Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you, Grace. And Councilman Rothwell, do we have somebody with us today to lead us in the invocation? We do. We are honored to have Reverend David Cook here from the Calvary Baptist Church here in Riverhead. Welcome, Reverend. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you for having me. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we come before you here this afternoon. We come before you humbly recognizing that we are in desperate need of you. We pray, Lord, that you would help us. We pray, Lord, that you would grant peace into these proceedings, Lord, that there would be peace that surpasses understanding, that everyone here would cheerfully and patiently hear what everyone else has to say, that there would be a sense of just charity for one another's opinions. Pray, Lord, that we would love one another as we would have others love us, Lord. We pray that we would consider others more important than ourselves. We pray, Lord, that you would. We pray, Lord, that you would. meeting, Lord, that, again, the things that are accomplished here would be profitable for those in this community, and that would be in line with your will. We just thank you, Lord, we praise you for all that you do. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Thank you very much, Reverend. Appreciate it. Thank you, Reverend. Okay, and I'll just make one quick announcement before we get started, which is, of course, the obvious, that Supervisor Hubbard is not with us today, and the reason for that is good news. He became a grandfather for the sixth time. They welcomed a little baby girl into the Hubbard family. Little Molly is doing just fine, so he's with the family welcoming Molly, and so we congratulate all them and wish them well. Mom and baby are doing just fine. So with that, I'll turn it over to the board if anybody else has any announcements they want to make. Now would be the time. I did not have a grandchild today. Oh, no? Okay. It's hard to compete with that. Well, that's why you're here. So my announcement is this coming Saturday, March 8th, is our second annual raising of the Irish flag, which we're doing in anticipation for the East Adnabal Society Jamesport Parade, which is March 15th. The flag raising is at 1030 in the morning at... What is the name of that? The George Young Community Center over there. It escaped me. Jamesport Avenue. So come on down and... And join us, and we hope to see you at the parade. And wear green. All right. Anybody else? No, thanks. And see our new motorcycle units leading the parade. Oh, okay. Which is a great excitement. Oh, that's exciting. Good. I have one thing. Sure. Tomorrow, March 5th, the Butterfly Effect is having a little gathering at their operation in Aquavog. I believe it starts at 12. Please check in with them to confirm that. Should be very interesting. Good. Okay. So we'll move on with the agenda. And Mr. Clark, we'll turn it over to you to take us through any correspondence and reports that we may have. Well, this should be brief as well. We have one correspondence, which was handed up actually at the last town board meeting, from Lorraine Wilson from Reeves Park, with pictures that got circulated to the board in reference to Reeves Park and the memorials that are placed there. Under reports, because it's so early on, we don't have any monthly reports. They'll be at the next meeting. So there's nothing to report on reports. And that's it. Thank you. Okay. Very good. So with that, we're going to move on to public hearings, of which we have eight on the docket today, seven of which are scheduled for 2 o'clock. So what we're going to do, just because we have two different planners who are going to kind of take the lead on the different hearings, we're going to go slightly out of order, then they're listed on the agenda. Right, Matt? That's correct. So we're going to take, Matt's going to walk us through public hearings number one, three, four, five, six, and seven. So he's going to introduce those, right? Did I get that right? One, three, five, six, and seven. I'm sorry. One, three, five, six, and seven. Yep. So you'll introduce those for us, and then we'll open it up to comment on any of those public hearings, and then we'll move on to the others. Perfect. I'll keep it very brief because it's very simple. So if you see in the agenda, these are amendments to the sign code, to the Pine Barrens Overlay District, the wireless communication code, the commercial solar energy production system code, and the B2B code. So what this does is remove the old zoning use districts that no longer exist. So that's industrial A, industrial B, and industrial C. And in search of the new zoning use districts, Calverton Industrial and Light Industrial, which Light Industrial already existed, but it was remapped a little bit. This is just leftover housekeeping from the comp plan. That's it. Come on, that's it? That's it. Okay. All right. So with that, does anybody in the audience have any comment? On any of the public hearings Matt just spoke about? Anybody online? No takers today. Okay. All right. So having said that, what we'll do is we will keep it open for written comment. It's going to be the same timeframe for all the public hearings today, but specifically for those that Matt spoke about until March 14th, 430, close of business on that day. So now we'll move on to Greg's public hearings, and he's going to take us through and introduce public hearing number two, and public hearing number four. Thank you. For the record, Greg Bergman, senior planner with the Riverhead Planning Department. So the first public hearing is an amendment to Article LVI site plan review of Chapter 301 of the Riverhead Town Code. Right now our preliminary site plan approval is valid for 12 months. There's the possibility of one six-month extension being granted by the reviewing board, whether it's the planning board or the town board. We frankly got a couple of applications that have a lot of outside agents, and we're going to have to make sure that we're getting them. But there's a lot of outside agencies that they're sort of trying to get their ducks in a row. So I'm proposing a code amendment to allow an additional six-month extension, which would essentially bring that preliminary approval valid for two years. No more than two six-month extensions could be granted. Frankly, if something, if an applicant hasn't gotten there, you know, pieces in a row, if they haven't gotten there preliminary and satisfied the conditions, two years frankly would be a time period where we may want to sort of take another look at it. You know, there may have been new development there. developments in the surrounding area that need to be taken into account. So this is just a code amendment to allow one additional six-month extension, and it also adds a $250 fee per those requests. Previously, we were not charging any fees for those extensions. Okay. Thank you for that. Anybody in the audience to comment? Anybody online? No. Okay. Oh, you do have one. Okay. Let's take that person online.

