. While these provisions are often entitled “safe and code compliant construction” and may be perceived as fostering apprenticeship
Today’s blog post concerns a property owner receiving substantially less than it wanted when its property was taken in an eminent domain proceeding because the “highest and best use” it claimed was applicable to the site required an area variance and a zoning change, rather than a special use permit. The awarded amount was about $1 million less than the