Full Transcript
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Today is Tuesday, August 19, 2025. And if we could all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilwoman Waski, would you mind leading us? Yes, Supervisor. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Councilwoman.
Okay. Clerk Wooden, would you mind leading us in an invocation tonight, please? Sure. Dear Lord, we thank you for this gathering and bless all those who care enough to come on this beautiful day and invest their time and energy to help shape and mold our community. We ask for your spirit of wisdom to settle on our town board as they deliberate and listen to concerns and weigh the burdens and responsibilities bestowed on them as a legacy of our people. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We ask you to continue to bless all the coaches that are with us tonight and all those that mentor our young people who help to shape and teach the value of sportsmanship and teamwork, a virtue that will serve them throughout their lifetime. We ask you to continue to bless our first responders and our community and across this nation who volunteer their time and talent to serve the greater good. Keep our police officers and emergency personnel safe as they tend to the business of protecting America. We ask you to continue to bless our first responders protecting life and property. Lord, we thank you for this community and all those who choose to call it their home. We ask that these things through your son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Clerk Wooten. We are honored tonight to have members of the 2025 Riverhead Little League Riverhead PBA Baseball Team who did pretty much the impossible. They went with an undefeated season. They went 12-0 over the course of the season, and then they won two games in postseason. Very incredible. Extremely hard to do. I played back in the late 60s and early 70s, and we had some really good teams, but nobody during my lifetime and during my time playing Little League, nobody ever went undefeated. So it's kudos to you. I would ask at this point in time, and this was in the Major League Division also. I would like to thank you all for coming to Riverhead Little League. And it's great because you guys are coming up. The varsity team, the varsity boys team this year, went to the playoffs for the first time in quite some time. So we know we got some good stock coming up through the ranks, and hopefully you guys stay with the sport and continue on, and good things can happen, okay? At this point in time, I would like to call Riverhead Little League coaches and players all to come on up in the front here.
And I'm going to give you a little bit of a tour of the ! Let's turn and face the audience there. Good looking group of bowl players here, I have to say. Coach Eastwood, I'm going to give these to you. These are certificates from the town of Riverhead, certificates of accomplishment on my behalf and that of the town board for an incredible year. Thank you. And I'm going to give you a little bit of a tour of the sports that you've done for each of the coaches and each of the players. And I know it's summertime and people are away on vacations and not everybody is here, but if you wouldn't mind calling out the players that you do have here tonight and your coaches, and you can present them with a certificate. Jeremiah Kidney. Jeremiah. Joel Eastwood. Patrick Welch. Connor Shemeda. Adrian. Tim DePrey. Charlie O'Brien. Charlie O'Brien. Charlie O'Brien. Charlie O'Brien. Charlie O'Brien. From my office, my mates and my mates and my Don't cover your face, but hold them up in front of you so everybody can get pictures. Parents, feel free to come up and take any pictures you would like.
Congratulations to the 2025 Riverhead PBA Boys Major League Baseball Team. I'd just like to thank our sponsor, Riverhead PBA, for sponsoring our team, and the Riverhead Town, of course, for allowing our Riverhead Little League to play in Stotsky Field. Appreciate it, sir. We heard this from other communities. When you start to play some games on other towns' fields, how well our fields are kept up up there. And that's a big shout-out to our buildings and grounds people. They do a fantastic job on the fields. And a big round of applause for them all.
Fellas, congratulations. Fall ball. Anybody playing fall ball? Okay. David? Go ahead and we'll see you on the diamond next season. Congratulations and enjoy the rest of your season. Thank you.
Supervisor, are there any pictures here tonight? Any pictures? Oh, the Mets are looking. Okay. Yeah, the Mets are looking. Do we have any pictures from my Mets? They need help, boys. Denise and I are struggling with our Mets up here tonight. So bad. Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah.
Okay. I have a couple of announcements to make.
This Saturday and Sunday, the 23rd to 24th, is the 35th annual Riverhead Railroad Festival, an excellent year. That takes place right over here across the tracks, right on the Railroad Museum property. Saturday and Sunday, August 23rd and 24th, Racetrack 9th Street. Open at 1, racing from 4 to 930. They had their ribbon cutting last weekend up there. They had a great turnout. Nice job was done. A lot of cars. A lot of money put into those cars up there. It's amazing. Saturday, August 23rd, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., the African-American... ...Educational and Cultural Festival benefit concert in the park at Grand Jebel Park, right on Peconic Avenue and Main Street. And that's from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. again this Saturday. And hours ago, I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I know for me, it was one of my happiest days as being an elected official. We signed the Master Developer Agreement with Joe Petrucelli so we can commence the construction of downtown Town Square. So exciting. Our Community Development Agency has gotten just under $50,000 worth of grants for this to happen. And it was just a super exciting day. That's the picture up on the screen is us signing a couple hours ago. Huge moment for Riverhead. Huge, just such a good thing for the town. And I'm very proud to have signed that with my board members today. 50 million. Yes. 50 million. What'd I say? You said thousands. Oh, just under $50 million. If I said thousands, I apologize. Just under $50 million. Big difference. Okay. We're building a tent. Clerk Wooten, do we have any correspondence and reports? We did. We received several letters. They're all listed on the agenda concerning the Town Square and its future development. Some for the City of
! Local Local under reports we have the tax receiver utility payments for the month of July at five hundred ninety two thousand seven hundred nine dollars and sixty two cents god bless you we have the town clerk report for the month of July at fourteen thousand fifteen dollars and fifty cents and we have the building department monthly report for July at seventy seven thousand eight hundred and eighty one dollars and that conclude concludes our reports okay thank you we have eight public hearings on for tonight so this is we're going to get started right away the first public hearing scheduled for six o'clock it is now 616 is a public hearing on amendment chapter 301 and that will be with mr. Matthew charters Matt good evening board and the public all right so first one very briefly this is an amendment to chapter three 301 article XLV I'm not even great at Roman numerals but this has to do with the supplementary use regulations in the broadest sense the proposed changes of the supplementary use regulations section deals with drive-through windows serving restaurants and adds a minimum queuing capacity of ten cars for drive-through windows in order to minimize potential impacts to internal circulation and potential impacts to surrounding roadways it's a regulation we don't have that we're looking to add fixed fixed public hearing do we have anybody online to comment on this public hearing nobody online having seen nobody here this time I'll make a motion to close this public hearing keeping it open for written Second the motion. All in favor of closing the public hearing? Aye. All opposed? Okay. Public hearing on Chapter 301 is closed. Keeping it open for written comment. The next public hearing we have is scheduled on the, is a public hearing regarding moratorium on cannabis establishment. Again, it will be Planner Matt Charters. And Matt, go ahead and take the lead. It is now 618 p.m. You got it. So just so everyone understands, it's a public hearing to consider a moratorium. So it would be Chapter 304, moratorium on cannabis retail establishments and cannabis on-site consumption establishments. The intent of the proposed legislation is to enact a one-year moratorium on said uses within the town of Riverhead for the purposes stated within the draft local law. It's a pretty lengthy purpose and intent that's included in the law, but just a view at 30,000 feet. So on November 1st of 2022, the town board, did adopt zoning regulations for cannabis uses within the town of Riverhead. The adoption was a result of significant public engagement process with, which included the formation of a town committee, which met on numerous occasions to provide specific recommendations concerning the enactment of these regulations within the town. As expressly indicated within Article 6, Section 131.2 of the MRTA. So that's the state legislation. And as reiterated within the purpose and intent of Article L2C, so that's our zoning code, the legislation allowed the town of Riverhead to implement time, place, and manner and saturation restrictions related to retail and on-site consumptions, establishments for persons over the age of 21 within the boundary of the town. This local law has, and zoning code has been amended on two occasions. First on March 5th of 2024, and again on July 1st of 2025. In the first instance, we realized that our zoning code wasn't really in place. So we're going to have to wait and see what happens. So we're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. In furtherance of this, we do have two legally operating dispensaries within the town, one in Calverton, one on 58. The Planning Board recently approved another location on 58 and then a second on Main Road in Aquebog. Also, the cannabis law allows applicants to appeal to the Cannabis Control Board to review local laws that are considered unreasonable or impracticable in violation of the cannabis law. We haven't received any challenges in that regard to date. There was court action in which a few of our regulations were essentially found to be incorrect by the judge, which was the 1,000 feet, the 2,500 foot separation between dispensaries. And as well, I believe, sorry, there was preemption as well. Sorry. There's been significant public interest before the Town Board and Planning Board about the number of uses that we're seeing within the town. I'll note also that in the state's regulations, there also are some irregularities that are happening. There's 150 locations that the state has incorrectly allowed to be closer to schools and to churches. As a result of this, before you have a one-year moratorium to further study the law and make sure that we're implementing the state laws. So, we're going to have to make sure that we're implementing the state law correctly. Within the draft legislation, like I said, it's a one-year moratorium on site plan, special permit, building permits, use permits, as well as applications for use in area variances pursuant to this law. There is a exclusion. So, any uses that have received site plan approval having been issued a building permit or having received a valid certificate of occupancy or certificate of compliance prior to the date of the adoption of local law would be excluded. There's also an appeal procedure, which after submitting an application, the Town Board can hear an appeal from an applicant to be excluded from the moratorium. Any questions? Board, any questions? No. I just want to say that we had put together and created a cannabis committee that did a lot of great work. And it consisted of representatives from the police department, the school, all civic associations, residents throughout the town. And not only that, but it was also participated at those meetings and hearings from members that were looking to have retail, to have consumption sites. I think we put together really great legislation to make it fair and equal throughout the town that no one particular area was going to suffer at the hands of multiple stores in one location. That's why we implemented the saturation rates. We protected our schools, our churches, our town parks. I think it was great legislation. But I think at this point... If a judge is going to take away our authority for home rule and for us not to allow time, place, and manner, then we need to pause the entire process altogether. And I think that's mostly what this is about. We have some that have abided by all the rules. There are opportunities. There are locations that are available to that. So it's not a simple question that there's nothing else available. But I'm just not going to allow our work in which we did to be taken away by the state. We'll do what we can. And we are also... We are also appealing the decision from that judge. And we feel we have an excellent case to appeal. If New York State had indicated in the beginning that when we were trying to decide to opt in or opt out of this, that they would have say on local law, I assure you my vote would have been very much different. Because we were assured that we had control of time, place, and manner. That's correct. And they appear to be taking that back now from us. And that's very disturbing. And that's one of the reasons we decided also to put this moratorium together, pump the brakes, and wait and see what happens with our court case. Because we feel it's very unjust how it came out. So I'm glad the board is in agreement with this moratorium and the public hearing tonight. I want to open it up at this point in time to any members of the public that would like to comment. I'll just state we're not just alone on this as well. There's been... I think we've had legislation, class action lawsuit from growers of Matawana throughout the state in which the state has just simply not looked at their own regulations and allowed multiple places to be, over 100 to be placed closer to schools than we think. So they're not even following their own rules. So I don't think the OCM can really get their act together. And that's why I think it's important to pause everything. So we're not in this alone. Ma'am, just one second. I'm being notified that people can't find a link online to get on to this. Could we look into that, please?
Okay, ma'am, I'm sorry. State your name and where you're from, please. My name is Gwen Collins. I'm from Riverhead. And supervisor, thank you for that information. I wasn't aware of that. My comment is I'm here because I believe we need to pause and reflect. And I'm not saying that we need to pause and reflect. I'm saying that we need to pause and reflect before allowing more cannabis dispensaries into our community. We live in a time where a lot changes quickly, right? But not all change is good. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right, right? We need to stick to our morals, compass, and values, and always put first the things that truly matter, right? The safety of our children, our families, our neighbors, and our community. We need to protect what matters most and the character of our community. We're asking for a one-year moratorium to take a step back, to have time to reflect on what we stand for. We all know the truth. The dispensaries are not harmless. They bring increased traffic, late-night activity, the risk of crime, and most dangerously, they normalize marijuana use, especially in the eyes of our youth. Thank you. No matter what the packaging or marketing says, cannabis is still a drug. It's an entry drug or a gateway drug, right, that affects developing minds in ways we're only beginning to fully understand. We should not accept a vision of progress that puts profit over people and our community's health. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ask hard questions, to pause, and to get this right, rather than force future consequences. Let's lead by example by putting first our children and community and protect them. Please vote in favor of the moratorium. Thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it. I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Supervisor, I can just address the notice. So the notice is in the agenda packet, which is available online. It's clickable. Folks can go on there and just click that. What we're doing now is we're posting it as a PSA, as a separate notice to stand alone. It's easier for people to find that on the main page under the PSAs. So we're reposting that now. That will be up in the next five minutes. But people can go in the agenda and hit the link and get on right now. It's working. We just double-checked it. All right? Very good. Thank you. How are you? My name is Brian. I'm a member of the
I'm Brian Stark. I attended the meetings back when you guys were creating the zoning. We explained to you then that the zoning you guys were creating was in direct violation of the cannabis law. I know you guys think it did a great job. It did get two stores open. One of those stores was always zoned for cannabis. I think it sold for $9 million, way over asking price. It really doesn't give the chance for a small business owner to open up when you got to $9 million to open up a store. I am one of the first licenses given on Long Island. I am the first license in the town of Riverhead that was fully given a license from the OCM. I'm still not open. I hear these comments that you guys want to pass a moratorium due to health and safety. I've been all around the state. I'm involved in all cannabis activities. I have not heard of any health and safety issues across the state from a dispensary or a zoning. I also know that when you guys did create that zoning, you created it for five corridors. I think the 58 corridor was zoned for three or four dispensaries. The other four corridors were zoned for one. We're at two, fully operational. One that I know the planning guy said was approved by planning, but they can't open because the guy behind them has litigation going on. He has site protection. The issue there is whatever. But even if those... If those two did open, you'd still be at four, which still isn't the seven that you guys originally asked for. So I feel like we're taking a little step short here. The moratorium in all reality is in violation of the cannabis law too. So it's going to be challenged in court. So at the end of the day, this is just more time and money that the town is wasting, more taxpayer dollars that the town's wasting. I own my building in the town. It's my taxpayer dollars that's going to be fighting myself for it. I'm not going to be fighting for it. I'm going to be fighting for other cannabis licensees that are going to be challenging these things that are going on. What else did I have over here? I'm sorry. I think instead of this moratorium talk, we could have sat back and maybe took that original map, put it to what it would look like following the state regulations. We talked about this a year and a half ago when we were talking about the corridors originally. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4. C-4.