Good afternoon. Can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you now. Hello? Hi there. Go ahead, Marty. We can hear you. Yeah. Hi. Martin Senemulski, 215 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead. With regard to the extension, I mean, it's good to add another extension for six months, but the problem that we run into in preparation of site plans for approvals and special permits and final site plan approvals, especially special permits and preliminary site plans, the process takes a while. Like Greg said, there's a lot of ducks in a row. So, as an example, we have a project that, now, granted, eight months of the delay was on my client's part because he had to get a SWIP done. And he had an engineer that wasn't producing, so he had to switch to another engineer. But we had an eight-month delay on my client's part, but still, the SWIP took 28 months. Whoa. So, if you get rid of the eight-month delay on our part, it was a two-year project. So, it's a two-year process. They're in the preliminary site plan phase. So, my question is, and also, when it comes to preliminary site plans, we've had a couple of them expire, even though we've never received a notice from the town as required by the code that it's going to expire. So, you know, inadvertently, a couple have expired because of, you know, it's been a year or whatever. My question is, what's the legislative intent here? In other words, what's the legislative intent? Why do special permits and preliminary site plans and even final site plans, why would they expire? If there's no change in the zoning, there's no change in the underlying parameters of the project, why does somebody invest in a project, go through all that process, and sometimes the process can take years just to have it expire within a certain period of time if they want to sit on it, sit on it, and then go back to it? Yeah. [transcription gap] Yeah. Yeah. I would say that things certainly evolve over time. In a period of two years, there may be local alerts changing. When we're looking at overall site plans and we're looking at, I'll take the emergency side of things, fire trucks, dimensions, sizes, particular apparatuses, advance over the years, they change. So we look at new radiuses, specifications for site plans. So, you know, a new fire truck takes over now at this point two years to order one and to have one installed. So when they arrive on scene, you know, they're that far behind in the factory making of things. So I don't think there's an issue with after a two-year time frame to go back to a site plan and take a look at it and see how we have evolved in a town to emergency access, site plan, just things, you know, that grow. We've talked about a couple of different building legislations, just as you led in with pervious pavers, non-pervious pavers, just in terms of whether we're going to just amend site plans to allow different things. And, you know, that's a big part of it. And we're looking at more decorative and landscape work to be done on different site plans. And so things evolve, and we want to make sure that we stay conformed to that. So two years, I think, is a pretty long time. Well, and so for the board's knowledge, two years is just for the preliminary. Once an applicant, you know, finishes their SWIP, gets all the other necessary outside approvals, they're granted a final site plan approval by the board, which is valid for three years with the possibility of a 12-month extension. So when you look at the... I mean, the totality of what we're considering, it would be two years for a preliminary and then four years for a final. So, I mean, if something is going to be built in six years, I mean, I think that's perfectly reasonable. Again, a lot can change in six years where you may need to reassess that. And, Mr. Berman, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is also move on from a developer, not tie up the property if they can't get the preliminary done within two years. Isn't that part of this legislation as well? Not necessarily. We would like to see projects brought to completion. Again, the 28-month SWIP review, I can't speak to any specific... I have no knowledge of that, but I would certainly say that's likely the outlier. Again, you know, I've seen SWIPs that are approved much, much quicker than 28 months. There is a little bit of review back and forth. But a SWIP is only going to be as good as the, you know, preparer of that SWIP. You know, there's regulations by the DEC and the SWIP guidelines. You know, if something's prepared and they adequately address a lot of those points, there's no reason why that should take 28 months. But I can't speak to that specific application with any