Full Transcript
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Rob.
Okay. Mr. Town Clerk, do we have any notices of communications? No communications. We did receive two letters this morning of correspondence that we were able to get into the agenda today. The other communications that came in this afternoon circulated, and they'll be on the June 4th meeting. They were just sent too late. But one letter from Kimberly Judd and one letter from Kathy McGraw. McGraw was about the comprehensive plan as well as the report about the comprehensive plan. Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to public hearings. We have two public hearings scheduled for tonight. The first one is the public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan update. The second public hearing is the public hearing for the draft generic environmental impact statement. I will tell you that we are going to make a motion in just a moment to adjourn that, the DGEIS impact statement, to next Wednesday night. After going through hundreds of pages of documents and speaking with members of the public and the civics, they felt it wouldn't have been justified to do just a one-night meeting, and I agree with that. There's so much information involved in both of these projects. To do it for a one-night meeting wouldn't serve its purpose. So we're going to do next Wednesday night, 6 o'clock right here, if that's May 29th, and we'll do the draft generic environmental impact statement that night, tonight. We're just doing the comprehensive plan update. Okay, can I have a motion to move the draft generic environmental impact statement to next Wednesday, May 29th at 6 p.m.? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay, we will move that to next Wednesday, May 29th at 6 o'clock right here in the same spot. Alright, moving on, we're going to go to the 6 p.m. public hearing draft comprehensive plan update, and with that I'm going turn it over to Noah Levine yeah sure absolutely no is from BFJ and Associates the company that has put together this master thank you supervisor Thank You Tom Lord for inviting us to speak and for holding this public hearing for the comprehensive plan update again my name is Noah Levine I work with BFJ planning the consultant team that was hired in 2022 to continue the process to update the town's comprehensive plan and it has been a very fruitful process I think and I'm very proud of the product that we have now really we worked very hard with town board members with the steering committee various public engagement events we heard from a lot of people and incorporated a lot of ideas I'm gonna give a very short presentation because really there's a lot of there would be too much to really go through and the purpose of the meeting is to hear from other folks I'm just gonna give you a refresher basically on where we're at so if you can switch to the next slide chip so again today we'll go through just a quick overview of the update the process for seeker even though we won't conduct the public hearing tonight as the supervisor mentioned I'll just give a brief overview on that I'll give an overview of the tonight's proceedings then we'll have the public hearing about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the discussion about the As part of the process, we bring people to the table to talk about these issues, hopefully come up with some kind of shared vision. Sometimes there is a compromise, but it is a document that we hope represents where the community wants to be or should be in the next 10 years and beyond. So it is a public policy guide for various initiatives, plans, investments, and so on. But the biggest thing that it really lays the foundation on is zoning. Zoning decisions need to be based on a well-reasoned plan. And it also does provide the town with a to-do list so that you can track progress moving forward. And we hope this document doesn't sit on a shelf. You can use it in the next 10 years to really check off some of those items as they're completed. Just to rehash some of the public outreach that was conducted, we had two public meetings that I thought were important. They were well attended. The first public meeting was in April of last year. We had about 120 attendees at the Suffolk Theater on a Saturday with roundtable discussions, breakout sessions where people could talk about individual issues with their peers. And the second public meeting was held here in December. We had about 70 attendees, again, where people could comment on the preliminary recommendations that were proposed for the plan. That outreach was... We had a lot of meetings on top of a whole host of other things that were done throughout the process. It included monthly meetings with the steering committee that was very helpful in guiding the plan's content and helping us prepare for public outreach activities. The steering committee was comprised of a very diverse group of representatives from the town and we're very thankful for all of their efforts. We also had weekly meetings with town staff that were really necessary to go through all of the fine-grained zoning details. And there really are a lot of... There are a lot of details to go through and we thank them for that. Briefings with the town board, as you know. Other focus group meetings and stakeholder outreach with particular interest groups. And then we had a questionnaire that we sent out to other committees and commissions and community groups and we're pleased that we received about 11 or so responses. And those were very helpful in the formulation of our recommendations. Really, thank you all for all the space and space that you all provided. upon work that was already done by AKRF, the prior consultant team that was working between 2020 and 2022. So all in all we do think that we have a lot of information to stand on. When we created the plan we understand that there are always going to be issues where there maybe isn't a consensus but that's part of you know part of the process and when the next plan comes along they'll be fine-tuning but we hope we have resolved a lot of issues and at least brought up issues that need to be addressed. As other elements that we had built upon the town has conducted several other planning initiatives and projects in other targeted areas including the DRI that was done about a year and a half ago, the downtown riverfront activation plan, the downtown pattern book and so on and so all of those were incorporated and we also in the plan we recommend that we have a plan that is in place to address those issues. So we have a plan that starts in January and starts in January and starts in January and starts in the future so this this process doesn't stop with the comprehensive plan so for those of you unfamiliar with the plan that was submitted online there are 13 chapters each of which go into a topic area and if you want to kind of skip to the meat you can skip to the future land use chapter chapter 13 which really has a summary of the major zoning recommendations I think that that chapter is probably of interest to a lot of people but each of the chapters provides a lot of detail for those respective topic areas we encourage everyone to look through it and read the chapters and certainly there's still time to comment even after this this public hearing so what where you know where are we now essentially after that public meeting in December we worked on preparing the draft plan that draft plan was posted online in February and there was over a 30-day comment period we did receive a lot of comments from the community 42 I think comments were received from several community Syrian community members civic groups town committees residents and other stakeholders participated and we really did receive a lot of you know good comments that were considered we then discussed those comments with town staff the steering committee and and really tried to figure out which ones should be incorporated and we produced a redline word document which is available online which really has all of the editorial subs and substantive changes the full draft plan is the draft that's formatted as you see on the top right that was presented and printed for the town board and public review so that is the draft plan that was presented and printed for the town board and public review so that is the draft that we're discussing today that that plan was accepted by the town board on April 25th as well as the GGIS and the ribbon comment period began then on April 25th this is the draft public hearing for the comprehensive plan as a supervisor mentioned the draft public hearing for the generic environmental impact statement will be next Wednesday the plan will be to keep the written comment period open for 10 days past whenever the public hearing ends so there will be an additional 10 day of comments so it will be June 10th will be the actual date we'll keep the comments open to because that's more than 10 days from the 29th of May it felt like on a Saturday so we went to Monday okay great yeah thank you so right so the written comment period has been extended we encourage everyone to submit written comments or speak in a public hearing then it comes back to us to develop to put together the final generic environmental impact statements and then deliver it to the town board we anticipate that would happen in early July and then you know there are a number of seeker milestones but in theory the plan could be considered in a considered by the town board possibly late August, but I think there are a lot of milestones that we have to hit, but that's the rough timing for the next two months or so. Just a very, very quick overview on the generic environmental impact statement. We've had a lot of conversations about what the generic environmental impact statement is. I think it's important to stress that what you're looking at are the magnitude of the impacts of what it is that we're proposing. So you're looking at the difference between how things would be under, you know, if nothing were to change versus the plan as adopted. So that is what you're looking at. So if something could happen now that is, you know, under existing zoning, that's not necessarily something that would be picked up by an environmental impact. It would be the difference. So we're looking at that. We're looking at environmental impacts having substantive and a negative impact on the community. We have a number of chapters in there that all look at various impacts. We understand that each of those chapters might be a little bit cumbersome and long. That's kind of the nature of the document. It's designed so that people can review an individual chapter and don't necessarily need to review the whole document. So there might be some repetition. But that's the nature of the document. It's designed so that people can review an individual chapter and don't necessarily need to review the whole document. But that is kind of the nature of the generic environmental impact statement. The next slide just talks about its organization. There are a number of chapters, but chapter three really includes all of the various topic areas that are covered in this DGEIS. We go through in chapter four and five the analysis of alternatives and other subsequent secret actions. I can certainly answer questions. I don't know if you have any questions on that, but I feel like we'll probably want to save those to the following week when we'll get into the DGEIS. I just thought it was helpful to kind of bring it up in case to preemptively answer some questions about what the document is. With that, the next slide just talks about kind of what we'll be doing tonight. Again, there are two separate public hearings for the comprehensive plan and the DGEIS. So if you have comments on the environmental review, please feel free to put them in the chat. Those should be done for that public hearing. You know, they're segmented. So tonight we're talking about the plan. Next Wednesday we'll talk about the DGEIS. For tonight, we invite everyone to give comments if you should so desire. But please limit comments to three minutes so that everyone has a chance to speak. And as we mentioned before, the comment period is going to be extended. And with that, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Noah. Okay. At this point in time, if anybody would like to come up and speak, we ask you to please keep it to three minutes. And please keep it to the comprehensive plan update. Good evening. Claudette Bianco, Bading Hollow. Hi, Claudette. Hi. Congratulations on updating the comp plan. A lot of work has been done to get to this point. There are, however, some issues that we need to address. One of them is the