more fear and i understand you think ocm maybe some power was taken away but time place and manner was always defined we spoke about that when these committee hearings were going on and we told you what you could do on the time place and manner i mean i don't know if time's up or whatever but that's what i have to say there's no time on it huh there's no time oh so public hearing yeah we we spoke about time place and matter there there are things you can do on the time place and manner creating larger distances from the school creating larger distances from business to business all those things are outside of the cannabis law so i really would like to see the town follow state regulations i don't think it's as bad as what you guys are making it seem it's not going to be overrun with dispensaries there's definitely not going to be a health and safety issue there's not been anything if you guys can bring something to the table that shows a health and safety issue anywhere in this state from a dispensary opening there's no evidence so uh i'd like to see some facts on that but um i think you should uh scrap this moratorium i think you should take the map let's see what it looks like with the state regs and see what's really going to change from the corridors to that there's not going to be that big of a change hello everyone how you doing my name is hugo rivas i'm from the long island cannabis coalition i'm the vice president here today and i'm asking you guys to not um go through with the moratorium um i hear a lot of people always talking when they come up here talking about kids so let me tell you about something about kids i i also have a license for dispensary i'm a coach so i care about my kids i have i have over 30 kids that i have that i deal with the reason i want to dispense with because i know it's safer than what people people people don't people who that that think it's not safe they need to go to dispensaries and really really interact and see what's going on and they will know and they will realize that everything that they're saying is not true you cannot go into a dispensary if you're over 21. they're not promoting to the kids the majority of people are buying cannabis are literally 45 to 65 year old people so we're denying them access to cannabis the dispensaries that are currently open right now the two dispensaries what could even even even even even even even even even even even even even even What criminal activity have you heard about in these situations? None. What traffic are they causing supposedly? None. The $9 million store that they pay so much money for, the traffic is like literally like less traffic than the 7-Eleven. So people need to realize that some of this information that they're giving us is wrong. Cannabis do protect our children. They do not increase crime. And the statistics are there and you have it in your own town to go see, go look at what's going on. And you see that actually is helping to help the crime and everything else. And it's actually helping your town with taxes instead of causing all these situations. So again, please verify information. We are more than happy to help you and give you the information that we've been telling you for a long time. We've been having meetings since you guys came here. We've been providing information and we know for a fact that this is gonna be more, in a sense, bad for the community than what you expecting. And again, on the information that we provided with the research that we provided, there's nothing available. And business wise, it doesn't make sense to have 50 dispensaries, 25 dispensaries. You're not gonna make money, so it's not gonna happen. And again, there's other towns that are opening up and it's gonna get situated better, but you have to understand that it's not dangerous. It's better for the community. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
Good evening, everyone. My name is Gary O'Valley. I am the president of the Long Island Cannabis Coalition. I have been here previously and spoke to you on this issue numerous times. I always wanna thank the board for always being accessible for public comment, but I also wanna express my disappointment at having to show up and push back against some of these issues that we could just simply avoid. Declaring a moratorium on cannabis at all, in any capacity is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It's wrong for the business owners who have been in full compliance with the state and done everything that the state has asked of them in order to operate. It's wrong for the 21 and over adult youth community who this serves, who do not have access to legal, safe, regulated and tested products. Most importantly, it's wrong for the taxpayers of Riverhead that will have to front and foot the bill, for this frivolous moratorium that you're suggesting. The town of Riverhead has opted into cannabis retail and you don't have the right to opt back out. That ship has already sailed and your attempt at placing a moratorium on further and future cannabis retail is the town's way of shirking their responsibility in an attempt to not be compliant with New York state law. Time, place and manner, as you've mentioned, has been consistently misinterpreted by this board and we've had this conversation ad nauseam. The MRTA dictates the few points that time, place and manner affect and you still have control over that very narrow description. What you've been attempting to do is use time, place and manner as a much larger blanket than what you're allowed to do. And that's been the problem and that's been the root of this problem. Furthermore, a moratorium on legal cannabis retail is a green light for illicit sales. When legal cannabis dispensaries open up, illicit shops close down in those neighboring areas. And if you won't allow legal cannabis to operate, you are by nature allowing illicit cannabis to operate. And these are the stores that our children have access to. These are the stores that market to our children, that they can walk into and potentially purchase product that they should never be around. I would implore you to let go of your own preconceived biases. The larger community recognizes that adult use cannabis for the 21 and over community is not an issue. Look around the room. There is not an overwhelming amount of constituents in here that are asking you to move forward with this issue and supporting the moratorium outside of a few distinct voices. We're not trying to discredit them in any fashion, but there's a larger community here that does not have an issue with legal cannabis in this town. You're doing a disservice to everyone who doesn't wanna waste their time, but more importantly, who doesn't wanna waste their tax resource. The claim that this is a health and safety concern, there have been no safety concerns. There have been no health and safety complaints since you've opened those two dispensaries and no other complaints across all of Long Island, in any of the stores, in any of the townships. Put that money to good use and beautify your town. Build recreational centers, beautify your parks, provide resource for afterschool programs or youth organizations that could do much better with that money than opposed to you trying to defend your position to opt out from a legal cannabis industry that you have already opted into. This much is clear. When you opted into cannabis retail, you do not have the option to opt out. And this moratorium is baseless and completely wasteful. Don't waste our time. Don't waste your time. And please do not waste taxpayer money. The next time we come here, we want it to be in celebration of how you have embraced this cannabis opportunity, how it is a boon for the town of Riverhead and highlight all the ways in which you have been able to benefit your community and your town. Please do not move forward with this moratorium on cannabis. 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. going to do whatever we can up here to certainly keep drug-free school zones. And I will back down on that. MR. And, Councilman Rothwald, just to clarify for the record, both of the stores have been cited for operating outside of their permit in certain situations, some more serious than others. And in each of those instances, they were referred to OCM. MS. Right. MS. And I will come back to that in July of 25, where individuals from the vendor handed out gummies that were cannabis, gave it to members of the public in violation of the law. MR. Go ahead, sir. MR. John Newman, 24th Dugs Lane, South Jamesport. First off, I don't think the town board should have allowed retail sales in the town to begin with. You chose to give the option to go one way or the other, and you chose to allow retail sales in the town. And it mystifies me how a couple of you people who were police officers, knowing that this is a gateway drug, voted to have retail sales in this town. And you voted for it, and I applaud the fact that you're taking a second thought about it and moving ahead with a moratorium. And hopefully, you guys will take another vote. I'm going to take another vote as a town board and discontinue retail sales in this town. It's a gateway drug. I grew up in New York City, and a lot of friends who started off with marijuana went into heroin because it was cheap, and then went into crack and cocaine, and the next thing you know, they died. So I'm sure there's a lot of people here who have similar experiences. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. And I think it's a disgrace that you guys voted for marijuana in this town in the first place. So I don't know, maybe we need to get a protest going all over the place, just like they do for all kinds of issues throughout the country and get the residents of this town who really feel negative about this thing to protest. And I think if you guys want to open up all kinds of retail stores in this town, go to another state, go to another county, but stay out of Riverhead. Thank you. Thank you. Come on, Dallas.
Hi, my name is Mary Highland. I live here in Riverhead. I've spoken at three meetings discussing how I object and am very concerned about the number of cannabis sites that you're opening up. How many does Riverhead need? It's ludicrous to think that we need more. The places that you've opened, as it stands now, they can't be closed. That's enough. And I take umbrage at the statement that it doesn't cause a health and safety concern. If you read anything, and I'm a retired nurse, cannabis use causes a 29% increase in coronary disease, stroke. It is not a harmless drug. And let's go with the statement, it is a drug. And it is offensive to think that you can just buffalo everybody and say, oh, it's harmless, it's harmless. It is not harmless. And. As that gentleman said, it is a gateway drug. And it is ludicrous to think that we who live here are going to be exposed to yet another and another and another site. I just think that it was very short sighted to allow it in the first place. But I can't put the cork back in the bottle. But I think that a limit to what it is should be enacted. And I agree with you wholeheartedly about having a moratorium. So thank you very much. Thank you. We will take somebody online now. Thank you.
We can't hear you. Can you unmute yourself? Can you unmute?
Possibly down on the bottom of your screen.
We can't hear you.
Justin, does it have anything to do with the volume on the TV?
Would that help?
Are you OK? OK. The name came up as Danielle. Danielle, we're going to move on to the next caller because we can't hear you. We can't hear you. We can't hear you. We can't hear you.
Do we have anybody in-house who would like to come up to speak in the meantime? I'm here. Can you hear me? Oops. I hear you. Can you hear me? I think the problem, if you can't hear me, the problem is on your end. No, we hear you. John, we can hear you. Oh, okay. All right. Can't see you. Well, John McAuliffe from Roanoke Landing, good afternoon. I'm sorry, because of other work, I can't be with you today. But I do want to extend strong support to the moratorium. I must admit to being shocked by what was said about Alive on 25. I hope that if the vendor was identified, that you're able to sanction them sufficiently that they learn a lesson, including shutting them down for some period of time. But as to the moratorium, I think that we need some serious evaluation, serious knowledge that ought to be part of a discussion by the board and the community. One question is, what is the impact? Does the police department have any information about impact, either from criminal activity or accidents related to use? And how does that compare with alcohol use and impact? Second, what is the, I don't know whether we have a social welfare officer, a social worker, or a legal officer on the town staff that could give us some evaluation of the impact of the greater legal access on young people and on the population as a whole. That would be very useful to get. The third is, this is argued when the town, and if you recall, I had hesitance about it, but when the town decided to make legal cases, the town decided to make legal cases, the town decided to make legal cases, the town decided to make legal cases, the town decided to make legal cases, the argument was heavily on the issue of income that it would gain. So I think it would be very helpful to know exactly how much has come in on taxes from the existing cannabis shops. So at any rate, I think do the moratorium. And as was said by Mr. Rothwell, what is in place will still be there. People will get it who want to use it. But I think the town needs to have a real hard time. And I think the town needs to have a real hard day to look at what the consequences are. Thank you. Thank you, John. Do we have anybody else here that would like to speak? We have two online. Okay, ma'am, you may come up again. You have two online? Okay, we'll take them in a minute here. Okay. My name is Dawn Collins. I'm a member of the National Association of Cannabis and I'm a member of the National Association of Cannabis. I just want to respond to some of the cannabis, you know, pro-cannabis people that came up here to speak, right? There's several articles about the harmfulness of cannabis on youth. I think there's actually one in the New York Post today by Miranda Devine, if anybody can look her up, right? And she's done several studies on mental health risk and psychosis, right? And she says, she highlights a strong link between cannabis use and mental health issues. She says, she highlights a strong link between cannabis use and mental health issues, particularly among youth, right? Her studies indicate a 40% increase risk of psychosis associated with cannabis use, right? People who use marijuana by 18 were 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, right? There's another study done, I think in Denmark, in 2017, that linked schizophrenia with cannabis use. Also, there's, I don't know, I don't know if you've heard of it, but there's a study that was done by Miranda Devine, and she says that the legal cannabis use is more potent than in the past, right? And that's five times more potent. So the THC in cannabis today is five times more potent. I actually think it's more. I think in the 70s it was 5%, now it's about 90%, right? She warns that legalization sends a message, especially to young people, that cannabis is harmless. This normalization paired with the legalization, with high potency, contributes to raising rates of mental health problems among teens. There's another study that shows that Devine claims that legal states like Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington has seen sharp increase in violent crime since 2014. So I'd like the board to consider all these facts, okay? And a good source is Miranda Devine, and there's other studies. A study of 2017 by, I think, it's Denmark if I remember correctly. I thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. I think that this public hearing is starting to take a little bit of a turn that it wasn't supposed to. It's not about being pro-cannabis or opposed to cannabis. It's about the moratorium and what we're faced with as a board moving forward. So if we could kind of stick to that purpose of the public hearing, I would appreciate it. The reason we put the moratorium up is not what we're doing. I don't even know whether marijuana's a gateway drug or not, because you can read stories that say both sides of the coin. You can read stories that say alcohol's harmful to you. We have alcohol being sold in the town all over the place. This isn't what this is about. Those debates were a couple years ago when the state was deciding to allow cannabis to become legal in New York State, which they did. We saw it as an opportunity to, I'm not going to say we. I'm going to say I saw it opportunity with tax money coming in from the sales of it that could help this town out and with the amount of money that the town of Babylon who was the first town in Suffolk County to have dispensaries in their township they brought in actually millions of dollars in their first year and to me it just made no sense for us not to take that where Southampton opted in to allow them they could have a shop right here on Peconic Avenue which is downtown Riverhead and they recoup all this tax money when just 50 feet over we could we're going to deal with the same people that go into the store and quite honestly we haven't had any issues with people customers of the cannabis shops so why let that tax money go through our hands what this is really about is it's a zoning issue and it's an issue you ! that the town should never ever have to allow the state to tell them where when they can zone certain things once the state does that we lose all control and that was guaranteed to us not to happen and it did happen the state has flipped things over and said time place and manner means something different now and that's a shame because I would not have voted for this knowing that the state was going to step in and at some point time try to take control and say hey now we gave you a chance to do your own zoning we don't like it you're going to do what we want you to do that's not fair to us that's not fair to any town in this state and I can tell you another thing from the cannabis side of it if you think you're going to get more towns to allow cannabis to be sold in their towns would the state acting this way you're very wrong the opposite is going to happen because nobody wants the state telling them how they can zone locally within their own townships. So that's really what this is about. This isn't a pro or con marijuana. This is pro or con should the state have the right to say where they can go or does local law and the township themselves have the right to say where they can go. So that's what this is in a nutshell and I appreciate everybody coming out and speaking on it. Do we have anybody online? Okay, let's take somebody online. Danielle, can you hear us? Yeah, I can hear you all. I always could. Can you hear me? And we can hear you. Yes. Perfect. Great. So hello, I am an attorney with Hutchins Russ. I represent MRM Ventures. I'm the attorney for the !