knowledge. But, again, I think six years for something that would be built is very reasonable. I guess the question I have is when you use the term that right now it expires, it would almost be better if, yeah, if a project is delayed and then it starts up again and there's a fee to check. I mean, you know, it's not like you're going to have to go back and forth between the site again to make sure it meets the current codes if there were things that changed either in the zoning or in certain requirements that affect the site. But the expiration means you go back to square one. It means you have nothing. So if you do a site plan and for whatever reason, it could be somebody passes away and the approval is now in an estate that takes time to settle or whatever the reason might be. Okay. If it expires. They lose everything. They lose all of the investment and all of the effort. Why? I mean, I understand the reviewing it again and paying a fee to reinstitute the project to reinitiate it, to get it started again. I agree with that. But why would any of these approvals expire where you have to go back to square one? That's really, I think, where an issue that has to be addressed. And is it your intent? To say, look, after a certain period of time, no matter what the circumstance, tough on them, go back to square one and start over. So, Greg, if somebody completed their SWIFT plan and their application expired, does that mean it's not usable or you simply file it with the current data? You would just refile the application. So I wouldn't say all is lost, Marty. It's just a matter of refiling, resubmitting with updated codes. Yeah, but then it's going to go through the process again. It's going to go through the same process. It's going to go site plan review, ARB, historic. It's going to go through every, it's basically a do-over. Unless I'm wrong. It may be great to clarify that. I mean, to put it down bluntly, yes. I mean, again, six years. Six years, I believe, is a very reasonable time to complete a project. I mean, again, if, by this logic, if we just continue it, would we want something that was approved maybe 20 years ago that never got built? That just, oh, well, they had an approval 20. 20 years ago, so here's a building permit. You know, I... So I imagine there is a time frame, Marty, when CEQA does expire. And so with that being said, that CEQA, after a certain period of time, would have to be updated and have to be re-reviewed. And you couldn't carry it for beyond that time frame, correct? Okay. I mean, a secret determination wouldn't necessarily expire. But again, there's many different factors. And I think, I mean, we're talking about granting an extension. You know, allowing for additional extensions right now. The code has, you know, an 18-month limitation on a preliminary approval. We're trying to be more sort of receptive to the development community, not have certain applications expire. I mean, again, if the board wants to consider this for a future action, we can discuss that. But I mean, I think what we're here is commenting on allowing an additional six-month extension on a preliminary approval. Yep. If there are, in fact, surrounding projects that, you know, we're talking about, you know, we're talking about one site plan and then something to the left or to the right of it is developed over that period of time, then you probably will be looking at a new site plan to see how the adjacent parcels currently affect the new project. All right. We may look for additional cross-access. You know, it's very difficult to speculate how a neighboring property would be developed. But yes, in that case, we might look for additional cross-access locations that would help facilitate, you know, traffic flow, pedestrian flow, that sort of thing. So. Just because one development may be stalled, it doesn't mean that the surrounding areas are not. And they're moving forward and they have an overall impact. Correct. I guess then the only comment I would have is if you had two extensions, which is good, could you make them two one-year extensions instead of two six-month extensions? Because in terms of development, even in preliminary site plan, to be honest with you, three months, I mean, three years at times seems like a flash in the pan based on going through the process. So you may want to consider extending the periods a little bit longer. That's all. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Marty. Yeah. You know, what concerns me is that the no expiration notification. So when it expires, we send out notifications? Let me see. So I just want to make sure. So there's a provision when an application expires. If we don't hear anything from an applicant.