zoning change in Calverton. There are several areas of concern still left to address. A zoning change in Calverton has been recommended in order to allow private schools as a permitted use in industrial areas. This change is diametrically opposed to the stated goals of this town board to bring more business to Riverhead and increase our tax base. Allowing a charter school to build in Calverton on land zoned for industrial use would be a major change in the future. But we have to keep in mind that the zoning changes have been recommended in order to allow private schools to be built in Calverton. The zoning change in Calverton has been recommended in order to allow private schools to build in Calverton on land zoned for industrial use. This change is diametrically opposed to the stated goals of this town board to bring more business to Riverhead and increase our tax base. Allowing a charter school to build in Calverton on land zoned for industrial use would eliminate any tax revenue to the town. In addition, any significant increase in charter school enrollment would result in millions more dollars being removed from our students and our programs. The district has allocated nearly $14 million for the charter school for next year alone. Removing land from the tax rolls and allowing a private school to be built in Calverton on land zoned for industrial use would result in a double whammy for taxpayers. It would undermine an already overburdened school district and be an additional financial burden to the taxpayers. While trying to help the charter school is commendable, it should not be done at the expense of the taxpayers or our students. The problem is theirs and the parents who choose to send their children to it. On another note, the comp plan and the GEIS are complex documents which require meticulous scrutiny. Careful, in-depth analysis must be done in order to comprehend every aspect. The decisions made now will set the course for the next 20 years. Allowing adequate time for a complete inspection is crucial for making the right decisions. Please consider a 60-day or more time limit for the completion of the inspection. Thank you. The next item is the public comment period. So that anyone interested will have the time to participate in the process. We must do our due diligence. This is too important to rush through. Let's get it right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. thing here in Riverhead and we appreciate the efforts of the town to consider the 15,100 acres of farmland in Riverhead to allow for the farm community to continue to work the lands and thrive here in this rural agricultural community. It's important to remember such a great rural character, the tractors, the barns, the fields and production and to be able to work into the comprehensive plan not only preservation but the economic factors that allow farmers to continue to thrive is going to be really important. In this town, farmers voluntarily preserve their farmland and there are a few things that we're going to have to continue to have conversations on to make sure that we both understand each other, particularly with things such as vertical farming, the fact that we have a lot of land that we can use for farming, which is a new technology that's emerging in agriculture. Things like agritourism, which is also an important economic factor to keep the farmers economically viable and a few other conditional permits that were also talked about in the plan. We look forward to engaging with the town and the staff to find a reasonable solution so that we can continue to work together on all of these things. One thing I think that does need to be said is when farmers do preserve their land, they are getting a remuneration for a specific right, which is the right to develop that property as the underlying zoning is. But it doesn't mean that they give up the agricultural rights, which is what they continue to use for farming purposes. So we need to make sure that those agricultural rights are being used for the purposes of agriculture. Thank you. Thank you, Moderator. farming purposes, a piece of unpreserved farmland has the same agricultural rights as preserved farmland. So I think that's a really important component to keep in mind. Once again, I know there's a lot of people that want to speak, so I'll end my comments here. But I thank you for the time and the effort, and I will submit some technical comments on the DGIS next week, either verbally or written. But we really appreciate all the effort that went into it, and we thank everybody, and we look forward to having continued conversations from the ag community and all of you. So thank you very much. Thank you too, Rob. And you were, as a member of our steering committee, thank you for that. A lot of hours were put into that. So we appreciate it. I appreciated the effort and the learning and everything that was happening. I really learned a lot through the process. All of us, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. I'm
So Virginia Healy. I live in Waiting River. First of all, thank you for having another public hearing next week, because when I noticed when we did the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, they had two public hearings, July 7th and July 21st of 2003. And I think this document and the DGIS warrants more time. And I also agree with the other speaker about extending to 60 days. There's a lot of people in my own neighborhood who aren't even aware, and we'd like to. I'm just going to just quickly go over some of the things I saw with the zoning, which is, you know, I'm not in favor, as I saw a lot of people writing in about changing the short-term rental codes near downtown or our beaches. And I will write in further comment for that. With the DGIS, again, I shared data with you as a town about the projected student enrollment multipliers that developers use. And I hope you take that into consideration before changing the downtown cap or as you're planning for multifamily. Though I do like what you have done where you have thought about that and the cluster development and some other things. So just don't think what I'm saying is the negative. I saw a lot of positive there. One thing is that's why we need more time, because there was a last-minute change to the Comprehensive Plan to change the industrial zone to accommodate private schools to charter schools. And as per the Charter Act and its 2000 initial charter, it is a non-public school for purposes of local zoning. So I'm against this zoning change because we need the property taxes. Commercial properties will generate. And the town, as you know, has had to pierce the tax cap twice because of needed services and so forth. And a lot of property, you know, all of us property owners have not received star rebates, and especially if you're on a fixed income. I took it upon myself to look at 39 acres that were near and adjacent to that charter school in Middle Country as well as Edwards Avenue. And 39 acres generated tax. And I'm not going to bore you with up and down all of Edwards and Middle Country, but I can. The Planning Board, and I will, I have it all here. The Planning Board approved a site plan for the charter in 2013 in industrial zone A without going to zoning. And there was no public taxpayer input. I don't know whether the town or the charter assumed otherwise about their zoning use, but the assumption was wrong. And now two wrongs do not make a right. The charter needs to stay in compliance with the Charter Act and the provisions of its charter. We are not responsible for changing zoning if town properties are not available for them. And we are not responsible for their decision to ask and to continue to ask for expansions from the regions without property in hand. They will not be the first nor the last charter that will have to go back to the regions for a revision to reduce their enrollment. The want for a small high school environment with their own high school athletic fields, and sports teams, is just that. It is not a need that warrants more on the part of Riverhead taxpayers as they are losing taxable property as well as subsidizing other districts as our school taxes send tuition payments of over $21,700 a student where other districts' tuition are $3,000 to $5,000 less per student. When a school budget is voted down, the first thing to be cut is sports, extra activities, clubs because it is not part of the contingent budget. It's not a need. It's an extra. A charter school does not have to put their budget to vote. So there's going to be no change to what the charter school will be experiencing. And I just want to add, because there's things that go around, the tuition formula is not a wash, as some may say. It captures the expense of both these special ed students, their transportation, costs of running a large high school, for example. It's the whole K-12 approved annual expenses. And unlike a typical private school that sets one tuition, a charter school receives a whole different tuition. So the school receives different tuitions depending on the school district, yet providing them with the same experience. I want to take a moment of your time, but I thank you very much. Thank you. I just ask whenever possible, when you come up to the microphone, if there's a specific – the comprehensive plan, you know, 209 pages, if there's a specific section, a paragraph, verbiage, page, or something. I would like to – it's helpful for us to make that clear. Thank you. And it's helpful for us to make notes, and specifically pertaining to what you're speaking about. And general concepts and ideas, of course, are welcome. But if anybody can be as specific as you can towards pointing out, you know, so that we can make notes and just – it helps us do better follow-up. Okay? Thank you to all. MR. Very good. Good evening. My name is Michael Daly, and I'm here with Housing Help, a non-for-profit HUD-certified housing counseling agency service on Long Island for more than 50 years. We have a number of other agencies here. We have a number of other agencies here. We offer foreclosure prevention and first-time homebuyer counseling for people all over Long Island. And we're glad to be here with you tonight. And I'm going to be speaking about the accessory apartments, ADUs, as specified in your plan. It looks really, really good, and we want to congratulate you on the work that the CPU Committee has done in bringing this to where you are at today while maintaining a vision for the future. And we're very grateful to you for your time and your time and your time and your time. And I'm going to be speaking to you today about the ! MR. Thank you. MR. Thank you. MR. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and accessory apartments are an important part of that. So we appreciate the things that you've mentioned here in your draft plan, such as looking at the amnesty program, again, adjusting the sizes of the ADUs, looking at off-street parking, and we think you're in a really terrific direction, and we stand ready to continue to support you however we best can. Thanks very much. Thank you, Michael. Michael, do you have a card? I'll get you one, sure. Thank you. Okay, thanks.
Hello. I'm Cindy Clifford with the Heart of Riverhead Civic Association. I'm barely through a third of the draft. What I've seen so far, a lot of it is great. Like Michael was just talking about the ADUs are really, like, all sorts of homing housing options look really good. But basically, based on what we've gone over so far, we do have a couple of concerns that the Heart of Riverhead Civic members would like to go over. In most cases, we're reiterating what we had previously submitted to BFJ in July. We remain opposed to the consideration of short-term rentals in tourist areas, including downtown, as we don't feel it offers a benefit to the residents. It would instead prompt more local and out-of-town investors buying up properties, further inflating prices, reducing inventory for new home buyers, which is contrary, to the recommendation to create more home ownership opportunities. It would also be detrimental to the character of established neighborhoods with group rentals, weekend parties, and temporary renters coming and going. It suggested these short-term rentals could be monitored, but is it reasonable or realistic to think that our six-person code enforcement team would be able to add this to their already heavy workload? We remain opposed to lifting the 500-unit cap on apartments in DC-1. According to the Commission, we are not able to do this. The Commission says that the fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist
residents in adding all these apartments, especially if the IDA continues to grant tax abatements on additional buildings. We also ask where the benefit is to further reducing tax revenue by permitting charter schools and industrial zones, and we wonder if that doesn't just funnel more money from our public school district, which is a concern. The IDA consistently gives millions in tax breaks to new businesses, at least partially based on the promise of job opportunities, but according to the draft, I learned that of the approximately 17,160 jobs in town, Riverhead residents hold 19% of them. That's 81% not going to or benefiting the residents. So we wonder if this comp plan includes a realignment of the IDA, perhaps, the appointment of an oversight team that would weigh in on businesses applying for benefits, recommending apprenticeship programs, training and planning. And if so, how do we make sure that we're not just making a big deal out of it, but making sure that we're making a big deal out of it? And if so, how do we make sure that we're making a big deal out of it? And if not, could any of these suggestions be added? Now, I'm sure everybody saw yesterday's Newsday, which included Riverhead and a feature of how flooding is impacting some Long Island towns. It looks like a line from a bad movie to say we could be headed for disaster, but we could be headed for disaster. And not just coping with flooding itself, but the aftermath, especially given that many insurance companies have now stopped writing homes. And I'm sure you've heard of the
! Really !