The !
Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local ! public being being being the exemptions that you're not harming someone that's already started the process and that has already made the steps to continue down this path so we're asking that you recognize that and asking that your exceptions extend not to just people who have a certificate of occupancy already in place but those who have already provided notice to the municipality because in doing so they've already expelled resources to gain site control over the location and you know that that's going to result in damages for them so I think it's it's really important to to be very careful where you draw that line and I'm asking that if you do move forward with the moratorium that you consider those factors and you at least make the cutoff where people have already submitted a notification the municipality are still able to proceed on their business operations you you ! thank you we'll take another one online
so we have a question from a viewer who is a member of the community of the city of aquabog you know folks they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result so here we have another scenario where the town drafts legislation permitting cannabis without clearly thinking it through there's massive there's massive public outrage the cap the town's legislation gets thrown out in supreme court as illegal and now after you've created various expectations and and reliance you want to adopt a moratorium what in the world are you thinking and let me give you an example of where a moratorium really needs to be in place because quite frankly I think it's a very important issue and I think it's a very important issue and I think it's a very important issue and I think it's a very important issue because quite frankly I'm just really wondering whether your planning staff partakes of the edibles that these dispensaries are providing because I have a piece of property located at 730 main Ron if you want to attack my staff you'll do it somewhere else you won't do it here on TV so curb it and behave or you'll be removed from the screen warning you I'll move on appreciate it okay I'll move on I'll move on I'll move on and let me remind you Mr. Supervisor I have a constitutional First Amendment right to express my opinion and I have a constitutional right to have you removed from the screen so stick to the topic or you will be removed I'll stick to the topic thank you and I'll admonish you regarding my First Amendment rights sir again I have a piece of property located at 730 main road in aquabog where the planning department is not interested in the thank you has approved a cannabis dispensary immediately adjacent to that property. Under the rural corridor zoning, that property may be used residentially. So if the idea was to keep these dispensaries away from residential use, you failed again. So I would respectfully suggest that you seek appropriate advice, proper guidance, and not people who don't even understand the town's own rules. Thank you. Do we have somebody else online? Ma'am, come on up. Come on up.
Good evening, members of the board. My name is Martha Reichert. I am an attorney at Toomey Latham. I have represented. I have represented numerous cannabis dispensary clients, but here in the town of Riverhead, I represented Mr. Stark's application to the ZBA. And I wanted to just sort of provide a couple comments in terms of the proposed moratorium. I mean, first off, Riverhead has, you know, time and time again, in each iteration of its cannabis laws, indicated that their regulations were time, place, manner, and saturation. And I just want to point out that saturation does not appear once in the cannabis law. And so, you know, the permissible scope of municipal rulemaking is time, place, and manner. And then it was further supplemented by the regulations that were enacted, which have a very specific list. And so, you know, one of the things that I want to bring to the town's attention is that in the Tinkiney decision, it didn't throw out your entire cannabis regulations. It looked at the areas where Riverhead enacted distances that exceeded what the state has promulgated. And if you look at all the other towns in Suffolk County that have permitted cannabis, Riverhead is the only one that has permitted cannabis. And so, you know, I think that's a good thing. Riverhead is the one that has departed the farthest from what Southampton has, what Brookhaven has, what Babylon has. So, you know, again, if you look at the Tinkiney decision and what numerous cannabis business advocates, the business advisory committee said back in 2024, was that they asked this town to come into compliance with those state distances. I understand that there is difference of opinion between the town attorney's office. I understand that there is difference between the town attorney's office and advocates such as myself, different cannabis industry, licensees, trade groups, et cetera. But what this most recent court case held was that those were the aspects that were preempted, right? There are some issues in the zoning law that need to be tweaked to conform with the uniformity requirement. Again, good drafting can solve that. A moratorium is a heavy-handed approach, as you've heard from a couple different stakeholders, who would be very negatively impacted. It will delay the amount of tax revenue that Riverhead will see. But, you know, just to go back to the sort of soups and nuts aspect of this, is that the moratorium is a violation of Cannabis Law 131.2, which says that you cannot enact local laws that prohibit the operation and licensing and, again, getting those municipal approvals for dispensaries and on-site consumption locations. And so, you know, I think that's a big issue. I think that you are opening yourself up to serious legal challenge that will find the same issues that you're coming up against with the initial defects in Riverhead's zoning regulations. You know, and I think that also when Riverhead reexamines their zoning regulations, the local law that was adopted in July to sort of clarify the process has not helped. It has not helped. It has not helped your process clarification. The planning board granted preliminary site plan approval to a site that doesn't even have a license. Right? They just filled out a notice to municipality, but they don't have an actual license. They put a bogus license number on it, and the planning board ran with it. You know, I think that that's where you should be refining your process and your application intake, is to ensure that you actually have a valid applicant, a valid licensee. Right? Again, the state has enacted a very comprehensive, regulatory framework for marketing and all these different things. The town is not powerless. Your zoning ability has not been taken away. Time, place, and manner still allows a lot of for odor control, traffic, architecture, visual, aesthetic means, all of which are traditional zoning aspects. So I think that again, I think this is just a bridge too far. It is a moratorium in search of a problem. And at the end of the day, you're going to again, find that it is violating the cannabis law. And I don't think that it's a sustainable approach for Riverhead to take, especially when, if you look at the studies that the town conducted, especially the surveys, it was an overwhelming, right? I think it was 70 plus percent of the people who responded to the surveys, and it was thousands of people, were supportive of cannabis coming to the town. Right? Yeah. And so I think that the town of Riverhead, again, I will echo some of the sentiments that were made by some of the licensees and the trade organizations, which is information is key. You have to go visit some of these dispensaries, see how they operate. They are full of security. They are well lit. They are a retail shopping experience. They are not some sort of den of inequity. They are business people. They are taxpayers. And the town of Riverhead, again, could be seeing significant tax revenue. And this moratorium doesn't further that cause. And again, I'm not saying that it's a good thing. My opinion as an attorney and someone who's looked at the cannabis law is that it will not survive a legal challenge. So I thank you for letting me make these comments today, and I respectfully ask that the moratorium not be enacted. Thank you. We'll take one online. We'll take one online. 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. 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. There are some minorities that got in trouble for things that I probably walked away from, just why I really feel social justice is important in getting licenses. But that's above all pay grades, including the town boards. The state determines that. But when it came to the town looking to opt out, the prior supervisor was in favor of opting out. She was a former law enforcement officer that had, candidly, a reefer madness point of view on what marijuana did. Thankfully, one of her town board members, a guy named Tim Hubbard, who was in law enforcement, kind of summed it up my way. In all the people that he's arrested for violence, there are a lot of drunks, but not one pothead. So I'll just leave it at that and then move on to the reason for the moratorium. When they were discussing the opt out, I spent about 20 minutes in the moratorium. I spent about 20 minutes at the microphone reading articles from the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and Harvard as to some of the benefits of marijuana, dealing with post-traumatic stress and pain and all these things. And I do agree with some of the prior speakers that the amount of THC in today's marijuana, when I was smoking in the Bronx, it was 5%. I went to strange stores and got myself a 95% vape. Unbelievable. By the way, it's a great high. I'm home. I take one hit every two hours and I'm fine. But the point is that I believe I had some positive impact on a majority of the town board saying, yes, let's allow it in here. And when the second no vote was Ken Rothwell, and he was appointed by the prior supervisor to head this commission, I had my doubts. And I attended. And I was probably five out of the six hearings. And the first thing I realized on my first attendance there was that Tim let everybody's opinion be spoken, was in my opinion totally objective to what was being said in this meeting. And there might have been a half a dozen residents like me in the room and maybe 30 or 40 people that were either getting licenses or representing marijuana lobbies and all that good stuff. And I had to go back and look at the other side of the room and say, well, we had a lot of people that were pushing hard for rules that were as flexible as possible. So we had a different opinion. And I count myself as the we. Not just the town board, but people that were in the room that said, you know something, why don't we see what we can do to spread this out in our footprint between Wading River and James Ford and limit the number of retail stores in there to start this thing off. And maybe after three or four years, we'll take a look at it. And I'm not saying that we're going to be able to do it. We're going to have to wait and see. And I'm not saying that we're going to be able to do it. And I'm not saying that we're going to be able to do it. And I'm not saying that we're going to be able to do it. But I do remember there were three or four in Route 58 corridor that was subject to spacing. So the attorney that just spoke about saturation, she might make that the point, but that was not the issue here. The issue here was time, place, and manner. Ann Marie Prudente, our wonderful deputy town attorney. Read the 300 pages from the state law, condensed it into an executive summary of about 10 pages that maybe it might have been 20 or 30, but it was certainly a lot less than I could have read had I read everything online. And she emphasized time, place, and manner. And it is true that the distances between schools and churches and daycare centers and beaches might be longer. And it is true that the distances between schools and churches and beaches and public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public And after the last iteration, I think it was around 150 spots. And at that time, there was still people from the marijuana lobbies and everything else saying we should get more. And I said, you know something, there's 150 spots. Why don't you see what works for you guys now and get your applications in? And that's what some smart people did. And other people might not have done that. And again, I think right now there might only be two. I go to strange stores. I have to tell you, Joanne, I am outraged at the allegation that you made that they were handing out gummies. And anybody that was handing out gummies. That was not me, Mr. Foley. That was me. That was Councilman Mary Keats. I made the allegation. Sorry, Denise. And it's always Mike, Denise. You know better. But whoever saw that, if it can be proven, not only should the guy be fired, and I believe he will be, but he should probably be arrested. And then go through the process. He's not going to do time for it or anything else. That ship has sailed. But it's outrageous. I saw this, by the way, I was there. I saw the strange stores thing. I didn't go by it. I didn't walk that far. I was going to a concert that night at the Suffolk. But if that can be proven, Denise, that person should be identified and arrested and strange stores should be put on notice. The next time something comes up on our town, you better not be giving samples away because that's clearly a violation. But I digress. So we put in this final code that allows about six of these retail stores in our entire footprint, west to east. We have two. When I'm done with this, Eric, if you can just remind me, I thought there were two already approved but hadn't broken ground yet. And I don't think this moratorium would consider them. I think they've already kind of been approved. I could be wrong on that. You let us know. But ultimately. This moratorium came about for one reason and one reason only. Because the state of New York challenged the time, place, and matter rights of the town of Riverhead. This is not about weed. This is about the state overreaching on what we're entitled to do as a town and the five town board members that we elected to represent us. So as far as I'm concerned, again, I support this moratorium for that reason. I think we should put it on because not doing that would allow people to violate the applicants, to violate what we say as the town of Riverhead, as what we want in our town. Saturation, you know, I happen to believe that saturation is a real problem. And, you know, I know that there's one person on that board at least that wanted, you know, a supply and demand rule. And I get that. But I also believe it was a smart move on our part to space these things out to avoid any saturation, even though saturation, like the attorney said, is not written in the code. But it's something that we contemplated. And time, place, place, and manner gives us that right. So in my mind, I support the moratorium. I hope it passes. And I hope. And, again, people are talking about the expenses here. You know, if it costs us to sue $100,000, let's take it off the top of the tax revenue that we're getting from strain stores. When I went to the microphone many years ago to support this town putting in retail stores, my estimate was that in the first year of full operation, with the 3% off the top that we get, the discretionary additional money that can be distributed from the state, I figured our piece of this action was going to be a great deal. And I thought at the time that it would be great to put that money towards security in the streets, on the parking lots coming in. There was that perception of safety. Let's address it. Put a couple of signs up. Smile, you're on our camera. Getting extracurricular supplies for our schools. Putting some money into that, into uniforms, into musical instruments, into arts. That's what I was hoping the money was. And I think it's going to go to. But the fact of the matter remains is that we have pierced the cap justifiably in our town for the last two years. We had to add more cops. We had to give more money in salaries. And the big money maker in my mind, EpCal, is still in limbo. And when EpCal comes through, then maybe we can talk about where this extra money is going to go. In my mind right now, I think you're probably going to have to face the reality that if we can reduce. The piercing of the cap using that money, it's probably that the musical instruments are going to have to wait. But anyway, I believe wholeheartedly in this moratorium because it doesn't address the stores. It addresses the overreach on the state of New York, trying to tell our town what we can do in time, place and manner. Thanks, Tim. And Eric, if you can answer the question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mike. All right. So, yeah, there's two. There's two additional sites that have been granted approval. From the planning board. One is 720 Main Road. And then the other is 840 Old Country Road. But the status of 840 Old Country Road is unclear, given that they haven't been granted a license by the state. OK, so they're not they're not covered in this moratorium. They'll be allowed to proceed if they're licensed. And that's good news. And, you know, we did talk about, again, going back to the committee that Ken chaired. You know, we can look at the number of stores we have in four or five years. Let the dust settle. Maybe supply and demand can be revisited and the saturation that was contemplated without being spoken, I believe, in time, place and manner can be rethought. But right now. Now I'm anxious to see what the revenue is. I wholeheartedly support this moratorium. Let's beat the state and court on their overreach. Use the pot money if you need to, and we'll get back to this after we win that issue. It's an important issue. Thanks. Thank you, Mike. Okay, we have nobody else online. Do we have anybody else in the audience who would like to make a statement regarding this? Not seeing anybody at this point in time. What I would like to do is I'm going to close this public hearing. Keep it open until August 29th for written comment. And could I have a motion to close this public hearing? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay, it is closed but open for written comment until August 29th. Public hearing number four, scheduled for 6 o'clock. It is now 718. Amendment to Chapter 301 regarding shopping center. And again, we have Mr. Chalmers. Mr. Chalmers is up. Supervisor, there was one scheduled before that on business center, if you want to hear that one first. I'm sorry, you're right. It's amendment to Chapter 301, and it's regarding the business center. Matt Chalmers. Very plainly, these are proposed amendments to the business center zoning use district to add a requirement for a 35-foot landscape buffer along road frontages into the lot yard bulk and height requirements. It's currently in the town code as a footnote only, which is difficult for some applicants to see. Sometimes they don't even realize they have to do it, so this is to make it more explicit and put it actually within the code section so they know that it is a requirement. Okay. This is a very simple one. Yep. Board, any questions, comments? No. I just have one, Matt. Is this the same as the shopping center? What's these? Business center and shopping center are two very similar zoning use districts. You see it along Route 58. They both have this requirement in this instance for this particular amendment. It's just to make it more explicit and put it in the code section. All right, thanks. Thank you. Anybody from the public wish to comment on this public hearing? Nobody online? Not seeing anybody in the audience? I'll make a motion we close the public hearing on business center and keep it open for written comment until August 29th. Can I have a motion? So moved. Seconded. Motion and seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. The public hearing is closed but open for written comment until August 29th. Now we're moving on to public hearing number four and this is an amendment to Chapter 301 regarding shopping center again with Matt Charters and it is now 720. Okay. So, Bob, similar to what we were just talking about. So this is the amendments to shopping center zoning use district which is to expand the permitted zoning, the allowable uses within that district to mirror the business center. As I mentioned previously, these zones are coterminous. Often in many cases along Route 58 there's not really a distinction between the two. Maybe under the original legislative intent that the shopping centers would be more centrally located and as you go out you would transition into business center zoning. That's not really the case. It's sort of a checkerboarding along Route 58. A lot of these sites function the same way. This also adds the 35 foot buffering requirement. That's pretty much it just to make these zoning use districts similar because they're not the same. And for the most cases they are pretty much the same. Okay. Matt, I have a question. Business center, does business center allow recreation? I believe that it does. Is there a reason why we wouldn't allow that given the state of retail stores why we wouldn't allow that in shopping centers? I think it's so in here, hold on, the last health clubs and spas and indoor sports and recreation facilities already in shopping center. Oh, it's in, okay. Yeah. Okay. I didn't see the full list. Similar to why you have the. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is there a possibility of solving the problem of cars only being able to go into one shopping center and not being able to go from one property to the next like some of them do have road roads? Cross access from one center to the other. If this is the moment now, great. But if not, the question is where can we write in our code that we need to open those up so that we release the amount of tension and driver's panic on 58? Thanks very much. Okay. Matt, I'll let you answer that. I know we've talked about that. Yeah, Tocqueville, as a very quick answer to your question, I don't know the zoning section off the top of my head, but it's already a requirement of Town Code. So especially in these areas, as things come back in for site plan review or new properties come in, we always require cross access. It's often in the case that it's future cross access until the adjoining property comes in and then the planning board or town board, whoever has site plan or special permit approving of that. So I'm just going to go ahead and get that. Okay. So we have a question from the audience. Local
That's one where the Home Depot Best Buy property came back in for site plan amendments and we required them to open up that cross access, right? That's exactly correct. Thank you, Matt. Yep. Anybody else to comment on shopping centers? Nobody online, nobody in public. Make a motion to close the public hearing on shopping center and keep it open until August 29th for written comment. Motion by Councilwoman Merrifield. Second. Second by Councilman Kern. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay, that public hearing is now closed. Public hearing number five, scheduled for 6.05 p.m. It is now 7.24. This is regarding the Monroe balancing test with the Suffolk County Water. We have Councilor Howard, Matt Charters, and we have Jeff Seaman. All prepared to present. All right, thank you, Supervisor. Just to open up, the Monroe balancing test refers to a test that was developed by the Court of Appeals in 1988 to resolve intergovernmental land use disputes. The case law that's developed from there, the encroaching municipality or intergovernmental entity is presumed to be subject to the host community zoning, unless specifically exempt by statute. In this instance, the town of Riverhead, we are considering ourselves to be the host community for the North Fork Transmission Line proposed by the Suffolk County Water Authority. The decision in the Monroe case listed a series of nine factors that the board, our town board will consider in determining whether and or to what extent the Suffolk County Water Authority will be immune from locals, and whether or not the local zoning laws and regulations. So those factors are the nature and scope of the entity seeking immunity, the encroaching governmental units legislative grant of authority, the kind or function of land use involved in the proposed project, the effect of local land use regulation would have on, in this instance, Suffolk County Water Authority, alternative locations for this facility in less restrictive zoning. In this instance, I think what we'll consider are alternative routes for the proposed project, the impact upon legitimate local interests, alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement, extent of public interest to be served by the improvements, and intergovernmental participation in the development process, and an opportunity to be heard. And on that point, I would reference the secret process whereby, andๆฒooๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒoๆฒo Suffolk County Water Authority also sought lead agency. There was a decision rendered by the DEC commissioner who resolved such disputes. That decision identified the town of Riverhead as an involved agency. When Suffolk County Water Authority issued its draft, announced its public hearings for draft environmental impact statement, it listed the town of Riverhead as an interested agency. And that's a designation that, as the town board is aware, we've continued to dispute. And with that being said, I would turn it over to Mr. Charters, who will give us an overview of the project. All right. So just very basically, due to the limited understanding that the town has of this project, we first came to understand the transmission line of this current iteration on March 23rd, 2023, when the Water Authority staged a groundbreaking at the corner of Laurel Lane and Beconic Bay Boulevard. This was a former route. This has since been redesigned. The project as it stands now is for an 8.5 mile, 24 inch transmission line to serve Suffolk County Water Authority customers in the town of Southhold. So the new route begins in South Hampton Town in Flanders, goes under the bottom of the Beconic River, comes up, goes up County Route 105, turns to your north on Northville Turnpike, and then turns to your east to the east on Sound Avenue and goes to the south. All 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. From the town's perspective, we don't have a lot of information on this project. IT'S ESSENTIALLY LINES ON A MAP FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SIDE OF THE ROAD THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO GO INTO. THAT'S REALLY IT. WE DID RETAIN JEFF SEAMAN AS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT ON THIS PROJECT. HE CAN REALLY OUTLINE SOME OF THE TOWN'S CONCERNS. BUT THE MORE INFORMATION I THINK FOR THIS BOARD WOULD BE BETTER SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD WHO ARE GOING TO SEE THE DIRECT CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT. AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JEFF. EIGHT MILES OF WATER MAIN BEING INSTALLED IN OUR TOWNSHIP AND WE'RE ONLY AN INTERESTED PARTY. CORRECT. I FIND THAT PRETTY PATHETIC QUITE HONESTLY. UNDERSTAND. GOOD EVENING, SUPERVISOR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M JEFF SEAMAN. I'M THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO THE TOWN. AND ASSIGNED TO THIS PROJECT. WITH WHAT I CONSIDER A VERY QUALIFIED AND PROFESSIONAL TEAM FROM THE TOWN THAT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DRILL DOWN INTO THE ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT. OVER THE LAST 12 WEEKS WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING COMMENTS INCLUDING PROTESTING THE POSITION THAT THE WATER AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN IN THE STATUS OF RIVERHEAD AS ONLY AN INTERESTED PARTY. I WOULD AGREE WITH THE SUPERVISOR VERY STRONGLY THAT NOT ONLY IS THIS PROJECT BEING BUILT WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY FOR A MAJORITY OF THE WORK. BUT IT'S ALSO BEING BUILT ON TOWN PROPERTY. WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE ANY STRONG ENGINEERING PLANS OTHER THAN THIS ROUTING LINE ON A MAP, IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR OUR TEAM TO ASSESS. NOT ONLY WHAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE, BUT WHERE THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT IS PHYSICALLY PLACED. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE IN THE WAY. WE HAVE NO MEETS AND BOUNDS WITH WHICH TO ASSESS ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR EASEMENTS OR PURCHASES OF LAND. SO IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THAT HURDLE, SINCE WE'VE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES TO OUR COMMENTS TO DATE FROM THE WATER AUTHORITY. IT'S MY STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT IF EVEN PARTIAL IMMUNITY IS GRANTED, NO IMMUNITY BE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 56, SITE PLAN REVIEW. MY REASONS FOR THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT, I VIEW THE WATER AUTHORITY AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPER PROPOSING A PROJECT WITHIN RIVERHEAD, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE US WITH REAL PLANS, REAL MEETS AND BOUNDS. ACKNOWLEDGE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT, AS WE NORMALLY DO WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW, FOR THEIR INFORMATION AS TO WHAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AT THESE LOCATIONS. FURTHERMORE, SITE PLAN REVIEW IS GOING TO PULL IN OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS. THEY'RE GOING TO BE CROSSING WETLANDS. THEY'RE PROPOSING AN OPEN CUT AT TERRY'S CREEK. SO THAT WOULD BE UNDER CHAPTER 295. THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMITS, HIGHWAY PERMITS, ET CETERA. WE HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF APPLICABLE PERMISSIONS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE GRANTED THROUGH RIVERHEAD TOWN AT A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT BOARDS. FURTHERMORE, UNDER THE SIGRA PROCESS, WHICH THEY'RE IN NOW. THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. AND TYPICALLY WITHOUT A SITE PLAN REVIEW, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ENFORCEABLE ABILITY TO HOLD THEM TO THOSE MITIGATING MEASURES. AS WE TYPICALLY DO IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES IN, IS REQUIRED TO DO AN EIS. FILE A FINDING STATEMENT AT THE END. WE TAKE THOSE CONDITIONS, THOSE MITIGATING MEASURES, AND INCORPORATE THEM INTO THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THEY CAN BE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. THEY CAN BE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. BUT THEY'RE NOTED IN THE RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL. THAT GIVES CODE ENFORCEMENT THE ABILITY TO OVERSEE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND WITHOUT THAT ABILITY, SINCE THE BOARD OF AUTHORITY IS ITS OWN LEAD AGENCY, THEY'RE DESIGNING THE PROJECT. THEY'RE APPROVING THE PROJECT THEMSELVES. THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER AVENUE, I BELIEVE, THAT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO US TO ENFORCE WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO AVOID THE IMPACTS. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY WATER TO THE RESIDENTS OF RIVERHEAD. IT'S JUST A TRANSMISSION LINE. AND THERE'S NOT BEEN TO OUR TEAM IDENTIFIABLE BENEFITS TO THE TOWN. LASTLY, WE'VE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS PROJECT TO DATE. AND I THINK THROUGH THE REASONABLE SITE PLAN FEES AND PERMIT FEES THAT ARE REQUIRED, THAT WOULD GIVE THE TOWN THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SOME MONEY FOR THE CONTINUED REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE. IT'S A PRETTY BIG PROJECT. IT IS EXPECTED TO GO ON FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS. WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, HIGHWAY RESTORATION, EXISTING UTILITIES, INCLUDING THE RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT'S UTILITIES THAT ARE ALSO LOCATED IN WHAT WE CONSIDER A FAIRLY NARROW RIGHT OF WAY ALONG SOUND AVENUE. MY OTHER RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IF THROUGH YOUR DELIBERATIONS YOU AGREE THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AT A MINIMUM, WE SHOULD COVER THE PROJECT FROM THE PROJECT TO THE PROJECT. THE BOUNDARY WITH SOUTH HAMPTON AND RIVERHEAD ALL THE WAY TO ITS TERMINUS, NOT JUST WITHIN THE PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT BE OWNED BY THE TOWN, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH ANY OTHER APPLICANT. SO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I HAVE MORE FORMAL AND DETAILED COMMENTS THAT I'LL SUBMIT AS WELL. NEW SPEAKER PORTER? ANY COMMENTS? ANY QUESTIONS? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER? NEW SPEAKER PORTER?" NEW SPEAKER PORTER?" NEW SPEAKER PORTER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" NEW SPEAKER?" it so who wants to be on board actually while they're building it while they're building it excuse me and who wants to be on that plane and you know we would be willing to work I think more cohesively with the water authority I know I think it's item 9 that talks about intergovernmental cooperation honestly I found that somewhat lackluster even during the scoping sessions there's nothing in secret that prohibits the lead agency to respond at a scoping hearing to some of the comments questions and issues that are raised that should go into the EIS I know that I prepared at least 40 independent comments on this application supervisor and the board have provided letters and we have not really gotten a lot of feedback on the project from the water authority so I think if they are at least pushed through the site plan process we may have answers that we really need to have in order to protect the natural resources and the residents within the town well said Jeff thank you do we have anybody from the public who would like to comment I also think that it's very important that the residents understand that we understand as a board your concerns and you are our primary concern I know that this must worry a lot of people you know we understand your property values and that this would have a negative impact on on you so don't think that that that is not on our mind at all times I have yet to see the value or how in any way this helps of a riverhead resident in itself the taxpayers and individuals and the public and the public would get a plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea plea we get started with the public what i would recommend is if there's any representatives here from suffolk county water authority that want to speak to the factors i think now would be the time to speak to those factors and then i think we would open it up to the public okay to finish the monroe balancing test
mr supervisor if i may approach i have a letter i'd like entered into the record and i can provide copies to the board sure you can present it to the town clerk oh town clerk over here no the town clerk will pass it out
the gatekeeper thank you i forgot about you jim
thank you sir
this is the first line of paragraph two is a joke