So there is no, I believe what Mr. Senlewski was referring to is if an application is inactive, whereas we haven't heard anything from an applicant in a certain period of time. The expiration of a preliminary approval or a final approval does not require notification to the applicant. It's in the resolution. It says the resolution is valid for 12 months with the possibility of a six-month extension or 36 months, whatever stage we're in. I appreciate that, Greg. And I will add that a lot of departments are not able to get a six-month extension. So I think that's a good point. I think that a lot of developers, and I think you know this, just given the cost of the interest rates, they've been really slow to hit the ground. And I know they're sitting on the sidelines kind of waiting for things to change and come out and, you know, start up again. But okay. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else in the room to comment on this public hearing? Nobody else online? So I think we'll move on. But again, we'll leave that public hearing. We'll leave that public hearing open for written comment until March 14th. Close of business 430 at the end of the day. Thank you. All right. Next public hearing is another amendment to Riverhead Town Code Chapter 301, Article XLVIII, entitled Signs. Essentially what this does is adds a section called Miscellaneous Provisions, which would allow signs erected by governmental authorities and or related political subdivisions, such as Riverhead Fire District. Riverhead Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Riverhead Public Library, to establish signs on their properties that with review of the planning department and a resolution of the town board could exempt them from the specific zoning districts. I have been approached by the Riverhead Fire District. They inquired about putting a, you know, an LED informational sign out in front of their property. I did a little bit of looking into the sign code. It's located in the business PB zoning district. I have been approached by the Riverhead Fire District. They inquired about putting a LED informational sign out in front of their property. It's located in the business PB zoning district. It does not permit that type of sign. Again, so it would allow them to make an application to the building department for a sign permit. Planning department would review it and transmit a recommendation to the town board, at which point the town board could waive specific elements of the sign code to facilitate those signs. Good. Okay. Anybody in the public, from the public want to comment on this? Anybody online? Seeing no comments. Okay. Anybody? Once again, we'll leave it open for written comment until March 14th. Thank you, Greg. Thank you. So that brings us to our eighth public hearing, scheduled for 2-10. And that will be introduced by our town attorney, Eric Howard. All right. Thank you. Under Chapter 229 of the town code, where there is excavation proposed or required pursuant to a site plan or some kind of site plan. Okay. Subdivision, the head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head increase to the fee being charged. Currently it's $2. We're proposing to raise it to $3.

Okay. And that's per cubic yard. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this resolution? Nobody online? Okay. So we'll once again leave it open for written comment until 4.30 on March 14th. That concludes the public hearing portion of the meeting. We'll move on to resolutions. I'll commend the Deputy Supervisor for running eight public hearings within 22 minutes approximately. It's a gift. So we'll move on to resolutions. Anybody in the audience want to comment on any of the resolutions before the town board today? Come on up.

Hello. Cindy Clifford, Riverhead. I'm here to address the resolution to implement new rules for meetings. I understand it sprang from a few recent incidents where the meeting or a particular speaker got out of control. But for the most part, I think you could agree residents come into this room and up to this podium, often with emotion but as a rule, all behaving like adults. With the exception perhaps of that particular meeting where the room filled with a rambunctious crowd, the majority of whom were not residents of Riverhead, whose comments ignored the instructed parameters and whose behavior to anyone voicing opposition to the resolution was not to their intent, was met with insults and a threatening hostility that I can attest to firsthand. Because of that, I wonder why this resolution doesn't also include limiting comments strictly to Riverhead residents. I'd suggest you strongly consider that for the future. But for right now, I'm here to object that while you did reverse the banning of Zoom, and thank you for that, you did retain banning signs in the boardroom. Not everyone is comfortable speaking publicly. As a matter of fact, you may already know this, fear of speaking publicly is a legitimate thing with 40% of the population suffering from it. So many that it has a name, glossophobia. For those people, four out of 10 who have a strong opinion but could never get up here to tell you themselves, holding up a sign is how they'll know that you see where they stand and what they want or don't want. That's something sending a letter won't accomplish. Prohibiting residents from holding up a sign robs them of being able to contribute their opinion. To give input into any of the issues discussed or decisions about to be made, thereby limiting their participation in our local government. It's worth noting that only the really big issues bring out that level of opposition. EPCAL, warehouses, a heart of River head's civic survey showed an overwhelming support for the right to use signs in town board meetings. The note was that out of concern for them not blocking views, you could simply require that signs be limited to the back of the room. back of the room. That's not a hard request to be followed. But to ban signs completely, to prohibit residents from being able to express their views and know that they are seen, that should be every resident's right. I also briefly want to address today's vote to absolve Island Water Park of its illegal activities and to question how it is that the board will count on the management to follow through with the enforceable conditions they're reportedly agreeing to. And what will you do the next time, given their record for skating the rules now and asking for forgiveness later? Yours is not the responsibility to secure financial stability for a business, but to secure safety and protocols and compliance within the town. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy. Anybody else in the room to comment on resolutions? Mr. McAuliffe. John McAuliffe from Rolling Woods, Roanoke Landing. Two points on the resolution concerning board procedure, which are very similar to Cindy's, but phrased a little differently and with a different context. For better or for worse, Riverhead is a one-party. Town. Obviously, every member of the board is of one party, and that's fine. That's who people voted for. But I think that puts especially important the question of how interaction happens with people who are not members of that party, whether they're independent or Democrats, and the general public. And I think that that should be the parameter, or the frame that you should use in thinking about your procedures. I think the issue of signs is described in the resolution as having to do with visibility or disruption. I think it has to do with the politics, the visual politics of what's going on. There's nothing that when you're trying to push something through, and oftentimes you've generated this opposition that's shown up in signs. When you're trying to push something through, the last thing you want to have is an article in the News Review or River head local, which has, as the graphic of that article, a bunch of people from River head with signs up because that's the most interesting new visual of a particular board meeting. So I think what you're doing is trying to limit the impact of what's going on in river head's the impact of opposition to the positions that the board is inclined to take by removing signs what Cindy said is to having them in the back of the room the back two or three rows I think is perfectly reasonable if that were the issue but I frankly don't think it's a question of blocking people's views people usually have small signs they lift them up they put them down it's not not a impossible for people sitting in back of them to see or certainly hear what's going on so so I would urge you to postpone action on that resolution I think it also should be postponed because it's the kind of issue that you would probably get more people here if it were an evening meeting I'd say postpone it to an evening meeting and and get feedback from people from a variety of perspectives the ! other thing I didn't know that Cindy was going to say this but I think that the issue of I think people of Riverhead by right should be heard you're our board this is our town this is our tax money that is often being decided upon I think the people of Riverhead have a right to be heard I don't think people that live outside of Riverhead have any right to be heard by the board the board can on its discretion invite them invite one or two representatives of a perspective that comes from outside of town but if you think of the last few years there have been board meetings totally dominated by people who do not live in Riverhead who are not taxpayers who don't have skin in the game in terms of the long-term impact on Riverhead of what's being discussed they have an interest or they wouldn't be here whether it was a water park or there were group there was a group here trying to convince you to to join a an effort to question the whole way voting tallies were done and they had one person from Riverhead that's fine if you have someone from Riverhead that person should carry the water but to have other people who have no connection other than their own agenda and interest and their people from the left from housing groups also that have been here that have so you've had people from both the right and the left and economic self-interests who take your time take the resources of the town to express their interest now they obviously as you've said before they can write letters they can have a representative on the agreement of the chair they could have a representative speak on their behalf but I think it's absurd to to let people who who aren't part of Riverhead to dominate a meeting regardless of whether it's an issue of left right center or economic self-interest thank you okay thank you John anybody else well John I would disagree with the simple fact there are projects that are close to borderlines that affect you know people to our left and to our right and that they need to be heard on the different projects and they have a right to come to speak that's what free speech is all about good afternoon Claudette Bianco Bading Hollow in reference to the resolution with the Island Water Park I just want to express my feelings but I know that many others feel the same way I am sorely disappointed that you are allowing this serial violator of town laws and regulations codes to continue to do that and now you're putting a rubber stamp on what he's done instead of protecting our water supply I'm sure you drink as well and go protecting the residents interest actions speak louder than words you have consistently said this man abuses the rules and regulations and today you're about to vote and give him permission to continue to do so personally I disagree I think he should be held to account he's done it repeatedly he doesn't care about the rules and regulations and now you've given him carte blanche to clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear deck on Island Water Park but before I do that I wanted to just clarify and I know I'm out of order councillor Howard on the exportation or the excavation fees is it exportation and importation that's being it's both because you mentioned only exportation and excavation but it's also material coming into the site correct excavation it's a situation permits it's an it's importation and exportation of material so I just think it's important to say that if you are bringing material on your right of sight it is yeah it's a sorry I don't have it pulled up real quick give me one second