Hi, my name is Kimberly Wilder. My project, which is part of my company WilderSide LTD, is Riverhead Area School Info, and I want to comment on the part about the charter school. So one thing I did want to ask is to look at the demographics in the room and think about the demographics of the whole Riverhead School District versus the whole Riverhead Charter School, and then the demographics of the four elementary schools and how that plays out in our neighborhood. So there's a lot of value to the Riverhead Charter School. There's good things and bad things about charter schools. I understand problems and concerns with them. But in our community, where we've had so many issues about bias and about hate, there is a place for that. And that is for the Riverhead Charter School because it has a superintendent who is African-American, has a leadership of color. It has a lot of people of color. When my little girl was in kindergarten, I had to decide where to send her to school, and she's a person of color. And if I sent her to my public school, my local public school, it was Roanoke Avenue, and at that time it was rated a 1. Now it's moved up to a 3 out of 10, even when other schools are rated higher. So for one thing, if everyone wants to help the schools, one thing you could do is you could ask for internal school choice, that we could all pick, just pick, everyone had the right to pick which early elementary school their child could go to. And if you did that, there would be less need for the charter school. So you would instantly solve the problem. I wanted to say that there's the election and the school budget vote is coming up tomorrow. So there's two candidates, and there's only two spots. So it doesn't really matter that much who you vote for. So with all the passion and energy here that everyone has, I'm going to say that I'm going Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. that write-in space, it won't be counted, they don't count if it's not a candidate, to say what your real wishes are for Riverhead School. Do you wish that everybody enjoyed Riverhead School and picked that first? Do you wish that we had more diversity of leadership, more diversity on the school board, more diversity on the faculty? So these things might be something that would actually help it so we didn't need it. I also wanted to put out the point that Riverhead Charter School had first, my daughter doesn't go there, I picked somewhere else, but I might pick it in the future. Riverhead Charter School had asked to build on farmlands because they have parents that really appreciate it, parents that feel that their kids need that for different reasons. One was, we were saying about smaller schools, some kids have school anxiety and they could either go to the charter school or they could fight our school districts forever and try to get us to pay a lot of money to send them to another school or far away or specialty school. So a lot of the money things that people have been saying don't even make sense. But when they applied for farmlands, everybody hurt their feelings, said mean things about the kids, said that a child's school anxiety could be compared to a goat's anxiety. Okay, so they gave up on the farmland. They gave up on the farmland. Is this all the same people that said the Riverhead school, the charter school can't go to the farmland, it's bad for the farmland? Now they want to go to industrial land, they can't go to industrial land? It sounds more like there's other issues in the background that might want to be explored. And I think it's also comical to say that we need that, the taxes from the industrial zoning, because that's all a big wish because all of you clapped, you know that the IDA would probably give the next business a tax abatement. So I feel like there's a lot of fuzzy math and a lot of things in the background and I wish people would say the real things and talk about it more. But I know that I like the hope for my daughter that there's a Riverhead charter school and for people like her and some of her friends. And if you really want to solve the problem, put our schools better, our schools internal choice. And to have our school be brave enough to build another building because these children in either one, the public, the charter, the private, none of them deserve to be overcrowded. Thank you. My name is Casey Mandry, I'm from Calverton. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition to the proposed changes to the town's comprehensive plan which would allow the construction of charter schools in industrial zones. My question is, Who in this town would be willing to pay for the construction of charter schools in industrial zones? And who in this town benefits from this law change? There is no benefit to the Riverhead taxpayer. When you gift an organization that does not pay taxes the right to build on land that is supposed to grow the town's tax base, all you are doing is shifting more tax burden to the people who live here. And we all know that just trying to keep up with the cost of living today is already a daily struggle. And there is certainly no benefit to Riverhead public schools since the expansion of the charter school will inevitably drain even more money from the district. I'm standing here before you as a proud Riverhead teacher and coach. I moved here after several years of working for the district knowing my child would one day attend Riverhead schools. Any opportunity I'm given to anyone who will listen I am constantly touting the education and experience I know my child will have as a Blue Wave. Speaking for my daughter and for all the other children in this town who are part of our public school family please don't put their futures in Riverhead and in life behind the desires of the city. I'm here of a private entity. I am standing here as both a taxpayer and the mother of a future Riverhead Public School student, and I implore you, please, don't make this change to your zoning rules. It doesn't benefit the people of this town, and it will be devastating to our schools. Thank you. Thank you. We keep hearing the same stuff on the charter schools. Hi, good evening. Laura Jen Smith. I'm here on behalf of the Jamesport Civic Association. I'm the president there. We did send some comments in a while ago, so I'm going to review all of them. There's many things about the comprehensive plan that we like, and we've emailed them all to you, but I think this is a venue that we'll bring up a few that we have concerns about. It's probably more appropriate at this point. One of the first things I do want to say is that for the DEIS, the DEIS that will be coming up next week, if there was maybe a video you could put up or something, I know that we have a lot of questions about that. BFJ said that they would discuss at the beginning of the plan what was in the plan and what to look at and what was going to be reviewed and what people could speak about. But if you could put some sort of video up from them prior to that so people have a better idea of how to comment when they come next time might be helpful, and which chapters, where to find things that they're talking about tonight and the review of it would be helpful. So I'll just go into what I'm saying. I know you had asked. This is the chapters and the chapters that are going to be reviewed. I'm going to go through them. So the chapters and the pages we have are from the old comprehensive plan prior to the update. So I think they're pretty close, but it'll give you at least a close enough approximation where they are. So the first one was from chapter three and chapter 13, page 23 and 27. It was supporting the accessory apartments based on the CEO of the primary building. For Jamesport Civic, we still support the three-year period of them having the property in place. Prior to being able to put in the accessory apartment, we don't support being able to build something right away and put it up. We would also like to see some sort of numbers, what that would amount to if somebody was allowed to do that at the reduced square footage that you're recommending in the new plan. Chapter 16, page 17, 18. Chapter 13, page 16, 19. While we support our farmers here and appreciate their effort and all the work they do in our community and the vistas that we have from them, the food they provide our community, we do not support the vertical farming in APZ zones. We think it's prime agricultural soil and we think that the vertical farming should be in the industrial zone where there's not prime soil for that. But we do support the vertical zoning, as I said, just not in the APZ zone. One of the other things that I think needs to be looked at is the plan for vertical zoning and solar. We know that vertical zoning requires a lot of power and there wasn't really anything in there that equated the two together on a piece of property no matter where it is. So we would like to see how that's being evaluated in the proposal going forward. Also for Chapter 3 and Chapter 13, we oppose the removal of the minimum square footage of residences from 1,200 down to 650 square feet. We've been trying to get that done. We believe that it should be remained where that is. Chapter 13, Chapter 3... You want it to stay at 1,200, you're saying? We don't. You're looking to reduce it. We're not... Right. We're opposed to the reduction in the minimum square size. Okay. Chapter 13, Chapter 3, and Chapter 4 for the short-term rentals. I'm not going to go into it that much because other speakers have spoken about it. We are not in support of a 14-day rental. We are in support of the 28-day rental. You know, the plan actually kind of goes in. Okay. So, we're not in support of a 14-day rental. We are in support of the 28-day rental. You know, the plan actually kind of goes in. Okay. So, we're not in support of a 14-day rental. You know, the plan actually kind of goes in. Really, it kind of contradicts itself in a few places where it's saying that, you know, we support first-time homebuyers. We believe that a less than a 28-day rental will lead to speculation buying here and raise the price of houses in our area. We are very much a blue-collar area and support first-time home owners, and we'd like to continue to support that. Chapter 13, the TDRs in the RA80 zone north of Sound Avenue are currently saying that, you know, we support first-time homebuyers. We believe that less than a 28-day rental will lead to speculation buying here and raise the price of houses in our area. We are very much a blue-collar area and support first-time homeowners, and we'd like to continue to support that. Chapter 13, the TDRs in the RA80 zone north of Sound Avenue are currently receiving districts but are now proposed to be both sending and receiving districts. I don't know where exactly that ended up, but we believe that these areas should just be designated as the sending areas as opposed to sending and receiving areas, a combination of both. On Chapter 4, page 23, Section 7.3, one of the statements is actively marketing development redevelopment sites aligned with the town vision. It's a little confusing, and the town does attract developers, but needs improvement in its zoning and land use evaluation and regulatory capabilities to align future development with goals. Marketing the town is neither necessary nor an appropriate use of funds as dictated in the plan, we feel. Chapter 13, page 18, nonconforming uses, and this has to do with, I think, let me just see if it's still on the same page. This is a big concern for the area. Because there are several, I believe on page 201, for nonconforming uses that are called out in our area. It's a little, we're not really understanding out of the whole town the number of nonconforming uses that there are. We know there's probably well over 100 nonconforming uses in this town, if not more. But for some reason, this plan called out several properties, which is a marina down off of Washington Avenue in Jamesport, it called out a commercial node on Edgar Avenue, and it also called out Vinland Commons on Tuthill Lane, which we thought were all kind of unusual, but I will let you, I'll speak to the concerns about each one of those. The marina on South Jamesport Avenue has been in existence since, I believe, probably about 1972 or so, owned by the same family. And it is a great asset to the community, but it has gone through two comp plans without upzoning. So we are very concerned that it's being upzoned now in a residential area. We have had issues, and I believe the upzoning would allow for restaurants and possibly catering halls. This has been a concern in the area and of our civic. We've had Jedediah Hawkins. We have had the Demian Manor Inn that have upzoned and cost the town quite a bit of money. But there has always been a, a large voice of the community that they are not looking to have an increase to, to this in the residential area. So they don't feel that it's, it's a place to upzone here. And so we ask that it stays a non-conforming use as it has in existence and been able to survive as a business for well over 50 years. So we're not quite sure why this is being considered at this time, and we oppose that. The commercial node on Edgar to Edgar Avenue, it's the same type of project that has been in existence for many years as a non-conforming use. There, you know, all of these businesses are a great asset to our community, but there is no reason to upzone any of these properties. The other one on Vineyard Commons over on, on Tuthill, corner of Tuthill Lane and, and Main Road there, it's also looking to upzone to Hamlet Center. We don't understand. It's an existing shopping area there now, and you're looking to upzone that one part. So we don't understand the, why this is being done. And if there has been any conversations with the town for, for these developers that are looking to develop that, I would hope that the town would put that forward so that it is studied in the, in the draft impact statement so that we can address those appropriately. But another concern we have about the property over on, for the Vineyard Commons is that we have a Hamlet zoning currently in Sessom. Right. Right. Right. We have a Hamlet zoning in South Jamesport, which allows for extension of the Hamlet zoning by a quarter of an acre off of the Hamlet zoning to create, zone those other properties within that, within that mile marker is Hamlet zoning. And we wouldn't want to see this sort of be a slippery slope for that as well. Laura, we're running out of time here. All right. I'm going as fast as I can here. The other one, well, we talked about the Hamlet, the other one is the golf cottages. We would urge the. The challenge to proceed with, with caution regarding the golf cottages and to establish street strict regulations. Should it choose to move forward in addition to requiring TDR credit for each of the cottages, regulation should limit the number of golf college structures per course and limit the rental of the college cottages to golf customers.