my name is brody smith i'm an attorney at bond shenek and king and i represent the suffolk county water authority for this project specifically the north fork water main extension project there's really three things i want to talk about um in my presentation today we've given you a very detailed letter with a lot of information i'm not going to read at you i'm going to try to summarize the points in that letter as best i can and as efficiently as i can since i know you have a long agenda tonight by way of background the the three things that i'm going to talk about are first how important this project is secondly how consistent it is with past procedure and past practices and finally the my client's efforts to make this process as transfer transparent as it can be and what they plan to do going forward to improve that even more so by way of background the suffolk county water authority scwa is the largest supplier of public water in suffolk county it's been operating under one entity or another going back to 1934. there's 1.3 million customers they were created pursuant to the public authorities law title 4 article 5 to perform and i quote the essential government function of providing water to suffolk county residents so this system extends from babylon to south hold there's 586 wells 242 pump stations and over 6 000 miles of mains associated with the scwa system this is what they do this is their job all day every day they provide water to residents now currently south hold has 60 wells and more than 10 000 customers that are isolated from the rest of that system there is no interconnection between the rest of the system and those customers in addition there's about 3 000 residents in south hold that are on private wells so they don't have the opportunity to have public water right now the demand in south hold varies widely during the course of the year at the low ebb it's about 1800 gallons per minute during the winter months but as you can imagine during the summer it spikes it spikes to over 12 000 gallons per minute and that requires the system to dip into reserves meaning they are water is being consumed much faster 3 000 gallons per minute faster than it's then it can be pulled out with the existing wells that is a problem and the reason that's a problem it's a problem from the point of view of public safety public welfare you know the imagine if any of these systems any of these wells were compromised there was an there's an issue you're you're you're dipping into a danger area there where the use is far out pacing the production the other problem is something is i think something important to all of you as town representatives is fire safety if you've got a system that is not keeping up with its use the capacity creates the potential for there not being adequate water in the system to fight serious fires so the solution i think is pretty clear and that's what the project is is to connect it to the rest of the scwa system specifically the south shore low zone or what it's is what it's called and so then if these systems are not keeping up with its use then the capacity creates the potential for they're not keeping up with their use and so if these systems are connected they would benefit from the other hundreds of wells in the system and there would be excess capacity that that could be used instead of just relying on those 60 wells in south hold why not drop more wells in south hold the reason is because the aquifer there is uh at its mat it wouldn't be wise to add more wells on that aquifer because it's already being taxed as much as it it could safely be so um that gets into the monroe doctrine factors that your attorney alluded to which what the monroe county case is all about is whether local regulations apply to certain projects by another jurisdiction and the whole point of monroe if you if you wonder where this case comes from from the 80s is sometimes there's projects that are regionally important right and they need to be managed and managed in a way that's not going to affect the overall outcome of the project and that's what i'm trying to do here is i'm trying to make sure that the fixed fixed
fixed
fixed fixed um land use regulations so the responding first to what uh attorney howard had said about the um the process up to this point the dec he's correct the dec did designate the water authority as the lead agency and you all deal with seeker all the time so not telling you anything i don't think you know somebody has to be lead agency you can't when you have certain projects that require coordinated review the dec is the arbiter of of who the lead agency will be now the idea that the dec has made a decision as to whether or not the town is interested or involved well that really has to do with that's not true that really has to do with whether or not there will be permits issued by the town and so it's a little bit of circular reasoning there if the monroe doctrine applies that means that the the water authority wouldn't have to obtain permits from the town so that's that's what that issue will turn on so i won't spend a lot of time on it here but that that is that's the factor that's what we're talking about so saying that it's interested and involved that's really going to depend on the outcome of the monroe doctrine test the planner said that more information is needed to understand the impacts i'll get into this at the end and i'll again i'll try to do this as efficiently as possible so there's no repetition and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue and then we can continue from individual residents, from everyone, to better focus what it is they need to study, what information they need to develop, and therefore to really understand what the impacts will be, and then design mitigation to lessen those impacts. We're in that process now. So to say that, you know, there's not sufficient detail at this point is to say, well, you haven't finished a process that really is just beginning. And then finally, to respond to Mr. Seaman, some of the things that Mr. Seaman said, your consultant, one of his statements I think was very revealing. He said he views the Water Authority as any other developer. I mean, it clearly isn't. It is a public authority that is authorized by the state of New York to provide water to Suffolk County residents. It's just not. It's not a private developer. The planning board is not a regional planning, the town planning board is not a regional planning authority. Now, it's great work that the planning board does, and this is not to diminish at all their expertise and efforts, but this is a project that has impacts beyond the jurisdiction of the town and beyond just sort of the narrow application of the code. Getting into the Monroe factors. First factor is what is the nature of the Water Authority? Now, it is an independent public benefit corporation created under the laws of the state of New York, specifically the public authority law. Its statutory mission is to provide water to residents to promote public health and fire safety in Suffolk County. And this project is obviously well within the scope of that authority. Right. We're proposing a water main project. So the first factor that you weigh in that test, clearly the Water Authority is an appropriate entity to undertake this type of project. Second factor, what is the kind of function or land use involved? And I mentioned the, this is the first theme that I mentioned before about consistency with prior practice. In the past, the town has not required, the Water Authority to obtain local planning board approval, going back to 1992, an interconnection between our systems. They didn't require it when over 5,500 square linear feet of main was constructed on Herrick and South Ave in the 2012, 2013 timeframe. In fact, there's currently 7,000 feet of main in Riverhead that that's owned by the Water Authority. In addition to that, if you think about the Manorville project, which is very recent, that's over 20,000 feet that was installed within the town by the Water Authority of Water Main in the Manorville area. Again, did not require planning board approval or local approvals. So that has been the relationship between the two entities. That has been the standard operating procedure for as long as anyone can remember that local approval was not required when the Water Authority lays main in Riverhead. Councilor, all of those that you just mentioned provided benefit to the residents of the town of Riverhead. This eight mile transmission line through our town disrupting our roads has no community benefit to us whatsoever. Those are two very different things. Now, I understand what you're saying, if that's sort of the difference from a political point of view in terms of making it a factual point of view. It's not political. Oh my God. It's a factual. My, that is a factual point of view. It's not political. It's not probably. It is factual. I agree with that. But my point is from a legal point of view, one of the factors in Monroe test is not whether a project specifically benefits some subset of a county or a specific neighborhood or anything like that. The factors that I'm laying out to you, the same factors that your attorney listed, and that's not one of them. So when I talk about consistency and the kind of function and the land use involved, this type of land use, water mains, specifically, water mains from the water authority has not been regulated by the town in the way that you're proposing to do it now. That's just true. But I understand the distinction you're trying to make there. The other thing is that putting water mains underground in road right of ways is how you do this. That's really the procedure that you would follow not only throughout Suffolk County, throughout the state and elsewhere. That's not an unusual thing. So when you look at the second factor of this test, we're not talking about water mains. We're talking about waterways. We're talking about waterways. When they're asking you to look at the type of land use involved, is it contrary to that kind of standard procedures? Is it contrary to the function of the land use involved? Is it a wrong fit? No, it's not the wrong fit. That's where water mains go. They go into road right-of-ways. The third factor is the public purpose factor. Does this project serve a public purpose? And I alluded before that this is an important project. Now, it's important because it provides capacity for fire safety, particularly in summer months. For parts of South Hold, specifically Orient, is a Hamilton South Hold, they have high PFAS levels in a lot of that well water. This project would allow... For a potential phase two to put as many as 3,000 residents there onto the system so that they would have clean, potable drinking water. And this is necessary in order to do that. And then also the general capacity to serve demand in the summer months, just to have sufficient water that's safe for the public to use. It's necessary. It's a public purpose. So when you isolate that factor, you ask yourself, does this serve a public purpose? Of course it does. Not in the town of Riverhead. What's that? Not in the town of Riverhead.
You're not providing them water. You're selling water. You're selling water to the town of South Hold at the expense of Riverhead taxpayers. That's what you're doing. So you're not just providing them a service. You're selling it to them. So that is true. That when people connect their water system to... Any public entity, you charge people for water too. That there are costs associated with the maintenance of a water system. But we are not a for-profit entity. This is a public authority under the laws of the state of New York that is created to provide this service, not to make a profit for anybody. So I think that to imply that this is a money grab or something, it's not. So the effects of the regulation... Land use regulation is the fourth factor in the test that you have to look at. So the effects of land use regulation on the project could severely delay it and prevent it from going forward at all. This is a countywide water authority. This is a countywide system. And the purpose of immunity is to facilitate precisely the type of development that we're talking about here, pursuant to that Monroe County... example that I provided you before. This is a regional problem that requires a regional solution. The effect of the land use regulation would defeat that solution. And that's why it's important that we honor the law and the case law on this subject. Local... Local interests is the next factor. So this is what will the impacts on your town be? If the impact... You're entitled to consider, you know, how severe will those impacts be? Well, these mains will be put in the right of way, in the road right of way. They will be underground to the extent that there's any... that there's land disturbance during the construction. The area will be restored at the expense of the water authority and completely to the previous or better condition. So the impacts, though there will be impacts, they are temporary and construction impacts. They are not permanent impacts in the sense that... Yeah. They're not the same way that like a development project would be where you would see, you know, permanent above ground negative environmental impacts. That's just not the case. These are construction related impacts that are temporary by their nature. Finally, I'm going to group the last two factors where it talks about were alternatives considered in terms of locations and methods. I told you about methods that there was an initial thought that... You know, could we put more wells in South... Put more wells in South Hold, but that is not feasible. And I don't think anybody says that we should do that and tax that aquifer. I'm not aware of any voice in the community that proposes that. So then the question is, what about other routes, which I heard people allude to? Is this the right route? Is this the right way in terms of details? I want to finish my presentation here with talking a little bit about the... I want to finish my presentation here with talking a little bit about that seeker process to make sure everyone understands the importance of transparency to my client. And this seeker process is not just we decide what we're going to study, what we're going to have our consultants study and provide information on. Part of that process, the scoping process, is to get input from you, to get input from the community. And that will all be included as part of a scoping document, which will essentially be the template for the process. And that will be the table of contents for the environmental impact statement, which is a detailed, highly regulated study that will be conducted based on the input that we get in scoping as to what issues need to be studied. So these comments that are being provided now are being incorporated by your consultants, by your planner, by your attorney. These are things that are being considered as part of the scoping document. There is a draft scope. People comment on it. There is a draft scope. And then a final scope. And so our intention is to study the issues that are important to you and important to the residents of your community in terms of potential impacts that this project would have, even temporary impacts from a construction point of view. After that, what my client will do is they will publish a draft environmental impact statement. And they will invite members of the community. They will invite you. They will invite anyone. They will invite anyone with an interest in the project to provide comments on all of that. So after scoping, another round of comments to address some of these issues that are being raised about, you know, some of the details in the construction designs and that sort of thing. Then they will respond to every single comment as part of the final environmental impact statement. And then after that, after considering all the comments, responding to them, they will respond to the final environmental impact statement. And then after that, after considering all the comments, responding to them, making adjustments in accordance with those comments, they will put out a finding statement explaining their reasoning. The idea, the metaphor given that we are flying a plane that's still being built ignores the very successful tried and true environmental impact assessment process dictated by the seeker laws which we are following to the letter. And so we are going to do that. We will continue to do that. We will continue to do that. We will continue to do that. of hearing those complaints and making adjustments based on what we hear and that is that is the instructions that have been provided by the leadership of the Water Authority this project is consistent with past pro with past projects and in in the past there's not been a requirement for local land use approvals for the construction of water mains it is important to the fire safety and the public health and welfare of view of the residents of the of Suffolk County and finally our intention is to be entirely transparent that is why I am here and that is why there is a seeker process that is going on now that everyone is invited to participate in I thank you for giving me some time to talk and I appreciate you considering the information that we've provided how transparent were you when you held a groundbreaking ceremony telling the Riverhead community that you were going ahead and putting this piping to the ground without even consulting with us in Laurel in Laurel two years ago every project every process needs a beginning I think that intention is that as a beginning to begin this conversation you know I think that we're going to have to do this by law and I don't think that it was anyone's intention by having a groundbreaking ceremony to say that we're not going to listen to anyone's input as we're required to do by law as part of the environmental impact statement process if you were correct that we didn't want to listen to people then we went to pause decked it and impose the EIS process on the authority smells strongly of the fox in the henhouse you design it and you put it in the !