okay yes so you're okay yes so you're okay yes so you're remembering remembering remembering or return or return to so if you need fill on the site you would also be required okay thank you I just wanted to clarify that thank you resolution 234 the amendment which is the subject of this resolution is misclassified as an unlisted action staffs own comments in a report dated July 29th 2020 on a prior Island water park amendment contains the following statement quote based upon the prior seeker classification as a title of the site plan and the proposed changes of use and changes to the site plan must be treated as a type one action pursuant to seeker this amendment to then should have been a type one action subject to further environmental review in a supplemental EIS having raised this issue before I have yet to hear your response as lead agency to this contradiction in your seeker record as we all should know by now a conditional negative declaration cannot be issued for a type one action nevertheless here we are I acknowledge that there are times that were not necessarily on the same page but in this case I dare say we are not even reading the same book according to the seeker handbook a conditional negative declaration should never rely on future investigation to develop conditions of mitigation the mitigating conditions must be explicitly defined by the EIS when the CND is issued but this CND is doing just that relying on future investigation by an involved agency the DEC based upon that agency's comments Island water park must submit a request for parcel jurisdiction determination to determine whether a freshwater wetland permit will be required if disturbance to the regulated area cannot be avoided Island must Island water park must submit a permit application under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under EIS under E include as a condition of support of a CND the requirement that approval of another agency be obtained? The answer is no. Requiring the applicant to obtain the approval of another agency when that approval is already legally required is not a mitigation measure. Such is the case for the approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health. The long environmental assessment form identified potential for moderate to large impacts to groundwater which must be further reviewed by the permitting agency to determine what, if any, mitigation measures are needed. Merely stating the requirement that the applicant obtain a Suffolk County Health Department permit is insufficient. Condition number two of your resolution cannot support your CND. This resolution should be tabled until the appropriate application is submitted to the Health Department and the DEC to determine whether there are mitigation measures which must be identified and required by these agencies. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara. Anybody else in the room to comment on resolutions before the board today? So now we'll go online. It looks like we have two people online. Okay. We'll head over to Barbara's phone line so she can clear up her head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, sir. Thanks. First time, big fan. Thanks a lot for having the town hall meeting. My is going to be... Excuse me, sir. If you could just state your name and your hamlet for the record and for the town clerk, please. My name is Kevin Shea. I'm from Bading Hollow, New York. Thank you. Thank you. I'm here under Resolution 230. It's a two-part. It's brief. First, I want to make sure I acknowledge that I'm probably not going to add additional information that Cindy and John have said. Maybe I'm doing it a different format. But there are two parts. The one where I'm going to argue for allowing for signs, posters, and flyers in the town hall meeting. And the second one is to possibly give... Suggestions which I can send this as an email as a substantial comment to wherever email you'd ask me to do it. So I'll begin. The first argument would be we want to make sure we have free speech and democratic. I heard one of the council members mention that just now. The First Amendment protects the right to free expression, including the use of signs, posters, and flyers in public forum like town hall meetings. Town halls are essential venue-specific engagement. And visual materials allow residents to... Clearly communicate their messages, especially when verbal participation may be limited in time. The second one would be enhancing public discourse. Signs and flyers help summarize the complex issues that may be coming from attendees. Providing key talking points that facilitate more informed discussion. They allow residents to express viewpoints visually, which can be especially valuable for those who may not feel comfortable speaking publicly. The third argument would be that it obviously is more inclusive for this participation. Some participants may have disabilities, language barriers that make verbal participation difficult. Signs and flyers provide an alternate means of expression. Community members who arrive late or leave early can still absorb some of the key messages by reading the posters or picking up flyers. So those are my three arguments. And... Decline. And... Sublet. Sublet. looking to add on or at least for you guys to consider so therefore you do not have those distractions or obstructions That you're concerned about I have basically five of them I'll go briefly one is size and placement restrictions you can have the signs It could be handheld or placed in designated areas to prevent obstruction of sight lines You can have two large banners that should be Positioned on walls or stands at the back of the room rather than blocking the seat areas It could be non-disruptive if signs they must be silent no electronic and noise making signs There should be no waiting throwing or using signs in a way that disrupts the meeting contact Okay Number three content neutrality the rules must apply equally to all viewpoints to avoid selective enforcement It should be prohibited to content that should be limited to threats Obscenity or incitement to violence for would be flyer distribution guidelines flyer should be placed on a designated table For voluntary pickup rather than being handed out during the meeting No, low littering participants must dispose of the uncollected flyers and five time for visual displays So a brief Designated time before after the meeting would allow participants to display large posters or banners for visibility without disrupting the procedures procedures Proceedings by adopting these for policies the Town Council can respect the free expression while ensuring that the meetings remain accessible orderly and fair for all participants Thank you. That's all I need to say except maybe I can get an email where I can send it to Send it to me. Yep. Go ahead Jim. Yeah, it would be a town website Riverhead down Riverhead NY gov attention town clerk. So be town clerk at the Riverhead Down a riverhead NY gov. I thank you very much. I'll yield my time I thank you very much. I'll yield my time Okay, thank you sir chip we have one more person online just quickly a point of clarification Prohibiting signs in town board meetings was ruled constitutional by the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in City of Kingston in Tyler v City of Kingston and that's a 2023 case the board has the ability to implement rules At their meetings provided those rules are reasonable and content neutral Thank you. Okay. Thank you for the clarification and we have one more online, right?