And the other one is the one that has the most ! Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening. Mike Foley, Reeves Park. I brought a little show and tell stuff here. I want to congratulate the person who brought this postcard out because clearly you achieved what you wanted to achieve, which was to fill this room tonight. Certainly your issue is an important issue, but it's one of many important issues in a comprehensive plan. And it's a little troublesome to me that a majority of tonight is going to be rehashing the fact that the public school advocates don't want to fund the charter school. And there were very few people here to talk about the charter school benefit. So I figured, you know, I'm an underdog. Why don't I start? On the 9th of May, I went to. A graduation in Manhattanville University. My niece was getting an M.S. in education. And one of the most celebrated people at this ceremony was a guy named Ray Ancrum, who was putting in for his doctorate. His dissertation was black male principals engaging black parents in urban charter schools and interview study. Now, most of you know what a dissertation involves. It's heavy. It's a heavy. It's a heavy lift. Ray was celebrated. So we have to at least understand that the guy that's running the charter school system is a legitimate guy. He's a guy that's working in the best interest of whatever students come there. And I'd just like to turn this around a little bit. The public school system of Rivette has sports, extracurricular activity. They have special ed programs. The charter schools have none of those. Why are they in such demand? I just can't wrap my head around that. But I can wrap my head around some of the headlines in the public school system, which is bothersome to me. We have more than a handful of high-level people in the Rivette School District that left their jobs under suspicious circumstances and got six-figure payouts with nothing in return. I would suggest that that money is troublesome. And the fact that it stayed behind closed doors is troublesome to me as well. I look at the cap right now at the Rivette School District. It's looking to pierce. And all I would say is that when we have the state of New York and the federal government funnel millions of dollars due to COVID into the school system, and the schools grabbed it and used it, some of them prudently, some of them not prudently, now we have this budget shortfall. So this budget shortfall that we want to talk about the charter school system. When Rivette... puts a school up, a public school up, are they going to pay taxes? We need seats in Riverhead. Whether they're charter or public, we need seats. And I think when you look at that, I think this argument is a little disingenuous. So I'll just end on that. I hope other people can talk tonight about something other than the issue that everybody here obviously is in support of. And that is banning charter schools to the benefit of public schools. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Anybody has anything other than charter schools? No, they won't have the right to public hearing. They can't. They can't. Good evening. My name is Tom Payton, Riverhead resident. I'd just like to correct the wrong information the last speaker spoke. Riverhead Central School District is not looking to pierce the cap. Thank you. Town Supervisor Hubbard, it was reported in a local news article that you stated in a discussion about the Riverhead Charter School that it was your understanding that they were looking to pierce the cap. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. at the industrial core of the Calverton Enterprise Park, but the cost was, in your words, way out of their budget. You also mentioned in that article that it was your understanding that the charter school was looking for 40 acres of land, of which you stated, there are not many parcels within our town that size that are available. Mr. Supervisor, that may be true, but why would you and this town board then decide it is your responsibility to somehow assist them in finding acreage of that magnitude by gifting them a carve-out in your original comprehensive zoning plan? If this were to go through, you are removing a significant amount of land from our tax rolls in direct opposition to the whole purpose of establishing those new zoning districts. Is it your intent to attract other private schools to these zoning districts? I cannot imagine so. Private schools, just like the Riverhead Charter School, are not going to be able to attract other private schools that would look to occupy a significant amount of land, a good portion of which would be for fields. That would further reduce the amount of commercial development and potential tax revenue that would be generated by establishing these zoning districts. No, this carve-out is obviously a handout to the Riverhead Charter School. It is wrong. It calls into question what were the conversations and negotiations that took place that led to this egregious modification of your original plans. The public school district does not need this modification. Please do the right thing and remove this handout from your final plans. If the Riverhead Charter School wants such a large expanse of acreage, either let them find it in their zoning area they qualify for, in the town, or look elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening. Garrett Moore, Main Street resident. Although with this, I'm not sure I can say anything about the impact of this. I'm not sure I can say anything about the impact of this. I'm not sure I can say anything about the doom and gloom of the Newsday article. I might have to change my address to Peconic River if we keep getting east winds. Supervisor Hubbard and members of the town council, your decision to become public servants is an admirable decision. As of yet, I do not have experience as an elected public servant, but I do have 20 years of experience of public service as a social studies teacher in the Riverhead Central School District. Currently, I am the Key Club faculty advisor. Along with the Key Club students, I have given back to the community, this year by hosting Safe Halloween, racing in a coffin race, helping in a community garden, raking leaves at Hallifell, and participating in the town cleanups. During our annual homeless night, we raised over $1,000 that we donated to our local bread and more soup kitchen, and we collected non-perishable goods for the Open Arms Care Center. We also co-hosted a Thanksgiving turkey drive with the support of the Jerry and the Mermaids restaurant, as well as other local businesses, including Miss Waski's Peconic Abstract. Thank you. One thing we struggle with in Key Club is our contributions to the larger Key Club district and our governor's project. As a Title I school, we have such a need here, we often find our focus helping the immediate needs of our school district and our local community. In my AP United States History classes, while covering the Gilded Age, we often examine the political cartoons of Thomas Nast. Thank you. Thank you. In his work, Wholesale and Retail, Nast depicts Boss Tweed fleecing the people of New York as he walks out of City Hall with his pockets bulging with cash while being saluted by police officers. This contrasts the retail cartoon, also by Nast, where a man is being taken down by police for stealing a loaf of bread from the local bakery. This recent proposal by the town to the Comprehensive Plan, which would remove industrial land off the tax rolls for the construction of a charter school, reminds me very much of the aforementioned cartoon. In this case, however, it is the already burdened taxpayers of Riverhead who will be fleeced. And now, we'll have to reach deeper into their pockets to pay for this gift. It is without question that people are profiting off of this proposal. The big and unanswered question is who these unnamed investors are. It is often said that we study history to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Riverhead already has a connection with Boss Tweed. This is enough. I implore the town board to reconsider this change to the Comprehensive Plan. The 309- 309-page proposed Comprehensive Plan is a massive amount of information to digest. I appreciate the extension and the second meeting on the 29th. Unfortunately, I'll be at the Key Club installation there. I'll be unable to make that. It is imperative that additional time be given to the residents to ruminate on the proposed changes to this Comprehensive Plan. Riverhead has great potential, but we cannot afford to rush this plan into action. I'll conclude with a quote by Abraham Lincoln. If I had six hours to chop down a tree, I would spend the first four hours sharpening the axe. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Richard D'Alsaise, and I'm a graduate of Riverhead Central School District. I'm a parent of four children in the community, as well as a 20-year teacher within the district. I have long wondered why there is a lack of cooperation and camaraderie from the town board with school officials. We have a joint goal of improving the town and enriching its citizens. In addition, a thriving public school is a direct reflection upon its town and often the first goalpost community members look at to determine the success of an area. For this reason, I cannot fathom why the town would aim to hurt its own public school community. Rezoning industrial buildings and industrial land to support charter schools does just that. It hurts the 5,500 children enrolled in the Riverhead public education system. Rezoning of industrial land to allow the expansion of the charter school will permanently remove a significant tax roll to the town and the public education system, once again depriving students of much-needed funding for simple yet vital improvements to their education. This includes smaller class sizes, aids in kindergarten classrooms, and small group support services for students. I have sat in a meeting with the IDA in which the town claims tax breaks for the industry is a net positive for the town as it attracts businesses, even though it removes funding to the public school system. How can tax breaks be okay to draw in businesses while at the same time removing industrial land away from potential business owners be justified? The town is just throwing away potential opportunity to draw in taxpaying enterprises. It's a double whammy for the public school where every dollar of funding counts. The town may claim there are larger issues at hand, such as the Riverside redevelopment plan, but the truth is that any time public money is siphoned away to fund a privately operated charter school, the children of the public school suffer, and therefore the town suffers. We may be dealing with some of the most of the most serious threats to our public school system at once, but that does not negate the obvious negative outcome rezoning industrial land has by removing potential funding to the public school system. The health and prosperity of our town is intricately connected to the public school system. It is time the town recognizes this and takes action to support the Riverhead public education system. Thank you. Thank you, Rich. Thank you, Kathy. Good evening. Good evening. Kathy McGraw from Northville. I've actually read through the whole plan and I've spent an extraordinary amount of time. Hello, Kathy. I have all kinds of comments to make and three minutes isn't going to cut it. This is a really important issue and an hour of our time has been on one, maybe two pages. And I think that we have a lot of time to discuss the overall issues in the comp plan. So I would beg your indulgence just to give a little more time to folks who are talking about the overall issues in the comp plan. Kathy, no, you can also send emails and we read them. I understand that. I understand that. But I think it's really important. Comments were sent in on the draft plan. They weren't made public. I think this is a public endeavor. And I think it's important that folks understand that they're not the only ones who are making the decisions of their fellow citizens. That's Jim. Don't we make that public? Jim, they can get the... Didn't they get posted? Any letters that came in? Any letter came through me. They were all posted, Kathy. They were all posted. Everything's posted. So that's inaccurate. Can you confirm that? Please don't state that. I... The clerk is right there. He's confirming it. I can confirm that since I'm the town clerk. Every letter that comes in is a public letter. But people submitted them in different ways. And I'm not sure they all went through your office. Well, no. Some went through planning. And they're in the back of... If you look at the... I think the... They're all listed in the back of the... Well, I don't want to argue about that. But I really do think it's... I mean, will all the comments be posted that come in after this? They're in here. After this hearing tonight? We can post them. Absolutely. Everything tonight is posted as a sonographer today. It's recorded in the party. Okay. It's recorded in the party. Okay. But very little... I mean, what is being said tonight about the comp plan itself? It's mostly about the charter school. Yes, it's school. So if I can just get started on the comp plan, I would say to the consultants, my hamlet is Northville. And I feel kind of neglected because you said in your description of Northville that it is part of a larger wine region. It's primarily agriculture and single-family residential. And there are several... There are several vineyards and wineries. The historic center is located on Sound Avenue. There's something else really important in Northville, and that's the United Terminal, the oil terminal. It is a great big non-conforming use on the bluffs of the Sound. And I think there should be some consideration in the comp plan because there have been requests for expansion of that. And I just think it should not be totally ignored in our comp plan. Other non-conforming uses were mentioned. There are lots of things I really like, and I'd love to be able to say them here publicly because I usually am always saying, criticizing. No. I know you don't believe that. But for example, I really think that... I applaud codifying the recommendation to codify the Downtown Pattern book. I agree with the recommendation completely for the town board to collaborate with the IDA. They need to be on board and in sync with this comp plan and not operating in their own little world. I have some of these... Well, I won't go into all my little nitpicking things. But I do have a question about solar on farms with respect to... I have a question about solar on farms with respect to... I have a question about solar on farms with respect to... I have a question about solar on farms with respect to... I have a question about solar on farms with respect to... vertical farming. Because I think it could... If... The New York state law is that a farm can have 110% solar. 110% with 10% being more than the amount it needs to operate its farm. Well, if you have vertical farming, you could end up, I believe, with a whole lot of demand for electricity and a whole lot of solar, in what we are trying to preserve as scenic agricultural property. On the TDRs, I don't really understand completely TDRs. I'm not any kind of... I don't really... I know a little bit about it. But I have to say that making RA80... receiving and sending districts strikes me as a way to facilitate agritourism... resorts on the Sound. I understand, I totally understand wanting to preserve the agricultural land north of Sound Avenue, which is zoned RA80, it's not APZ. But there are other ways to do it, cluster developments, purchase of development rights, and what I really want to talk about is agritourism and agritourism resorts. The ComPlan says in its goal that
the goals are designed not only to foster growth, but to prioritize the enhancement of residential quality of life while safeguarding river water. I view that as saying what the people, what the residents want should be given priority.
And when it comes to agritourism resorts, I feel like there has been an attempt to conflate agritourism with agritourism resorts in the last few years. I think that's an important in an effort to allow such resorts on the sound. The state definition of the New York State agriculture and markets define agricultural tourism as activities conducted by a farmer on a farm for the enjoyment and or education of the public, which primarily promote the sale, marketing, production of products and enhances the public's understanding and awareness of farming. These resorts will not be on farms. They will not be farm stays because farm stays are an example of agritourism. They will have spas, they will have pools, they will have restaurants, they will have tennis courts, they will have pickleball courts. And yes, the ComPlan says in the future land use chapter that there is a section on agritourism which says
there is, country tourism falls into the more general category of agritourism defined as any agricultural activity that attracts tourists who are interested in seeing, learning about or participating in the activity. You can provide tours, allow visitors to pick up community.