office office office office office office
on the water pressure or lack of water pressure in South Hole? Yes. There's data in our letter specifically. I'm sorry. I interrupted. Is it in this letter? Is it in here? Yeah. Off the top of my head, I can give you the rough numbers. So the low ebb is about 1,800 gallons per minute in the winter months. But then in the summer, there's a lot more people. And it exceeds, during the summer months, it can exceed 12,000 gallons per minute. And when it's doing that, we're 3,000 gallons per minute in the red pulling from reserves when we're in that condition. Okay. So I'm going to, Frank Mancini, I'm going to ask you to back me up on this because I'm a little out of my territory here. But USGA has been doing studies all over, if I'm not mistaken, over the North Fork. Are you privy to any of those studies and where the water is? I mean, I know you're hitting salt in some areas. Is there fresh water in South Hold anywhere? So South Hold currently has 60 wells on an aquifer. It is, I have been informed that it is operating at capacity and that to add more wells to that aquifer would be irresponsible from an environmental point of view, but also a point of view of the maintenance of the aquifer. And so, you know, the fact that you have a lot of water in the system, you overtax these aquifers in proximity to the sound and you get saltwater intrusion. So that is not an attractive option. You mentioned development as part of this so that South Hold could, you know, develop a lot more? The purpose of this project is to serve existing customers. So can you speak a little bit to the urgency of the project given that they've reported that 70% of the usage is for landscape purposes? The urgency of the project? All I can say is, and I don't know if that's true or not, that how much people use water for landscaping in the summer, that could be, I'm not really aware of where you're getting that statistic from, but what I will say is as long as you have a system that is using water more quickly than you would have to do it in the summer, then you're going to have a lot of water. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. additional tanks to store water for high usage times rather than pumping more water in? So in our letter I provide the exact capacity of the existing tanks in the currently in South Holt. I think there are three and the gallon capacity is provided for each. This project does not contemplate the construction of additional tanks as far as I know in South Holt and it does not contemplate the dropping additional wells. The purpose of it is to connect the South Holt, essentially it's a service island, with the rest of a much larger system to provide more capacity and consistency from a safety point of view. So you see no benefit to additional water towers to Mr. Howard's point when you're on low ebb, right? You can be pumping water into water towers and storing it in there, can you? As I understand it, the project does not include the construction of additional storage. I understand your question, but that is not the intention of the project. But you're ignoring the other options and secondary options, aren't you? Yeah, alternatives. Remember, use that word. Yeah, and part of the alternatives analysis, what I'm trying to say is it is not for me and you to decide what the best alternative is. I don't know what the best alternative is today, but there is a detailed seeker process where alternatives are required to be analyzed as part of the environmental impact statement. And then engineers and, you know, hydrologists will explore all of this in more detail as part of the environmental impact statement pursuant to the scoping document that I alluded to before. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I think Southhold needs to step up their conservation programs on their water, as Riverhead has done. We have been a leader in that over the past few years through our water district. And even in its height of use during the summer, Riverhead has never gone into emergency mode, whereas Suffolk County has, because I think that we have been leaders and Frank Mancini of our water district. Okay. And I think that we have been a leader in the community in terms of putting in conservative efforts in the town. I think Southhold needs to do that as well. Water conservation is good. Mm-hmm. Well, Suffolk County has done a great job. You guys have actually gone out and given homes the monitoring rain sensor systems to households, you know, to help you out. I mean, are you doing that in Southhold right now? Yes. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. We're being careful about that right now. already done, I mean, that's been done, you know, west of here. That I know. The other thing I know that they've been very good at is giving out rain sensors free to homes in order to conserve water. I'm just asking, you know, to follow up on the Councilman's point. I can gather more information about that. I was not prepared today to talk about the that detail. So setting aside phase two, in phase one, is there any specific growth or development in South Hold now that this is intended to address? Or it's entirely based on what's being considered current lack of water or diminishing supply? So as I understand your question, so phase one is interconnecting the current system, the larger system. That's the South Shore low zone to the South Hold system by a water main. Right. Okay. And so your question is does this project include additional Basically, is this necessary for current or anticipated growth or development in South Hold? The purpose of the project is to, we have a deficit now. The purpose of the project is to address the existing deficit. Okay. Yeah. Local fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed like crazy. If there's no effort made for water conservation, the easy answer isn't to run a transmission line through the town of Riverhead. The answer should be work with these people, work with the residents on water conservation, provide them with rain gauges, and see if that can make a difference before you disrupt an entire town with this transmission line. I think that as an option needs to be looked at, and I also agree with the fact that we should look at can they have more storage tanks out there, pump them to fill them, do they have the water to pump them and fill them and keep them for the quote rainy day, unrainy day when the water is needed in the height of the season. And I think that's another avenue that needs to be explored. It hasn't been answered sufficiently to me that that has been explored enough to be a viable option instead of All viable alternatives, including the things that you're saying, ought to be explored during the seeker process as part of the environmental impact statement. Also that the damage to the tourism industry in Riverhead be explored. Because we're talking about probably a couple hundred million dollars with all the farms that we have and them using Sound Avenue. I'm just curious. You're referring to disruption due to traffic? Absolutely. Yes. That would be studied as part of the environmental impact statement. I want a dollar amount attached to that because a lot of farms here are going to suffer and a lot of businesses are going to suffer. And I would like, I kind of know the number. I'd like you to get the number from Suffolk County what that is because it's excessive. Yeah. There's no doubt that traffic is a huge component of what's being studied. They're spending, the traffic they're spending. Right. And then, and then also, you know, it's not just there'll be traffic. End of discussion, then mitigation and procedures to try to minimize those impacts are a huge part of the environmental impact statement process. The problem is there's no other road for the residents to use along Sound Avenue in certain areas where this would be ripped up. There's no other access out to major roads. Yeah. That obviously needs to be studied. The Riverhead taxpayers have just invested money in the river. Yeah. And they've spent a lot of money through our highway department and paid the highway taxes and paved Sound Road more recently last year creating a beautiful ride through the Riverhead. I look quite honestly with the work in which you've just done in Manorville and you did patch jobs throughout the entire process of it and those roads are in not good condition because of the water. Now, we advocated for water and we needed water in there, but because it was a direct benefit to the taxpayers here and in the town to have clean drinking water in there. We fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed it and fixed be number one studied, but number two, the intention of the water authority is to return the road to the same or better condition that it was prior. To the extent that that didn't happen elsewhere, that's a different problem that I will take back to them. But the intention in this project is not to leave you with worse roads than you had before. The intention is to restore them. Have you considered following the rail? This way, it's less intrusive. You're not really dealing with too many roads. You're just dealing with the railroad crossings. The MTA would probably fight you twice or ten times harder than we will, but I'm just wondering if you've considered that. That is an appropriate comment for the scoping that could be studied as one of the potential alternatives. No alternatives are foreclosed. That's the point of the scoping process. The environmental. Impact process. So I would encourage if the town has alternate routes they wish to discuss, that ought to be provided in writing as part of the scoping process for the environmental impact statement because then that will trigger evaluation by experts to look into that. I would like to touch back with what Councilman Kern spoke about with the tourism, which turned into you asking if he meant traffic, and you're saying yes, if that's going to be looked at because. You're talking about the general traffic study that's going to be done. I think that to Councilman Kern's point that the effect that tourism, our farms on Sound Avenue, how they're going to be negatively impact, not just about the traffic, but that the traffic isn't going to be able to get to a lot of these places. You have, if this is going on in fall, which is the busiest time for our farm stands, our vineyards, our barns. We have a lot of people who have gone to the breweries. That economic, economical, you know. The loss of a. Loss, thank you. They can't have that. We can't allow that to happen here. Riverhead, we depend on tourism out here. Our farmers, they need to be able to have their businesses open and running. And this isn't something that's just going to be one or two weekends. This is going to be months. Years. Years. Yeah. So I would like that to be part of the study as well. That concern is valid. And I guess I should clarify. I don't want to give anyone the impression that the entire road's going to be trenched all at once and there's going to be, you know, inability to access parts of the town. So generally speaking, with these construction impacts, they are transitory. Let's say 1,000 feet a day might be trenched. And then be replaced. Right? So the idea, I don't want to leave you with the idea that there will be entire roads that will be shut down for long periods of time. Because we all know that there are methods for mitigating those kinds of impacts. I'm not saying. You're not going to be able to put rose-colored glasses on me for this. Yes, sir. You're not going to be able to put rose-colored glasses on me for this. I don't. Right. Yeah. Sir. All we have to do is look at Edwards Avenue. And I'm 58 right now. That's been going on for a year. It's a mess. It's still a mess. And that's a really good point. Just so you're aware, our tourism season is from April to November. End of November. Beginning of April. So that's your window. And the point that was made earlier about. And Councilman Rothwell made it. On what road is that? Where you put the water pipe in? It's atrocious. I mean, you never brought it back to what it was. You've got this patch of asphalt that's probably a half inch or more sick than the other asphalt. And you left it that way. So how can we as a town trust that you're going to do it any different? And I'm not saying you personally. But you need to go back to your clients. I don't see how you're going to do this. I don't see how you're going to give $100 to $200 million to this town to distribute to all the people that are going to lose those tourism dollars. You could cripple one year's worth of. It sounds like it's going to be a lot longer than that. This is going to have a devastating effect on tourism. People are going to say, don't go there. Don't go there. Don't go there. Go somewhere else. And that could go on for years. And we're talking a lot of money. And have you considered going from Shelter Island across? So to the extent that there is going to be any kind of traffic disruption, disruption of tourism, tourism dollars, that is something that will be and ought to be studied and carefully considered as part of the environmental impacts statement process. And also mitigation measures should be. And I think that's something that we need to consider. Now, I see you shaking your head. One last thought. One thing I want to say. Sure. Is the idea that it is impossible to construct a water main without destroying the county's tourism industry. I just reject that out of you. I think. I'm going to interrupt you for a second. Then you have not been out here during tourism season. Yeah. You haven't. Because the idea that you can. Rip up a thousand feet on Sound Avenue and you think that's not going to affect traffic. You need to come and visit us out here. It will. There will be effects. But these effects can be mitigated and managed. No one is saying that the construction of the water main will have no effects. But what we are saying is that this is what my client does. They can manage these effects. They can mitigate them. They can listen to the concerns of the people behind me. They can listen to your concerns. And they can manage them. And then. In such a way that access to important areas from an economic point of view. From a tourist point of view. Are addressed specifically. Explicitly. Thoughtfully. But that doesn't prevent the idea that we could. That a water. That doesn't. That doesn't mean there's no scenario where we can't build an underground pipe. Through a road right of way. Understood. And I know that. Because all the road right of ways. Have. You're under. Your mains in them. That's where they are. That's where utilities are. That's how that works. That what we are proposing is neither novel. Nor impossible. These are things. These are. These are effects that can be mitigated managed. Have been in the past. And could be again. No. I understand that. I don't know when those. Well. I mean. I can't wait to sit with your team. When can we sit down and talk. You know. Talk about. This with you. I think. I think that goes to another point in that we do have those utilities through the rights of way. So. You know. Part of the problem. That I think. This town. In this town board specifically is having is we haven't seen anything. That indicates where you're proposing to put this pipe. Right. Right. Is it going down the middle of the road. Because if it's going down the middle of the road. I think that exacerbates councilman Kern's. Concerns. I think it's in the right of way. I don't know that it's in the middle of the road. But. Well. No. What I'm saying is. We already have water pipes. And there's gas lines. There's already utilities on the sides of the road. So. So where is. Where's this pipe going to go. I don't. I don't assert. The. That it. What doesn't have to be carefully engineered. But I also don't think there's any information. Indicating that can't be. And so that's something you'll have to be studied and designed. All right. Jeff. Would you mind coming up and addressing. Some of these things we've discussed. Sure. So. Just. Just a few points. Just too many people. People. I'm going to ask you to simmer it down in the audience. I'm going to ask you to simmer it down in the audience. I'm going to ask you to simmer it down in the audience. I'm going to ask you to simmer it down in the audience. Please. I can't hear Jeff. Well. Just a few points for clarification. This is indeed a development project. Once a 24 inch transmission lane. Of Maine. Is laid. In a four foot nine inch deep trench. If that is indeed. Feasible because we don't know what utilities exist. That. That easement or whatever you want to call it. That landmass occupied. Is. Is no longer available for other utilities. That you may wish. To place in the future. So. We are asking for those plans. So that we can understand. The dimensions. And physical constraints. That we will have in the future. When we did. Solar facilities. Ground based solar facilities. There was a gentile line. A connecting line. From. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. From. purposely, because we didn't want to have that easement for sale by others, if you will, or multiple utilities placed within that single easement. So once this is occupied, there's really no going back, and we're only looking for that information so that we can evaluate it. Secondly, there's been a lot of discussion about CEQA and information that they're going to study. The scoping session closed on August the 4th. Now Riverhead expressly asked the Water Authority to keep the scoping session open until after this hearing. Now the Water Authority's original position was that they were going to conduct Monroe as the intruder. That's unlikely if not just ... I contacted the Department of State and they said, absolutely not. The host community does that. We're the host, they're the intruder. And to incorporate that into a draft environmental ... And to incorporate that into a draft environmental impact statement would cross us off the list as an involved agency. The proper procedure, these are two independent programs, the Monroe analysis is done first. Then you enter CEQA. And our review, our team's review is that they shouldn't even be in CEQA until they have a set of plans to present us. So the fact that the scoping is now closed, if our guests can encourage them to come in, to take your comments into consideration, and that's a big word, consideration. As lead agency, they can dismiss all of it and just say, it's not substantive enough. We feel that we're going to proceed. We have a history of doing this. And that's why I made the statement that they're trying to fly the plane while they're building it. Because there isn't a project built in Riverhead that didn't start with a set of plans, a survey, meets and bounds. Where is it located? How big? How large? And with regard to CEQA, the only site control that they have currently is the ownership of their land on Pier Avenue. And they've already cleared some of that land. Now when you're in a CEQA review, any physical disturbance within the project area is not permitted unless it is expressly granted for investigative purposes. Putting in a test well, putting in soil borings, et cetera. But even under those circumstances, you come back to the municipality and advise them that that's what you have to do under CEQA. Well, the only information they have presented us to date as to the clearing in their environmental assessment form is for the construction of the building. So that would be considered clearing without a permit. So that's what we're doing. Clearing without any permission. Now that may be a small thing and maybe they have a reason for having done it. I don't know. But that is why some local control I think is very important to protect the resources. And lastly, I know this is sort of a crazy statement, but we're in a historic corridor along Sound Avenue. Every one of those buildings could be on fire and we would be low pressure in that area. And not a drop of this 6,000 gallon per minute transmission main, not a drop of that water could be used even in an emergency within Riverhead. So I don't know. What's the benefit? Zero. Thank you. Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. It was Tim. COMPARED TO THE LARGER WELLS WE USE IN THE REST OF SUFFOLK COUNTY. THE UTILIZATION OF STORAGE TANKS TO MEET THAT PEAK DEMAND IS NOT UNUSUAL. BUT WHAT I WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD IS THAT IT'S BEING ALMOST PRESENTED LIKE THIS CRISIS JUST APPEARED. BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. I HAVE HERE A FIVE-YEAR WATER SUPPLY PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTH HOLD PUT OUT BY THE SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY AND SENT TO RIVERHEAD ON MAY 6, 2003. SO THIS NEED WAS IDENTIFIED. IN FACT, THEY HAVE ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT PATHS OF THE MAIN HERE. AND THEY KNEW THAT THEY NEEDED THIS IN 2003. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY HASN'T WHERE'S THE LAST 20 YEARS THERE COULD HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUS DIALOGUE WORKING WITH NOT ONLY RIVERHEAD BUT THE TOWN OF SOUTH HOLD TO MITIGATE ALL THESE CONCERNS? IT SHOULDN'T HAVE COME TO THIS CRISIS POINT. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR OVER 20 YEARS. BUT WE'VE JUST HEARD ABOUT IT NOW. AND IT'S NOW THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO RUN OVER THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD AND SOUTH HOLD THROUGH THE MECHANISM THEY'RE USING NOW. I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION. THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING DOESN'T SMELL RIGHT THERE. THAT'S REALLY ALL I WANTED TO SAY. AND I WANTED TO SUBMIT THE MAP ON RECORD SO WE HAVE IT. AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MAYBE I'LL TALK AGAIN LATER. THANK YOU. I THINK EVERYBODY HERE HEARD THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH COUNTY REPRESENTING SOUTH COUNTY AND WATER AUTHORITY. TALK ABOUT THIS INFORMATION WILL ALL BE TAKEN IN AND WILL ALL BE DOCUMENTED THROUGH THE SCOPING SESSION. OH, YEAH. I HAVE THAT. THE SCOPING SESSION THAT'S ALREADY CLOSED. I HOPE EVERYBODY PICKED UP ON THAT BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST DISINGENUOUS STATEMENT I'VE HEARD IN A VERY LONG TIME. JOHN, COME ON UP. LONG NIGHT ALREADY, GUYS. THANK YOU, GALS. JOHN CULLEN, NORTHVILLE. I HEARD THE WORD TRANSPARENCY TODAY. I'VE ASKED QUESTIONS OF SOUTH HOLD OF SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST HAVE ASKED 100 QUESTIONS AND STILL WAITING FOR ANSWERS. I WAS AT THE MEETING LAST WEEK. I'M SURE THAT YOU'VE HEARD, BUT SOUTH HOLDS COUNCILMAN GREG DORSKY MENTIONED GETTING THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD RIGHT HERE TOGETHER WITH THE TOWN OF SOUTH HOLD AND HAVE A TEAM EFFORT TO WORK SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON. AS FAR AS THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO A LOT OF WORK. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUMP STATION ON PIERRE AVENUE WHICH IS WHERE I LIVE. I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH BECAUSE I ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE I COULD FIND ANOTHER PUMP STATION AND I STILL HAVEN'T FOUND AN ANSWER. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE BACKUP SYSTEM IS FOR A PUMP STATION THAT'S PUMPING 6,000 GALLONS A MINUTE WOULD SOUND LIKE. BUT I WAS RECENTLY AT THE VETERANS PARK WHERE I RIDE MY I WAS RUNNING. I WAS RUNNING. THEY RAN INTO THAT RUNNING GENERATOR IN THAT RUNNING cut off pipes underneath the bridge it was howling we have neighbors that are 100 yards away from there and i don't think anyone would like to hear anything like that we have a storm brewing right now out in the atlantic ocean if that had made a turn to the east west it would pummel us and that generator would be running for days we know what it's like when a big storm comes through people in nassau county were out for over two weeks without electricity during sandy that didn't even hit the island but on part of the transfer as i said earlier it would be great if the two teams work together and i mean south hold and riverhead that you're all together with this if a meeting were to happen i mentioned this last week obviously eric and one other thing uh let's not forget about south hold when it comes to losing money during this construction you're mentioning riverhead losing 100 million there's only one way to south hold and that's going through riverhead our friends in riverhead al krebski and greg dorsky i'm sure they're worried about this let's work together this is a no-win situation for our town i don't see it i just hope that it gets pushed back a couple years until things can be done properly let's not rush it thank you thanks sean let's ask him i want to follow up on what he just said uh counselor for suffolk county water can i just ask you one question can you come up you said there was going to be a scoping uh period and now but the scoping period closed on august 4th are you are you opening that up again so there were three public scoping sessions over 100 people are participated including town employees and your consultant so what what i mean is that that i know you can excuse me but i i was i was at one of them and i i would love to hear about that and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and scoping document will be generated. After that final scoping document is generated, there will then eventually be a DEIS and another chance for public hearings. There will be at least three more public hearings as part of the EIS process where there will be comments on the DEIS. There has been a lot of public hearings. There will be more public hearings. There will be more opportunities for people to comment. To address the question about the clearing, it's my understanding the clearing was done to do test pits for an ecological study. It wasn't part of the construction process. And then the questions about the SCWA's water conservation, they do support, you alluded to before, SCWA does have aggressive water conservation programs and they do support the South Hold Sprinkler Code, which I think is trying to address some of what you're saying. Good evening, Takwee Church and greater Calverton Civic Association president. First off, I'm very grateful to this board for holding the panel of the public forum last week where we as the public could tune in with a Zoom and show up here and ask questions. And Mr. Seaman and Mr. Mancini gave us information. We would love to hear from you andๆฒo about this and other public office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office all our concerns are going to be heard answered and somehow mitigated that process hasn't been true to this moment and hopefully it'll get better from here one question I have with a couple of statistics is town of Riverhead from what I understand we have about six hundred three hundred thirty six thousand souls living here town South hold has 24 so that's about two-thirds of the population of our town so Riverhead water district supplies in the winter three million gallons per day and that goes to about a billion gallons per year South hold consumes about two million gallons per day this new supply pipeline proposes eight point six million gallons per day so if you're not doing the math in your head it it should leave a very gaping hole and that hasn't been answered who's this water going to um it's a 24 inch water main so you know I I describe it like having you know a barrel like this and water is going through that much water is going through that that vessel um it's eight miles in our in our town that's not serving us because we have our own responsible water Riverhead water district and I'm very grateful for for the expertise and the accessibility of our superintendent Frank Mancini who answers to this board and can disagree with you and feel safe in his job not so much the same thing with Suffolk County Water Authority who is an independent private entity who is formed in I think it was 1940 according to what Frank gave us as information at the panel last week and um they answer to the people who work for them answer to that board but that board changes that they're not elected they're appointed by the legislature so there isn't as much accountability there as there is in Riverhead and I I prize our water district and the accountability that we have here um in asking the question who is this water going to it's also disingenuous for the representative from Suffolk County Water Authority to tell us that this is a two-phase project we haven't entered seeker right but when you enter seeker you're supposed to show the entire project if you break it into two pieces like that it's called segmentation can't do that so a little bit more homework needs to be done on the part of this project lead and and who they send to represent them um no no shade on on the rest of the information that he provided that was factual but I'm finding that there were very uh unresearched answers given to us I think we deserve a better answer the um to your point Mr surgeon it actually even says in their um in the papers they provide us on paid for nevertheless referring to their phase two this route will be analyzed among other alternative routes as part of an environmental review so they don't even know what their phase two is going to look like correct and that's phase two from what I understand the water stops in South hold the people who really need this in this water are not in South hold they're in Orient and the East Marion this water will not meet will not get to them um the water also is coming from the pine Barrens from a water supply well to my understanding it's about 1200 feet deep it's very deep um whereas wells that we use privately are in the hundreds 200 300 maybe up to 600 feet um the as when we talk about the fire risk or when the gentleman spoke about the fire risk there's a very real fire risk in the pine Barrens um we had a near miss in Riverhead this spring and we there from the wildfire that happened and Riverhead was threatened but we because of the good organization and our firefighters we we did not experience that devastation the way we could have when you put pressure on that system where are the Wells being drilled in the pine Barrens to answer the fire call there that's first and foremost the conservation measures that are being taken or offered to be taken or under advisement or that the conversation can continue exist in South hold and South hold has come and spoken to us last week supervisor Krupsky and Councilman dorosky came and spoke to us that they want to work with us and on uppermost on their minds I've spoken with them is conservation they've passed some measures in their town for that um in that vein and they can continue um studies suggest seniors to play this game so so um the last part of what I'd like to offer is that um the purpose and intent of this what I'm speaking to is the purpose and intent of this pipeline um I haven't even spoken to the fact that we don't get any benefits which is what this balancing test is is clearly revealing to us um what's not being said tonight in the secret process there is um a section that needs to be answered called the growth inducing impacts so I had to go look that up I had to look it up like three four years ago and now I gotta go look it up again and what it means is that that there are considerations for where this water is going that is not intended and as the representative from the SCWA said they have the best of intentions remember they're repaving these roads with those intentions is led to or can lead to I'm not going to say the word um um these growth inducing impacts are things like development uh of more housing more commercial use it can be good but it needs to be evaluated if it's not spoken about it's not evaluated we can't step forward without evaluating it and I ask that you continue with with the um the drilling down that you're doing on the on the details of this project keeping scwa's toes for the fire clearly they're not as lead agency they're not accountable as much as we would like them to be and they're not revealing to us as much as the transparency is an indication from their representative it's not coming forward let them do a better job in the future maybe they'll send the a team thank you thank you
we have two people online let's take one of those
good point
Karen can you hear us yes I can hear you can you hear me we can hear you okay I can't see me but I don't know why that is um all right I called in uh last week uh at the initial meeting we had had made public to about it and uh there we go okay uh I'd just like to thank all the people that came up tonight especially to the board for taking such a firm stand about this issue which has been kind of slipped under the I don't know why they used to slip things over the transom when they wanted to give you some information that maybe even really have to know but uh I think we have to keep fighting for this the map that they gave us which doesn't show anything about which side of Sound Avenue or the other roads are going to be done uh that's that looked like it was drawn up on a cocktail napkin you know way after I was someplace so I I really want to commend the board so many people have spoken much more eloquently and what's more facts and figures I echo their sentiments and we have to keep fighting. Karen, can I just get you to state your name, please? We didn't get your name in. Karen Lee, Northville. Okay, thank you. Thank you. One more on line.