No, they changed their mind, okay All right, so nobody else online doesn't look like we have anybody else in the room looking to comment on resolutions So with that, mr. Clerk if you could call the resolutions, please sure. We'll start resolution number one, which is resolution 210 So with that, mr. Clerk if you could call the resolutions, please sure. We'll start resolution number one, which is resolution 210 budget adoption for the removal of all litter garbage refuse rubbish upon the premises known as 12 Longview Drive in Riverhead Suffolk County New York Suffolk County tax map numbers budget adoption for the removal of all litter garbage refuse rubbish upon the premises known as 12 Longview Drive in Riverhead Suffolk County New York Suffolk County tax map numbers 600 point dash zero zero one four point zero zero dash two point zero zero through zero twelve point zero zero zero so moved second though, please Waski yes, very field. Yes. Yes Rockwell. Yes Higgins I don't vote you don't vote Voting authorities almost unanimous. Okay Resolution was adopted resolution to 11 Epco emergency access road capital project five two three one one budget adoption so moved seconded No, please Waski yes, very field. Yes, Kern. Yes, Rockwell. Yes Resolution is adopted resolution to 12 water district capital project a two zero five zero américans so moved so moved Seconded no, please. Waski. Yes, very field. Yes, she's head head head Resolution 213. Accepts donation of roses for the Senior Center. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes, thank you to the Gabelsons. Merrifield. Yes, they were beautiful. Thank you very much. Kern. Yes, thank you to the Gabelson family. And Rothwell. Yes, thank you. You're welcome. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 214. Accepts donation from Tuttle-Megano Funeral Home for the Senior Center. So moved. Second. I'm sorry. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes, and again, thank you very much. It was a huge tree of lotto tickets. Kern. Yes, and thank you very much. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 215. Authorizes Seward District employee to attend seminar. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 216. Reappoints members and appoints new member to the Small Business Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Excellent group of people. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 217. Appoints Ken Zelnicki as a member to the Riverhead Farmland Preservation Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Is a vast knowledge. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 218. Appoints a wastewater treatment plant operator trainee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 219. Appoints an automotive mechanic to. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 220. Ratifies the transfer of an employee into a provisional appointment of the Community Development Program Analyst. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. That's a no for me at this time. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Yes. ! soit.

yes Rothwell yes resolutions adopted resolution 223 ratifies the promotion of an employee to assistant recreation superintendent one so moved seconded please wasky yes Mary field yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolution is adopted resolution 224 ratifies the promotion of a public safety dispatcher one to a public safety dispatcher two so moved seconded vote please wasky yes Mary field yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolutions adopted resolution 225 approve salary adjustments for principal garage mechanics so moved seconded vote please wasky yes Mary field yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolutions adopted resolution 226 terminates an MPA an active employee from the police department so moved second please wasky yes very few yes turn yes well yes resolutions adopted resolution 227 authorizes the supervisor to execute a license agreement with broadcast music Inc BMI so move seconded please wasky yes very few yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolutions adopted resolution 228 authorizes the supervisor to execute lease renewal agreement authorizing the town to lease a vehicle from Suffolk County Office of the Aging for Transportation Services for elderly residents non-proton so moved seconded vote please wasky yes very field yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolution is adopted resolution 229 ratifies authorization to purchase Calriss to 109 for the water district so moved seconded vote please yes Mary field yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolution is adopted resolution 230 men's adopted rules and procedures for the town board of the town of Riverhead so moved second vote please wasky yes Mary field yes turn yes Rothwell yes resolution is adopted resolution 231 approved special event chapter 255 application for st. John the Baptist Ukrainian Church Church of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Holy Ghost so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 232. Approve special event chapter 255 application for cystic fibrosis foundation. CF cycle for life. So moved. Second. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 233. Awards request for qualifications for engineering services during construction for Class A biosolids upgrade project for Riverhead Sewer District. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Thank you, Michael Reichel, sitting in the back. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 234. Assumes lead agency issues conditional negative declaration for the site plan application of a site plan application. Island Water Park, DBA, Scotts Point, 5835 Middle Country Road, Calverton, New York, Suffolk County, tax map number 600-135-1-7.34. So moved. Second. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. No. And I base that very succinctly. Mrs. Blass made a very good presentation. I think that pretty much sums it up. I vote no. I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thank you. No. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 235. Adopts a local law amending chapter 207 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Animals. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 236. Adopts a local law amending chapter 257 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Animals. So moved. Resolution 237 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Peddling and Soliciting. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 237. Adopts a local law amending chapter 301 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Zoning and Land Development 301-229 Yard Sales, Attic Sales, Garage Sales, and Auction Sales. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 238. Ratifies authorization for the supervisor to execute an agreement with the Riverhead Town Police Benevolent Association. So moved. Second. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Absolutely. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 239. Authorizes submission of application for body armor vests where code enforcement is required. Code enforcement officers. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 240. Ratified the rescinding of Town Board Resolution 2022-181 and Town Board Resolution 2022-723. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. I'm sorry. No Hubbard. No Hubbard. But we'll pay the bills anyway. Resolution is adopted. That concludes the resolution. Okay. Thank you, Jim. So with that, at the conclusion of resolutions here, we'll move on to open comments. And we'll close with a motion to approve the resolution. So moved. Seconded. Waske. Yes. Waske. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. And we'll of course open it up to the folks in the room first, and then we'll move on to anybody who is online. So if anybody in the room wishes to comment, now is the open comment period. John McAuliffe from Roanoke Landing. Two comments. One, I'll just clear this up so you can clear yourself up. I'll clear this up so you can clear yourself up. [transcription gap] board to express their opinions for whatever motivation but does not extend to the people of Riverhead holding up a sign I will be interested to see if we get to the point that people do come and hold up signs whether you're going to have them arrested or at least expelled from the room for holding up a three by five five ten by five or whatever size sign and you'll have to deal with that as it happens my main reason now though is to note something from a larger world three years ago members of the board and people from Riverhead filed outside of the board meeting to the lawn and joined in expressing their complete opposition to the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine that took place in the early 1990s and I think that's a very important point to me I think it was not unprovoked but it was unjustified it's been ruled that way by virtually everyone including the U.S government until very recently I think that it if you were serious then I think that you should consider in a work session and bring to the board a resolution that would express your support for the people of Ukraine and your support for continuing U.S assistance to them so I'll leave you with that so I'll leave you with that two days in Washington they have opened up a situation in which 2,000 ton bombs will be given to or sold to Israel that will be used potentially again in Gaza and elsewhere in the region there were 30,000 is what the paper said it's hard to imagine 30,000 2,000 pound bombs but those were approved at the same time the US has now stopped all military assistance to Ukraine I hope that that's just a temporary matter of peak and temporary matter of trying to get leverage I think there does need to be a serious peace negotiation but the US should be on in that negotiation not as a neutral party but as a party which believes that Russia has no right to have invaded bombed destroyed and destroyed the country and the United States has no right to have destroyed and occupied territory in Ukraine at least I leave aside the question of Crimea but I think anything after Crimea is something that the world cannot tolerate and I hope that given the history of this board in expressing an opinion about the original invasion that you now find a way to write to our congressperson and write to the president on this matter thank you very much thank you John anybody else in the room to comment during the open comment period nobody else in the room anybody online looks like we have somebody

hi there this is talk we church in with greater Calvert and Civic Association are you able to hear me yes we can hear you terrific I'm sorry I can't do the video my I'll lose the audio if I do so hopefully you can see the insignia for greater coverage and Civic Association I was hoping to speak during resolutions but if there seemed to be a little bit of a mix-up but I'm going to I'd like to speak now I won't have the effect on your votes that you just took but there are two points I'd like to speak to number one I'd like to thank Barbara blast and Denise Merrifield for first for the explanation that Barbara last offered for the distinction between the unlisted action and the type one action of seeker for the Island Water Park site plan application and I think Denise Merrifield for her understanding of it and her voting against today's resolution number two on the resolution for town board rules you've now made your votes so that has a consequence right so we're now we now have legislation in the town of Riverhead where residents are voices are being restricted I mean it's just plain and simple in this and the opportunity to make more efficient a town board meeting which I appreciated so much so I'll head over to you so I'll head over to you so I'll head over to you so I'll head over to you so I'll through meetings that have lasted well over four hours. However, as Mr. Rothwell stated, it is the freedom of speech. Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Kern, you've both voted against that, and your interpretation has shown a very unsatisfying and disappointing understanding of freedom of speech here in Riverhead inside a town board meeting. I hope that that's clear not only to who's listening today, but if this is quoted in the newspaper at all. Our voices are being restricted. I would have helped to add to the commentary on why it was important, but I felt Mr. Shea and Cindy Clifford said it eloquently and offered thoughtful consideration in the details that may not have come before today in considering whether or not to pass those rules. I am thoroughly disappointed. Thank you. So voices are not restricted. That podium is open to one and all. And so is by email. So is by phone. So we will always be open to hear from every resident inside the town or anybody outside the town. As is Zoom. As well as Zoom. Because the board elected to keep that available for folks. Okay. Anybody else in the room or online for open comment? Nobody else online. Nobody else, it looks like, in the room. So with that, we'll ask for a motion to close the town. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? That concludes the town board meeting. Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you.