There are ways to make their own produce, sell locall locally grown products and there are an agritour, that is what we think of when we think of agritourism. And we have a lot of it. I mean we have tourism coming out the wazoo if you are on sound avenue in the fall. We have agritourism big time and I think we should maybe be talking about economic development at EPCAL. Whereas the plan says that tourism is an ideal and an ideal Agritourism is a most important, the primary area for economic expansion. I don't agree with that. I think EPCAL and industrial areas should also be considered. Agritourism, I think, is just a way to allow these resorts. The town can't control whether these resorts use farm-to-table materials for dining. They can't require them to have educational courses, to have experiences on a farm. Once these things are built, they're going to be just flat-out resorts. And I don't think the people of Riverhead want resorts on the bluffs of the Long Island. I don't think they want sound, which is one of the historic, scenic advantages of Riverhead. Okay, I am really coming to an end here. Although I know everybody's dying to hear more. Just let me say, I do have a question. And if anybody could answer this for me, I'd be really interested. There's a recommendation in the Complan that farm operations be permitted on all agricultural land in the town. Right now, they're only permitted in the APZ. They're not allowed on farmland north of Sound Avenue. I don't understand that. Maybe I don't understand what farm operations are, but I don't get why they're only allowed in the APZ. Can any of you enlighten me? This farm is north of Sound Avenue? They're not allowed. Farm operations are not allowed there. The comp plan recommends changing the zoning to allow farm operations on farmland in the RA80 zone. Have you read the comp plan? Actually, I have, and I totally agree with it. You what? I've read it, and I totally agree with it. I've been on this hearing. Do you know why it was that way? I'm just really curious to know why. And I looked at the definition of farm operations, and I live up there, and it looks to me like there are farm operations north of Sound Avenue, so I don't really get that. And I'd be interested to know more about that in the comp plan. And I have many more nice things to say, and I will put them in writing. Thank you. Thank you, Kathy.
Hello, I'm Matthew Jakubowski, lifetime resident in Riverhead, teach in Riverhead. My kids went to school in Riverhead and, you know, benefited from all the experiences they had in Riverhead. I'm not a great public speaker. I had my speech after hearing everybody else speak. They said the sort of same things that I would say. So, you know, I'm not sure why we would spend so much money to zone the district, the town, and then all of a sudden make changes for one entity. That's up to you guys to decide. I'm not sure why you're doing it. And my appeal is more towards, at this point, the heart. When I look around the room of all the people that grew up in Riverhead, you know, have their kids. I've taught your kids. I've looked up people's kids and their sport world in their colleges because they came through the district. And those people are not going to be able to do that. People probably know who I'm talking about that are sitting in this room right now. But it makes me sad that it appears that the town is cutting away at the foundation of itself. Every town, like was said, is built, I think, on its school district. The lifeblood of the district is through its children, through its families, through their enjoyment and growth here in Riverhead. As many of you have experienced. And I hope you take that into consideration when you're sitting through all the legalese of doing what you do. Life is simple. You know, the district is important. You know, hopefully everybody here that has been in Riverhead had an enjoyable time. You remember those sporting events you went to. That is disappearing. You know, bring in, you know, a private entity, you know, that doesn't have to be a private entity. You know, that doesn't have to follow the same rules as your public institution is difficult. It's not fair. You know, I had a whole example set up of, you know, you know, framers and building and maybe putting a project out and you get the bid. And then for a 10-house building, you have to have your plumbers, you have to have your electricians, you have to have everybody in place and price everything out accordingly. And then one of those houses is going to be given to a framer to do. All right? And he gets the same pay that you got. Yet he sits there and goes, well, I can't do the plumbing. Send your plumber over to get my plumbing done. Send your electrician over and your roofer. And the house is built. He benefited from all the funds going to him for doing that job. Yet he didn't have to supply half the things. So, you know, please consider, you know, what you're doing. And, you know, Garrett's axe is being used right now in the Rift Head School District and on the town itself. So when you make your decisions on what you want to do, just be aware of the consequences. And those people here will have to live with those. That's it. I'm just, you know, appeal to the heart instead of all the technical stuff, the money stuff, whatever else is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. So that's all I have to say. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Good evening. My name is Derek Stein, and I'm speaking here tonight on behalf of the Long Island Housing Coalition. Firstly, I'd like to just thank you all for the work that's been done on this project going back years. I used to work for Legislature Al Krupsky and Catherine Stark. I know this has been going on for a long time. So, you know, thank you for your effort and your work on this. Thank you. And, you know, one thing I really want to touch on is I applaud the efforts to include ADUs, accessory dwelling units, in this program. Is there a way to add density to the town without compromising the existing character, eating into farmland that is already facing development pressure since COVID especially? And as we deal with high interest rates and the increase in foreclosure cases, it allows homeowners to have a secondary source of income that will really just help to keep people in their homes. It will help keep. Seniors able to live here, but also young people, people my age, will be able to afford to live here in one of the accessory dwelling units. And so it's a way to keep that supply going and really just keep people coming into Riverhead and living here. And I also applaud the support for the mixed-use development, particularly the adaptive use development in downtown areas. As that's something that, you know, I think it's been a proven model on Long Island that works, but it's also a way to really, again, just increase that density, allow for more housing supply, but not to dramatically change the character of the community or any of the hidden to the farming or any other area. But I do want just to make one comment, particularly regarding a definition of affordable housing on page 42. There it makes note of the affordable housing starting at 130% AMI. So just for reference. For a family of two, that 130% AMI that's determined by HUD, area median income, is $162,600. And, you know, 80% AMI, which is more the standard that a lot of affordable housing has done on Long Island, that is $71,400 for an individual. And it's only $100,000 for 80% or two people. So, you know, again, just to put that out there. And the perspective for a Riverhead teacher starting out, they just got their teacher's license. Their starting salary is about $53,000. So, again, that's just with 80% AMI, that will put that into more of a better range for people to be able to qualify for that assistance and get that affordable housing and be able to afford to stay here and teach here. You know, and again, so that would just be my one request. And I think that's the only way that we can get that definition just be amended to include moderate income, 80%, to 130%, and low income as, you know, just to have that as a definition for any future development. Thank you, and have a good one. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening, Supervisor, members of the Riverhead Town Board. My name is Tommy John Scavone. I am a councilman in a neighboring municipality. I'm the mayor of South Hampton Town. Welcome to Riverhead. Good to see you. Now, I'm speaking specifically toward the comprehensive plan and your decision, perhaps, if you go through with this, to make some industrial zone land available to private schools and or charter schools. I would like you to reconsider that decision. Charter schools act to siphon land. The money is away from the public school districts. And that in conjunction with your IDA here in Riverhead puts a significant cost burden on residential taxpayers. And as you know, the Riverhead Central School District goes significantly into the town of South Hampton in the hamlets of Flanders, Riverside, North Hampton, and the Red Creek area of Hampton Bay. So we would ask that you reconsider that and not shift the tax burden over to the IDA. Excuse me, over to the residential properties because of this possible expansion of a charter school. Charter schools, they siphon money from public schools. I can't say that enough. It's important. And your policy here would help facilitate that. Please reconsider. Our schools are the center of our communities. We have to keep our public schools strong. Really, thank you. Really thank you. Really thank you. it's, you know, a lot of everything that we believe in is based on that. In addition, and I will end with this, as a neighbor municipality, we should have been considered as an interested agency with your comprehensive plan, and we should have been included in it. We did not get sent a copy of this, and I respectfully ask that this public hearing be left open so that you could send the neighboring municipalities a copy of your IDA, as per New York State municipal law. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening. Colin Palmer, Northville. My comments pertain to the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan pertaining to private schools being allowed in industrial zones, but I'm not speaking tonight as the president of the Riverhead Board of Education. I'm speaking tonight as a lifelong member, a lifelong resident of this town. And many of my fellow residents have already voiced their concerns about how this change will affect the Riverhead Central School District, and I won't rehash what they've said, but I'd like to touch on something a little bit more existential. Do we as a town want to focus on directly helping the public or the private sector? You know, the quick fix is privatization. Have someone else do the day-to-day work and maybe see some cost savings. That's what competition is supposed to lead to, right? But the government shouldn't be a business. The invisible hand of the market doesn't dictate what our community needs. We do. Obviously, we have a responsibility to the taxpayers not to waste money, but that's exactly what this kind of artificial competition does. It wastes money treating our public resources like an industry that's supposed to churn out a product. You've heard previously how this happens when charter schools, are not able to afford to pay for their school. And that's why we're here today. We're here to expand, eliminating the vital democracy that is needed in all of our lives. That democracy will be seen tomorrow with the Riverhead Central School District budget vote and trustee election, two things that do not exist with the Riverhead Charter School. You can scrape away at these resources over time, contracting services out, but at the end of the day, what will we have left? A shiny town hall on Second Street and not much else. This comprehensive approach to the riverhead charter school will be seen tomorrow. This comprehensive plan moves us in that direction, but it doesn't have to. The buck stops with you. Change was promised during the last election, and I implore this board to remove this clause from the plan. Thank you.
Hi, Janice. Janice, when I thanked the steering committee earlier, also I want to thank you for helping us as a consultant on this comp plan, too. Thank you very much. My pleasure. There's a few things I just wanted to comment on, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. And I want to apologize. It's a little disjointed. I'll type this all up neatly and send it in so it can be looked at by Noah and his team. But a couple of comments about just figure two, three. This is about the generic environmental impact statement. I, too, would ask that you keep this open so that we can have more time. It was a lot of dense information, and a lot to digest. I get a lot of questions from a lot of people. And so I just think if we had a little more time, that would be very useful. But anyway, about figure two, three, the proposed PRC zone along West Main Street. This allows up to eight units per acre, four as of right, and then actually 12, and then eight with TDR. My question is, how does the four units per acre comply with the health department standards for groundwater management zone three, when there's no sewer capacity, as you know? And then, you know, the other question is, how do we make sure that we have a lot of water supply for the connection of West Main Street and no, you know, on-site area that can comply with the DEC wetland setbacks? The other question is to analyze how parking could be accommodated when these lots are extremely narrow and have to comply with the DEC freshwater permit requirements. Then I would say the GES should analyze the impacts of this development potential for compliance with lot size, lot coverage, and riverbank setbacks in the riverbank space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space It says, I'm sorry, let me just go back to that. Basically, you should move density away from sensitive areas, but then it locates it right there where that would be a sensitive area. Part of the BOA study, I think, indicated that they wanted on West Main Street, they wanted the north side of West Main Street to get the extra density, the south side to be left alone for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, but because of that, they would increase the density on the north side of West Main Street. That was straight from the BOA study. The TDRs are supposed to direct growth away from areas with unique natural value, which is the river. Right. So that's where the growth direction doesn't entirely make sense, so that would be a comment to just take a look at that.
