Waterfront development is looming as one of the most important issues facing the Village of Roslyn in the coming months and years. Earlier this year, the village was the recipient of a $73,000 grant from New York State to design a waterfront trail for the village-owned waterfront parcel.

What the village specifically hopes to do with any renovated waterfront remains under debate and discussion. In order to learn what other towns and villages in New York have done with their formerly dormant waterfronts and what possibilities Roslyn itself has, the board of trustees invited Peter Walsh, an official with the state's Department of Parks and Recreation to address the BOT.

After giving an update on previous waterfront revitalization programs, Mr. Walsh pointed out what a waterfront project should entail and what assets exist in the village's waterfront area.

Any waterfront, if properly laid out, can be a tremendous asset to any village, Mr. Walsh said. In Roslyn, waterfront development could complement the village's historic district. It could be another clean, attractive thoroughfare, one that is within walking distance to Old Northern Boulevard and Main Street.

A successful revitalization program, Mr. Walsh claimed, is a three-part process. A village must decide what they want to do with their waterfront property; it must improve the surface water quality, which itself includes dredging work; and it must secure a "cultural resource base."

In addition, there are three different ways a waterfront can be developed. Such a property can be used as a public amenities park, as a source of "pedestrian vehicular circulation," and for the development of vacant lands.

Mr. Walsh acknowledged that the village has been plenty aggressive in pursuing a waterfront plan. The village, he added, would have to be more effective in gaining private investments. However, a positive development is that Nassau County officials are supportive of waterfront projects. A vision of what the village wants to do with its property is also important, Mr. Walsh said. When asked if other villages had raised taxes to help finance such projects, Mr. Walsh could only answer that he didn't know if that was the case. For his part, Mayor John Durkin said he would talk to other local mayors to see how they raised money for waterfront revitalization.

Mr. Walsh said "ample monies" from the state are available for waterfront revitalization. He urged the BOT to familiarize themselves with the state's Economic Development Corporation. In mid-2000, for instance, Gov. George Pataki formally announced award recipients of grant monies from the New York State Environmental Protection Fund for Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) grants. Soon after, municipalities throughout the state applied for such grants, and of the 144 applications reviewed, only nine Long Island municipalities, received grants, Roslyn being one of them. That is where the $73,000 grant came from.

Mr. Walsh devoted the first part of his talk to explaining how similar sized towns and villages in both Long Island and other parts of New York state underwent successful waterfront development at a significant benefit to the overall health of those municipalities.

Most significant were improvements in Glen Cove, a city north of Roslyn. According to Mr. Walsh, that city, by the mid-1990s, had faced numerous problems, including a waterfront in poor condition, contaminated land, plus 60 acres of superfund property on its hands. Waterfront revitalization connected downtown Glen Cove to the waterfront, brought about a limited ferry service and heralded other improvements, including converting a junkyard into a restaurant.

Other Long Island villages that have undergone successful waterfront revitalization include Freeport, Port Jefferson, and Greenport. Waterfront parks, marinas, restaurants, pubs, museums, and festivals were part of revitalization programs in those and other New York towns, including Oswego and Lake George.

In closing, Mr. Walsh reiterated what made those programs successful: A clear vision, a partnership between government agencies and the private sector, and strong local leadership, including governments that work with a variety of civic associations.