The EPCAL, obviously, I still feel strongly, and I told this originally, like we really like to be... be able to understand what's going to happen there and understand the growth-inducing impacts of anything that happens there to then understand what all the other changes are going to lead to. So I know it's excluded, but it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to exclude that because of the fact that, you know, this could be... change the direction of the entire town, and so we don't know what's going to happen, and so how can you let all these other things happen when you don't know what's going to happen there? So it's a little confusing. Let's see. Let me just scroll down to my other comment. Section 2.6.4.5 would ask, how does an increase in the CRC zoning districts from 4 units per acre to 12 units per acre equal a modest density increase, as that's three times the amount? In PRC districts, density is shown to double from 4 to 8 if there's TDR and sewer, and then the details related to these adjustments would be determined at a later stage. So it's just... I think we need to understand those details. And Table 2.9 indicates that existing CRC zoning would allow 44 units, but then the proposed CRC zoning would allow 326 units, and then 489 with the use of 82 TDR credits. So that's not necessarily modest, right, going from 44 to potentially 489. And then the PRC zoning says it would allow for 4 units now, and then... later, 30. So that's, you know, for now, 30 later, that's not necessarily a modest increase either. The definition of a PRC district indicates that residential uses are not permitted, but then it says that contradicts the fact that 4 units of residential will be allowed as of right. So an residential is allowed. The full build-out doesn't really show that. It says full build-out results in 202. Daily. Daily trips, which is significantly larger than the underlying zoning. So it's just, like, not really clear on how much impacts there will be. That's what... Out about that, I really urge you to, like, include APCAL in these considerations. Also, just lastly, I'd like to say that CPF pilot funds, this should be analyzed. If you're taking TDRs off for 7,000 acres of farmland, that farmland goes as open space characterization, right? Classification. Once you pull those TDRs off, you're now designating those as open space. When you do that, those parcels now come off the tax rolls also. And what's happening in the school district as it is, as you are aware, you're not using current CPF revenues to pay pilot payments to the school district, which is of the utmost importance that the town commit to this. Look at the state law that says that you can do this. Make the commitment to the school district. Make the commitment to the school district annually to say, okay, we got this much in CPF revenue, we're going to give you this much. And then look at, as you move forward, those TDRs. Or we could just ask to borrow some from Southampton, since you have so much you don't know what to do with. Well, I live here, so that would be nice. And I would welcome that as well. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Janice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, ma'am, I'll run the meeting, but thank you for your comments. Go ahead, Phil. Phil Barbato, James Ford. I'll make this quick. I think that, as I understand it, you've divided up the meetings now. There's going to be a hearing on the DGEIS and the plan, and I salute you for that. I think it's really impressive that so many citizens have taken the time to read the plan itself and come here and talk. I'm very impressed by my fellow citizens. And I think, as is in the executive summary of the DGEIS, to quote in the introduction, a key aspect of environmental review process is the incorporation of public review and commentary in the decision-making process. This plan is going to stay with us. It's going to stay with us for 10 to 20 years. It's important that we get as much input as we possibly can, and I think you all agree on that, and you're supporting it, and I thank you for it. Just two quick comments. EPCAL, I think it's Chapter 13 of the plan, recommends a comprehensive study of EPCAL. It could be done simultaneously with what we're doing now, and I hope you do. I understand there is a working group in process now that you've supported, and I think that should continue. That's our biggest gemstone in our town, and we have to do it right, and we need to plan concurrently with what we're doing with the rest of the town. And it looks like you agree with that, and you're supporting it, and I thank you for it. One more thing. As a very happy owner of... 14-acre preserve farm, I really don't like these vertical farm recommendations. Vertical farming is not farming. If the citizens have spent a lot of money to preserve a farm, this would be especially for preserve farmland. If you've spent a lot of money preserving that land, the soil is what's important. You don't want to build on top of it. Put them in the industrial area. Put them... Put them in the commercial area, but don't put it on top of good, clean, pure, really valuable soil that we need here. So if you can... Vertical farming, fine. If people want to do that, that's great. Personally, I wouldn't want to do it, but it's... I haven't talked to a farmer out here yet that would want to do it, actually. Right. It's very expensive to do. Uses a lot of electricity. Right. It's not the best looking when they stack container on top of container. Right. The idea that you can grow a lot, it's the bottom line that matters. Yeah. Not how much you can produce. So I agree with that. Don't allow it on farmland is all I'm saying. Put it somewhere else where it can fit in with the other industrial uses. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Phil.
Good afternoon. Hello. Thanks for having us. Me? You're welcome. Thanks for coming. Anyway, my name is Barbara Ripple and I live in Calverton now. I moved from the North Fork. I moved from Kutchog where I had a wonderful house for 50 years, sitting on a bluff, could see water, raise my kids, et cetera. However, in the last few years, if you've noticed, South Old has become a great tourist place and the rules and the laws, et cetera, have changed. Even though my community set up a situation... I'm sorry. ...where houses could be rented for only for 14 days at least and could not be weekend, weekend. It doesn't matter. Not enforced. Are you going to enforce these rules? We certainly are. We have been. Okay. I'd like to see that. Anyway, it changes the whole neighborhood. In fact, it killed our neighborhood. It's now a war zone and people are not speaking to each other. There's a suit going on. It's really depressing to me that such a place... The other enforcement thing I want to know is I now live with Middle Road in my backyard as a number of people do all along Middle Road. There's a big sign that says trucks can only be eight tons. I don't know what that is. I'd love to be able to measure it. But there's a very big rolling noise frequently coming down that road. Yeah. Big trucks. Where's out the road? Are you going to make the road wider? Are you going to... How are you going to enforce that rule if you have warehouses at the end of the block where people want to get in, go out, et cetera? Who knows? Maybe planes dropping overhead, et cetera. If you do these things, you need to be very clear about the enforcement to protect the people who live there, not the people you want to come there. And I will say this because a number of people have asked me, how many of you live in an area where this is going to affect them? Big trucks, big warehouses, renters running up and down. I don't know. I don't know where you live, but I live in the middle of where these changes are going to affect me. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, good evening, supervisor and members. I'm Jane Hutchinson. I work for the University of Minnesota. I work for the University of Minnesota for the University of Minnesota for the
of the town board my name is jen hartnagel and i serve as the director of of conservation advocacy for uh group for the east end for the newer town board members and for those of you not familiar group for the east end is a professional environmental education and advocacy non-profit we've been around since 1972 and we serve the planning and conservation interests of several thousand member households throughout the five east end towns of long island and i appreciate the opportunity to comment tonight um forgive me in advance some of my comments do pertain to the dgis and i can't really uh separate them at this point we understood that we knew that going into tonight so we're going to allow it i'll keep it to three minutes though so i'd just like to do uh address two topics the first are the proposed changes to the industrial zoning districts within calverton as you know the town board adopted a moratorium on industrial and warehouse development within this area and that's the first thing that we're going to do is we're going to be looking at the development of a new industrial space and that resolution noted that approximately 12 million square feet of industrial space could be developed within the industrial a b and c districts and as you also know calvitan is within an environmental justice area the community advocated for that moratorium and it was granted on the notion that the forthcoming comprehensive plan would analyze this situation and propose changes that would mitigate this disastrous amount of development in fact the moratorium made it clear that traffic density and quality of life issues would seriously be examined and thus we relied on the comprehensive plan to address this issue unfortunately with the review of the dgis in a best case scenario with the use of tdrs this would reduce the density in that area by a mere 166 000 square feet that's peanuts compared to what can be built there to further put this into perspective this reduction is less than half the project size of the hk ventures warehouse project that was originally planned for the moratorium in 19ambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambamb anywhere this fundamental analysis should be fully explained within the dgis the dgis did not contain an overall assessment of need of warehouse space to help determine the appropriate amount that the air can handle like a carrying capacity in terms of traffic air pollution economics community character and the environmental justice issue absent additional information to the contrary it appears that the reduction in far was arbitrarily chosen the dgis should address this issue in detail i just wanted to uh speak about one other topic and then i'll conclude i wanted to address uh the inclusion of the proposed agritourism resort floating zone slated for the land north of sound avenue without having the specifics of the impacts of what this could potentially do in the area we respectfully request that it be removed from the comprehensive plan as suggested as a zoning amendment in our view the core of the dgis should be the land north of sound avenue and the other part of the area should be the land north of sound avenue and the other part of the area should be the land north of sound avenue value of farmland preservation is agricultural production not resort comp complexes offering farm activities it should not remain in the plan as a good idea if its impacts have not been fully addressed um in closing i would like to thank you for extending the comment period i think it's very important i have more comments i'm sure the community does um and so i again i appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and all the work that you all put into it and the community put into this it's a very important document thank you thank you john
actually i just wanted to get a seat after two hours uh sid bale aging waiting river president uh just two two quick comments by the way i i do want to thank the town board and i want to thank the planning staff uh for the opportunity to be here today and i want to thank the planning staff uh for the opportunity to be here today and i want to thank the planning staff uh for the opportunity to be here today and i want to thank the planning staff uh for the opportunity we haven't always we haven't always agreed but uh i think we've kept things agreed but uh i think we've kept things pretty civil pretty civil and uh along the way and uh it's been an and uh along the way and uh it's been an interesting experience a learning interesting experience a learning experience for me as well okay two quick experience for me as well okay two quick comments in the comp plan comments in the comp plan i think maybe noah might have written i think maybe noah might have written this one this one some changes can be adopted easily zoning changes and others need further study. The two I want to talk about are EPCAL and some of the previous speakers have pointed to the importance of EPCAL and EPCAL needs to be revisited and it needs to be revisioned and I can't add any more to it than that. The second thing I feel very, very strongly, even though I don't live in Calverton, in the last couple of years I felt like I was living in Calverton. Where's Hockley? No, okay. In chapter 13, the comp plan talks about definitions, giving, introducing new definitions for warehouses. The different types of warehouses. And I think this is extremely, extremely important because somewhere down the line the town board is going to probably address, hopefully address, changing the zoning code in the new industrial area in Calverton. And it does make a difference. What type of quote warehouse? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. operate during the day and the amount of traffic that they generate are just not fair to dump on the folks in Calverton. So I hope, you know, you take that into consideration. Thank you once again. Thank you, Sid, and thank you for your help on the steering committee. Thank you.
Good evening. Good to see you all again. How are you? I'm doing great. Georgia at Lawsier, South Jamesport. I'm going to use a few different hats here tonight. I don't envy you at all doing this comprehensive plan because I was around for the last round. And even though we were all part of it, you know, from the Civic Association, we were still left with the anomaly that almost cost us Sharper's Hill. And we spearheaded the fight to make sure that we preserved the open space and the historical artifacts of this town. So be careful because... what's happening... Now I'll change hats. I'll be back to a taxpayer now. To remove that much land from what's our taxable base means you're shifting it to us, the residential taxpayers. And that's unconscionable because you're doing it for a private entity. Did you do this for St. John's? For St. Isidore's? For Mercy? They were private schools too. None of them pay taxes. Exactly. So why are you doing that? Something for a few children versus the 50? 5,500 that need the help with the pilot taxes, with the IDA, and everything that's owed to us from the state for the state pilot taxes for the state parks. We need that help to educate the children. Our property values are heavily rooted in the quality of our school district. And you know and I know a good quality education is had here because both of our daughters are very successful young professional women who can't afford to buy a house in the town of Riverhead right now as individuals, let alone as a family member having two family income of 165,000. My daughter and her boyfriend make just under that as professionals. And this is a working man's town. We have the most open space and farmland. We need to preserve that and we need to balance it with properly governing the finances from what can make us money. And as far as resorts on the north sound on North of Sound Avenue. Wow. Talk about a big hit. We need to make a big hit to our natural resources and our history. Because don't forget I spent what 15 years on landmarks and preservation commission fighting for our historic corridors starting save the main road so that we would have another historic corridor that got shot down. So all of those properties are at risk too. That's our history. Our children will not value their future if we don't value our history. That's less than number one in history. So number two as a teacher right here in the heart of downtown every year we have children who come into my school. They are not getting my help because the charter school asked them to not come back. They don't take all students. We do. We service all students. And it's very near and dear to my heart because I have dedicated now more than 20 years of my life from the time I became a permanent resident of this town serving the children all of the children of this community no matter what they came to school with. And sometimes they don't. Sometimes they came to school with nothing. Sometimes my bulletin board is their refrigerator. We give them what they need. The charter school turns them away. My last comment is be careful because by changing that little area starts to sound a lot like spot zoning. Good evening. I'm Joan Sear from Jamesport. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a member of the executive committee of the greater Jamesport civic association which is comprised of about 170 residents and businesses within the town east of Route 105 to Laurel Lane. We consider this geographic area to be among the most treasured parts of the town. It's recognized and appreciated for its scenic beauty, its historic character, the agriculture, and the recreational opportunities. These attributes factor significantly in attracting tourists and vacationers to the town. We appreciate all of the work that the town has put into the comprehensive plan update and we support many of the plan's recommendations. We feel strongly that the town must facilitate prudent growth and management to maintain a balance between economic opportunity and preserving the area's rich history, the ! Strong rural and agricultural heritage and the precious natural environment of our North Fork communities. While tourism dollars from our area are a valuable contributor to the town, excessive expansion of tourism related activities such as so-called agritourism resorts would contribute to the area's downfall. Personally, I'm concerned that under the banner of attracting more tourist dollars, the town wants to pay for the ! ! If you pave paradise, you won't need any parking. Because people won't come anymore. So be careful and thoughtful in this plan. My civic association colleague, Laura Jen Smith, presented many of our specific areas of concern. In addition, we would like to request a closer review and clearer explanation of the population projections in the plan, which are included in Chapter 3 of the plan's plan. The plan is a project that will be completed in the next few weeks. The plan will be completed in the next few weeks. The plan will be completed in the next few weeks. Moderator Moderator It appears that the projections are based on Suffolk County's projected growth data and data from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. However, the plan states that the population of Riverhead grew by 30 percent from the year 2000 to 2020, while Suffolk County grew at 14 percent. So we grew much faster than the county, but we're basing our future growth on the growth of the county. So we need some clarification here. The comprehensive plan update should base its population growth for the town on Riverhead's recorded growth trends. It's important that the updated plan should include projected growth specific to our town and tipping points in the population growth, at which points the town would need to expand the school system, the sewer system, water resources, emergency services, and other infrastructure Thank you. Thank you. The consultants hired to write this plan should have the expertise to make those population growth based recommendations. We agree with the previous speaker that the comments submitted on the draft plan should also all be part of the public record. The Greater Jamesport Civic Association submitted 12 pages of comments on March 14th and it was discouraging to read in the press that not all of the comments that residents took the time to submit may have been included in the public record. They deserve to be so. And finally, the comprehensive plan is a complex document. It requires more time for adequate review and comment and we urge you to keep the comment period open for at least 30 days. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm the Director of the Council on Public Health and Human Services. I would like to thank you for extending the period of time that people can look at it. I've spent many hours and my eyes are crossed. I hear you. And my head is floating. Could we have your name please, ma'am? Adele Wallach and I live here in Riverhead in CD1. Thank you. Actually CD5 as a matter of fact. Anyway, I would just like to put my objections into raising the cap of 500 units for downtown. Having lived here. And try to get around these days. It's hard enough at the point we're at with residents and tourism and everything else that goes on around here. Adding more people and more housing and more to the school system that we already can handle. It just doesn't make any sense. So anyway, that was my objections and I appreciate the extension. Thank you. Thank you for speaking. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. sentence just says a future study would be required regarding the recommendations on exceeding the 500 unit cap and you know along with the TDRs and I feel like we've been working on a master plan now for three years and I thought we did a housing study so I'm just kind of confused why at this point a future study would be required and why we haven't been able to adopt something in regards to that. I think we're you know the town's investing a lot of money with the town square and we should be able to encourage the development that's compatible with the rest of Main Street so we could finish revitalizing it. Thank you. Thank you. Hi my name is Rita Pavone. I'm on the board of the HOA of San V. Meadows right up north of Sound Avenue. We as a board reached out to our 55 homeowners. They were overwhelmingly opposed to the hotel the development you know north of Sound. I've listened to everyone here and you know they are much more well read on your plan than I am. However from our point of view it's a quality of life issue we already deal with a lot of traffic on the weekend. You can't make a left out of our development you have to go right and turn around and then go left. That can't get any better. I mean you know with this kind of thing and you're you know you I believe in 1975 this town board declared Sound Avenue as a scenic historic corridor. We'd like it to stay that way. And I just wanted you to hear that. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Takwe Church and Greater Calverton Civic Association president. Really nice turnout tonight and thank you very much for making 6 o'clock and making it separate from your town board meeting and learning from NOAA that we're going to have a separate hearing for the GGIS is essential. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Both of those documents are over 200 pages and I'm still trying to digest and I get help. One thing I would ask for is that you do keep the open comment period longer than the 10 days for each one. You know pop it up to 30. It can't hurt us. It can only do us better because you'll get the support from the people that you need it from in order to get things done and for people to be happy about where they live. Really thank you for all the space. I just lost the letter. Our civic sent a letter. I literally lost it. Sent a letter in March with our comments, and I just want to do a highlight on a couple of the recommendations. I do agree with quite a few of the other speakers tonight, so I don't want to reiterate what they've said, but here are some highlights. The language such as urban areas, urbanizing, and Calverton Industrial District are incongruous to the meaning of the area and should not be used to describe the rural hamlet of Calverton. The future land use section does not effectively discuss growth management. TDRs are a good tool. However, there is a negative side effect. Open space in one area is preserved to the detriment of another area. I think that Janice Sherrod probably addresses this a little bit better than I'm going to now, so I'll leave the details to what she said and what she'll submit in writing. To be effective, the zoning for industrial development must require comprehensive traffic studies that encompass surrounding neighborhoods. Quite a lot of the traffic studies that I've seen in the planning board meetings that I've been in are cursory. They don't involve neighboring traffic intersections. So just a little bit more attention and detail to the neighborhoods would be helpful. It includes the local roads and infrastructure. The comprehensive plan of 03 designated their industrial A as light industrial, industrial B as general industry, and even proposed a new industrial recreation zone to encourage more development of tourist attractions and community improvements. They had the foresight to know that major industrial development belonged only at EPCAL. So we're asking for you to take a closer look at Calverton and specifically Middle Country Road and the intense density that's there right now. If you were to increase density there or increase projects there, it can only hurt us. And things like warehousing need to go up at EPCAL. And to take off on what Sid mentioned about the definitions of warehouses, we call it warehouse breeds. I'm sorry, I don't know where the timer is. I hear bells going off. Is that me right there? Yeah. Okay. So we do want to see more. We want to see more retention paid to the language of warehousing. So the folks 20 years from now kind of go, oh, they recognized what that was. Now we've got this. So that would be helpful.
The last thing I'm going to end with, and I'll resubmit this letter. I know it wasn't part of the record, the way this has been set up. It was submitted in March, but that's separate from the public hearing. It is a little difficult to understand how that works. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. A lot of people spent time, and thankfully, luckily, they CC'd the civic because I asked them to. But all those people have to go resubmit their information now, which can be done, but it would have been easier not to have to do it. My last comment is a question. Education is very important, and how we educate our children is very important. And have choices is very important. And rather than to debate the pro and con of what type of school, and to raise up one and lower the other, I'd like to ask the question, is the Riverhead Charter School, by their charter, bound to site their buildings only within the township of Riverhead? Absolutely not. With that as an answer, okay, so I did some research and I knew it was going to be the answer. But that's an important question. Their student body is made up of many children from outside of Riverhead. I feel that burdening Riverhead, and it would be a burden because we'd have to justify changing a lot of things, asked the Riverhead Charter School's long-term planning to rethink this and not put the ball in our court. We've done quite a lot. And yes, it was difficult. Some things weren't quite done the right way. But we shouldn't continue making mistakes like that. We should look and say, what are your other options? Thanks very much. Thank you, Dr.
Hi, everybody. Catherine Kent, Dating Hollow. As a lifelong resident north of Sound Avenue, I have to lend my voice to the people that are asking to have that section removed, the part on agritourism resorts. I feel as though someone looked and said, here's this one. Gorgeous part of Riverhead. Let's develop that. I'd like to see that area north of Sound left untouched. I also join in with everybody in asking to extend the comment period. I'm glad that you did that. That was a good idea, but I think it wouldn't hurt to do it even longer. I was thinking today about when they were designing my house. I got people to look at the kitchen with me, and I literally redid the kitchen on paper, six times. I think that it's cost effective and timely to make any changes and look at all these things now. So getting more input from everybody is always helpful. And lastly, I want to say that thank you guys for sitting up there. And there were so many great speakers tonight, and I appreciate all the people that took the time to look at this and put thought into it and come out tonight and make comments. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Chip, we have three online. Okay, we'll take those now. Okay. I just feel like I just need to clarify, I know with private schools, beloved Mercy, St. John's, and so forth, they were not in industrial zones. Okay, so we weren't changing anything, and besides providing busing, and you know, you had to go down to Bose's, get your text card, and make your card, textbooks, that was the public taxpayers' outlay and that was it. Here we are purposely changing zoning. We already gave six acres, which maybe you didn't know or the charter should have because they were chartered in 2000. That's their responsibility to adhere to their charter. So I think we've been pretty generous. And that again, that's their responsibility to take into consideration where they can go and to plan their enrollment appropriately. I know something was brought up about special ed students. They're also, the regents have to go to do site plans. And in their recent site plan, the latest one was they have to meet certain benchmarks. And they did not meet their benchmark number nine. It was approaches. It was for nine and ten. But the school is not making regular and significant annual progress toward meeting its enrollment targets for students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students. That was that latest site plan. And that's a continuous issue. We educate, when someone, the other teacher said we educate all students, we educate all students. The charter tried to defend that and they put up something which I took down on Facebook, saying how many students they educated from South Country, William Floyd, Longwood, Riverhead. They said it was 82. I foiled that information. I didn't get South Country's. But, and I can't, I have to give a total because of FERPA, but it was 51 students. So they should be, you know, more forthright with that. And that is something that they have to meet. The other thing I want to be able to address is that I know we, you're looking to increase down there. You know, the 500, the cap and so forth. You know, and I shared this information with you, but the students that are coming, for example, Peconic Crossing last year, there was 18. This year, 25. When you look at the multiplier, it said there was going to be three to four students. When you look at the curb, the Reese and the other multipliers. So we're seeing more students. And I've tracked that with you and I can provide you more information. But you need to be aware of that. And even if you're going to make it owner occupied, how do we know it's going to stay that way? They might be renting. But we're not up, you know, Nassau County, it's not commutable. What we're seeing is that there's more students coming from those apartments. Thank you. Thank you. Virginia Healy, Wading River. Mrs. Sinluski, can you hear us? Yes. We can't hear you, though. Are you muted? Can you hear me now? Very good and better. It's low. I can't read lips, so. Am I good now? Yeah, now you're better. That's better? Yes. Closer? Yep. Okay. Martin Sinluski, Riverhead. Comments regarding Chapter 13, Chapter 14. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. They would have to be permitted because you can't deny them a CO if you issue them a building permit. That was one thing that requires further study. They had three options. One was to increase the cap using TDRs and limiting it to ownership or senior citizens or age restrictions. Number one, I think that the ownership presents an issue legally in terms of condominium plans, co-ops, etc. I don't really think that's doable for a developer. Number two, the age restriction I don't think is required. Downtown areas actually are very good for younger residents as well as really old age residents being a walkable community. Their second idea was for adaptive reuse to increase the cap, which is to allow additional units above or within historic structures, which is very good. Because that allows... It allows for redevelopment of existing second floors, etc. So that's a good one. And number third was to reassess the cap with a couple of options, which basically circles back to the first thing that they said, that it requires additional study, which should be done in this case. And somehow done either concurrent to or semi-segregated from the overall master plan just to reassess the housing units in the DC-1 area. I'd like to also add that it does not have... It does not have... It does not have... It does not have... It does not have... It does not have... It does not have... Any reference in the master plan regarding DC-3, which is a very similar type of a use district as DC-1 with the exception of the residential apartments. Other than the TOD development, which is an overlay within the DC-3, there is no residential component. I would recommend that the DC-3 area be allowed to utilize apartments only on second floors. floors possibly within existing buildings. That really lends itself to a lot of, you know, buildings downtown that may be historic. Somebody has their office on the first floor. They do a residential apartment or two upstairs. They stay there. They rent one out. It's just a good option. The one thing that also would concern me is on the TDRs. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I think that has a way to go whether or not they're, the price is right. Um, I think, you know, depending on the TDR, if you're relying on the TDRs, I think there should actually be a cap as to what the TDR is valued at in the zoning code. There should actually be, and it could be adjusted annually or whatever, but a developer is going to need to know what the TDR prices are going to be if they're going to buy one TDR for one to four bedroom, you know, to four bedrooms in the DC one zone. So that's either four, one bedrooms or two, two bedrooms. They need to know what, that cost is going to be in a tangible, uh, uh, you know, in a tangible amount. So somehow the TDR program has to be controlled in terms of what a TDR costs. Uh, lastly, a good example of that, of both things, not discussing TDRs in, uh, DC three and not addressing the 500 foot unit cap. The TOD development is approximately 400 units in DC three currently. So that's adding 400 units over and above the 500 cap. And as right now does not require the TDR. So I'm sure if you went to the master developer and you told them that, okay, fine, you're going to build your 400 units by the way. And let's say a TDR was 80 grand. I'll just remember that was thrown out. They were like, um, Pine Barrens credits, et cetera. I don't know if that is what they are. I have no idea, but just using that as a benchmark that I'm familiar with, with the Pine Barrens. Tell them, oh yeah, by the way, you got to pay $8 million in TDR credits, uh, before we give you a permit, that project might go away, you know? So it's really something you got to look at. It does indeed require further study. So I just wanted you to consider further study for not only the DC one, but the DC three and surrounding downtown areas. Thank you. Thank you, Marty.
Have somebody else up online? Two more. Okay. John McCall. Can you hear me? John, you on? Yeah, I'm on. We can hear you. Okay. I'm, uh, in Ireland at the moment. Lucky you. Excuse me. Yeah. Rub it in, John. Rub it in. Happily so. Okay. I don't see a glass of Guinness in your hand. So for me, it's about 1.30 in the morning. I shouldn't say that. A couple of quick comments on the, uh, EPCAL pieces of this humongous project that's taken so much time. These are comments that I made in the earlier draft that don't seem to have been included. But I think that, you know, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to answer them. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to answer them. I think that there is a reference at several points to as though the only objection about aviation at EPCAL was cargo airports. It's correct that that's the one thing that the board previously expressed an opinion on. But I think in terms of the community, there's objection to any aviation use of EPCAL. And I wish that that would make it into the comp plan. Um. There's also, I think this language has been cleaned up, but often it's still some language that assumes that all the land is going to be sold and sold or leased. So, um, also, I think it, while the general language is good about EPCAL, it might also include some, uh, some of the things that are important to the community. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that there might be a space for discussion about the value of space in the space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space Is that frozen completely? Yeah, I don't. The system is. Let's continue for a minute. If I freeze. We can hear you right now, so go ahead. Okay. I just lost the picture. This host just stopped my video. Can you hear me, though? We can hear you. All right. All right. That's fine. You'll have to look at the gecko. So in the language relating to, I think it's the fire department or emergency services, there's a reference to reopening a road that goes by Wellbridge. And I don't know whether Wellbridge has been consulted about that, but I hope you would do that before leaving that assumption in there. The other thing is on the. The reference was made to the industrial land and the costs for the school. You're correct. Supervisor. Within the industrial park, it is outrageously overpriced. But. The land of Epco as a whole, I think, would not at all. Give it to the school. Going in there. The other thing that I wanted to say is not related to Epco, but I. As a resident. North of Sound Avenue. I still feel very strongly about not putting in the resort area. I also would hope that there would be the. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. I just procedurally, I know you want to not spend interminable hours, but it wasn't very long ago that hearings didn't have any time limit on comments. And then it was five minutes and tonight was three minutes. And I think that you may have cut out some comments. I think it's John, I've been very, very generous tonight with the time. So don't waste your time because you're about to be cut off. Yeah. Well, I think in principle, it would have been better to have announced the five minute rather than a three minute limit. You wasted another 40 seconds. Come on.
Just to say that finally, it's true that people can write comments, but that doesn't have the same community impact as people personally speaking. And it being the permanent video record for the town. So I hope that in the GIS session that you go back to the five minute limit. Okay. Thank you, John. Thank you. Have a safe flight back. We have one more online. Okay. Hang in there, people. It's almost over.
Ron, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Okay, you're on. Thank you. Ron Hariri of Aquabog. Riverhead is among the highest and poorest town on Long Island. Last year. Taxpayers got hit with the highest increase in the history of our town. And with all due respect to this board. Whatever you've been doing is not working. Perfect example. You speak about open space. Unfortunately, most people ended up purchasing during the pandemic in the other East End towns because Riverhead is a joke. You're down. Really? Riverhead has become known as the cocaine capital of eastern Long Island. All right, Ron, you know what? Why don't you submit your name and run for office, and we'll see how well you can do. It's open to anybody to want to do it, so I suggest if you're so great and mighty you can make a change, go for it. But I'm not going to listen to you segregate or really beat up our town publicly like that with calling it a cocaine place. So we can cut Ron off. Thank you. Appreciate it. Do we have anybody else here that would like to make a comment? Okay, I have a couple words I want to say. We sat here all night tonight listening to many, many school district people, parents, teachers, basically blaming us for defunding the school district. Let me tell you, the money you wasted on these, the money you wasted on the billboard truck, the money you wasted on your posters should have been spent going to Albany and arguing with the state who controls the funding for the charter school. Not us. We don't control that. We have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Yet you're trying to make it and put the blame on us, and that's wrong, and I'm sorry, but it's wrong. Now, I will also counter that by saying my great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father, myself, my wife, my five kids, and my grandchildren are now in Riviera. I bleed blue blood as much as anybody here from Riviera Central School District. But in my opinion, you wasted a lot of money and a lot of time tonight barking up the wrong tree. I'm sorry, but that's exactly how I feel. Your efforts should be put towards a state who can make a change in the funding for the charter school. I was on the school board. I know how it works. I 100% disagree with the way the funding is done. It is so. not fair to the public school district, but that's not the town board's issue. We're talking, I'm talking about that, and I'm not going back and forth, okay? You guys had your time to talk, my time now, okay? The funding is the issue, and it was the issue when the location was going up on Sound Avenue. It came out that that was the real issue behind not wanting the charter school up there. Let's call it what it is, people. It's exactly what it is. It wasn't the location, it's the charter school, and I agree 100% that the funding is awful, and it's disproportionate severely to the public school district, but take that argument to New York State. That's where you've got to fight that. We will support you with that, but to come here and say it's our fault that we're defunding the school district? Sorry, not buying it. Okay. Everybody, make a motion to close the meeting. We're going to extend the open comment period till May 29th. We're going to do the next meeting, will be next Wednesday. I'm sorry, May 29th is next Wednesday, six o'clock, right here for the DGEIS, and we're keeping the open comments open until June 10th. June 10th. We have another one this way. Okay. Second. I'm sorry, board members, do you have anything to say? I apologize. I'm good. Everybody good? Thanks for the participation. Okay. I heard a vote. Who seconded? Okay. I second. Seconded? Okay. Meeting is closed. Thank you for coming out.
Thank you.