Good evening again. John McAuliffe from Rolling Woods, Roanoke Landing. This comes as some shock, I'm sure, to members of the board that I'm again going to be very positive about what you have put before us and the role you have played. It seems to me, I'm assuming that Supervisor Krups, and Councilman Dorosky are not in the room. So I want to touch a little more than talk we did on what they said, because their remarks seem to me suggested that there was serious doubt in Southhold itself about this whole project. And if there's serious doubt in both Southhold and Riverhead, then whether it's a public or private entity, one has, the feeling that the Suffolk County Water Authority is a bit out of control and not responding to the people that it should be responding to. I had not known until Supervisor Hubbard mentioned it about the Laurel incident, but I found the response of the attorney, if not disingenuous, then there's maybe another word about that. But, I mean, the fact that a project has to have a beginning doesn't explain the fact that that beginning is two years ahead of when it has any kind of legitimate authority in terms of the people that is supposed to serve. I think that the only other, oh, I would also, I think that Takwee hit very well the question of the contradiction between the size of the tube and the ostensible reason that the water is being brought in. Now, maybe that goes to the question of whether it actually is being brought in for an imagined future development of housing or resorts. That is not actually something that the communities of either Southhold or Riverhead want to have happen. And that, as I said, two weeks ago, the, or not two weeks ago, a week ago, that the, I think that refusal of this project may be one of the few ways that we can control the pace and the kind of growth that is essentially trying to make the East End replica of up island. Finally, I wonder, I'm always very impressed by Mr. Mancini's, technical expertise and the capability of the system he manages and wonder if there is, in fact, uh, 10 years down the road, uh, an objective need for more water for existing purposes in Southhold, whether the Riverhead Water Authority would be a better vendor of, of water. Um, both because of the closer distance and the therefore lesser disruption that would have to be done and, and because of pricing, which I understand that we do a better job of. So, um, at any rate, I, I don't know how this proceeds, um, whether you pass a resolution saying that, that you balance this in a certain way and whether that's, that takes place at another board meeting, but I certainly hope that, that it's very clear that, that it is, uh, Riverhead's opinion. And I apparently Southhold's opinion that this is not a project that ought to go forward. Thank you. Thank you, John. We have nobody else online. We have anybody else here?
Good evening. Joan Sear from Jamesport. Um, I agree with the town board and others who've spoken that there's no, uh, public benefit at all, no community benefits, the town of Riverhead to this project, and we would, um, bear the greatest impact, uh, from it. But I wanted to know whether it's kind of, um, I'll say pinging off councilman current's comment about alternate routes, whether the Suffolk County Water Authority ever considered, um, running it, um, along the electric power, transmission route. Um, any of us who've live in Jamesport, Aquabog know that there are large electric transmission towers that are a straight shot from the town of Riverhead to the town of Manitou or to the town of Southhold in Manitou. And why not run if it has to be done, run it under the pipe, under the transmission lines, the easements already there, the right of way. And, um, it, it crosses roads, but it doesn't run along a road. It, it doesn't, it's not going to require tearing up whole distances. So as much as I don't support the project and I agree with others that said that, um, this is, well, they didn't say this, I'll say it, it's a money grab, um, and it will spark further development in Southhold, which Southhold does not seem to want. But if the day comes when this is absolutely necessary, why not run it along that transmission line easement? And it'll be much less disruptive, I think, to the community overall. Thank you. Thank you, Joan.
Excellent.
Good evening. My name is Barbara Blass and I live in Jamesport and I'm going to hand up my complete statement. Most of it was covered tonight, but I went point by point, uh, and went, um, did sort of a lengthy, as you know, I don't see to do so. I'll hand it up to Jim. I'll hand it to you. Okay. Thank you though. But I did want to just, um, pull out a couple of tidbits of information that I think may be, uh, important. Um, on points three and four of the Monroe test itself, whether the land, um, the use of the land is in the public's interest. The jury is still out on that matter. The quantity of water seems to exceed the reasonable anticipated demand, whether the community actually wants it in Southhold, as was mentioned, mentioned earlier, and whether it's being delivered to those who actually need it. And that was also talked about. And, and there was definitely a hard stop in the information that was submitted. It actually said, we are not planning on this second phase. So yes, it had to be included so that from a seeker standpoint, they would say we're not segmenting it, but the reality is they have no plans to provide that based upon their own submissions. Um, the courts have, actually said that depending upon the facts of, of an individual case, one factor can overshadow all the others such as the case here, I believe in the town of riverhead where the public interest of one town is advanced at the expense, literally and physically of the host community. So I think that's also important. And by the way, when we talk about public interest in regional, you know, benefits and all that riverhead has a, has a history of solving, regional problems on behalf of other entities. And, um, this is just another one, I guess that's put out there to, uh, lay a little guilt trip perhaps, or I'm not sure what, I don't know. Um, as far as intergovernmental relations, uh, participation is concerned, has there been meaningful collaboration between the authority and riverhead from my vantage point, um, as a resident, the answer is a resounding no, there was no application. There's no pre submission conference, no, public work session. Wouldn't that have been the courteous, the responsible thing to do, whether you have to do it or not is not the point. The point is you're coming into a community and to a large extent, have a, have a public work session. Why was it the town of riverhead that had a public forum to explain to its community? Not everybody had even understands that not, I don't want to say they don't understand, but didn't have the ability to go to a scoping session. That could be very daunting for some people. C, the, I, the idea of coming to a work session, um, would have been in, in their best interest. And at least at this point, people would have understood the fact that, you know, you're talking about trenching in the town of riverhead. You're talking about up to 10 feet wide, um, area of disturbance that could impact private property owners. I mean, there's so much about this that we don't know, but I'll cut right just to the last, um, point. And that is, um, on balance. It's my opinion after going through the exercise that, um, the balance test, the tests, uh, the balancing test, the scale, uh, see what happens when I try to wing it. I am so not good at that. It's my opinion that, uh, in considering the elements of the Monroe balancing test, the scale tips in riverheads favor, a former CEO of the suff. County water authority stated, they have a manifest destiny to provide water to all of Suffolk County. And considering the proposed North fork pipeline extension, I just asked, does the end justify the means in this case? And I believe it does not. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you, Barbara.
To your point, Ms. Bless. I just, to your point, Ms. Plus, I just want to point out that in the, in the letter that was submitted to, to us by, um, Ms. Bennett, she chastises the town for not inviting them to the forum. Yet to your point, they never came to any work session to talk to us about it. Thank you.
So, um, I want to, uh, thank the board, um, for your time and considering this, we've taken very careful notes. We're laying all these comments to our client. They'll all be considered as part of the seeker process. Um, we appreciate your input and the input of the public. Um, that said, you know, a lot of the secret discussion I think is important and, and will be part of the EIS tonight is about Monroe. So in closing, um, you know, we went, we hit each factor in the, in the Monroe test. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, when you weigh those factors, I would encourage you to apply the law and weigh those factors as they're written and come down on the side of immunity. But again, all these discussions of SECRA and the other impacts will absolutely be conveyed to my client. We appreciate them. We understand that they're important and we thank you for those comments. I'm just curious. You said SECRA was done. You were finished with it. I'm sorry. SECRA was done. Environmental quality review. Excuse me. Do we have anybody else who would like to comment on this matter before we put it to rest? Nobody online? Okay. We will, I'll ask for a motion to close this public hearing but keep it open for written comment until August 29th. Can I have a motion? So moved. Seconded. Seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. It is closed but open for written comment. Now the good news is, no there is no good news. We have three more public hearings yet. So we're going to move on to public hearing number six and this is an amendment of chapter 289, vehicle traffic and parking and it will be with Councilor Pilo. I just want to commend the supervisor's positive attitude he had to schedule for 610. It is now 857. Good evening. Good evening. The board and the public. Victoria microphone. Sorry I'm not quite as tall as the last. So this is to raise the fines associated with chapter 289-10 that's for overweight vehicles that are traveling on roads that cannot support the width of vehicles. roads that cannot support the weight. I just want to make it clear that this is just for overweight vehicles. It is not for any of your standard parking tickets. Those will remain at your $50 for fire lane parking, things like that. And the no parking handicap will remain at $280. This is just for overweight vehicles traveling on roads that cannot support their weight. It was previously up to $100. We're asking that that fine schedule be raised to $500 to match the times and the fact that it hasn't been raised in quite some time. And the cost of repair work on the road. Correct. Yes. All the fines associated that were discussed at the work session. Updating these fines to 2025. Yes. Times. Yep. Much needed. Yep. Board, any comments? No. Any questions? Good job. Yeah. My comment. Comment. Public comments. Anybody here? Nobody online, I see. Okay. We will close this public hearing and keep it open again until August 29th. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Public hearing is closed, but open for written comment until August 29th. We are moving on to public hearing number seven. And it's amendment to chapter 231. And it's regarding fire prevention. And Councilor Pilo, it's you again. Thank you. So this is in similar fashion. We're just refreshing. And it is 859. I'm sorry. Thank you. So this is in similar fashion. We're just refreshing the fines to reflect the hard work that the fire marshals do and all of the, and also to reflect the seriousness of the violations. It was also discussed at work session a couple of weeks ago. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Updates have been needed for a long time. I appreciate the work put into these. Board, do you have any comments or questions? No. No. Thank you, Victoria, for following up on all these funds. No problem. Public, any comments? Nobody online? Okay. We will close this public hearing and keep it open until August 29th. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing on fire prevention? So moved. Do I have a second? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. The public hearing is closed but open for written comment. And it is now 9 o'clock, and we have a public hearing number 8 scheduled for Article 1, noise, and that will be with Counselor Howard. All right. Thank you, Supervisor. This is Code Amendment addresses two sections of Chapter 251, Section 1. We're adding a definition for physical noise or emission barrier. And when we get to the next section, Section 251-5, that reason for that definition will be made clear. So we're doing an amendment. We're taking out, there was some weird language in here relative to standing motor vehicles that said you couldn't have a standing motor vehicle for a period longer than 10 minutes in any hour. So we're going to take that out. So we're getting rid of that any hour, and it's just going to be 10 consecutive minutes. And it creates, it's under two conditions that that would be prohibited. If the noise that's being created is audible within 300 feet of a residential property boundary between 8 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock the next morning, or if the noise is audibly crossing into a residential property at any time when the sound source is a commercial vehicle, and then fixed and fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed noise going from going from one commercial property to a residential property okay board any comments questions no public nobody online okay again we're going to uh close this public hearing keep it open till august 29th for written comment and can i have a motion to close the public hearing on noise so moved can i get a second no second okay uh all in favor aye all opposed okay that public hearing is now closed we're now moving on to comments on resolutions these will be comments on any of the resolutions before us tonight we have a heap of them john cullen again over in northville uh resolution 727 uh parking does that include smuggler's path you know i've been up a bunch of times i've had some letters come in i believe to the board miss waski i tried to come to one of your beach committees and it was late canceled i apologize yeah um i think that i got moved week wasn't on wasn't online uh which which resolution is this i'm sorry uh 727. i'm sorry i tried i couldn't figure out how to get the agenda packet going i'm not attacking okay so i believe this is a publishing post to amend the uh amendment we did a month or so ago to uh stopping and idling on young's avenue vehicles on young's avenue and yeah so that's designed to address uh dump body vehicles correct right so it's not dealing with smugglers no no no it doesn't okay very good i just i swear it i just want to make sure thank you you're welcome mr collin yes we do have a beach committee meeting tomorrow at four o'clock if you would like to attend what time tomorrow four o'clock oh okay yeah i got plans but if i'm around send me an email if there's something that you'd like me to bring up during the meeting i'd be happy to do that on your behalf thank you very much any other questions on resolutions here this evening nobody online okay let's go with the resolutions yes all righty then okay resolution one which is resolution 699 authorizes sewer district employees to attend seminars so moved second vote please uh wasky yes uh who's next merrifield yes kern yes rothwell yes hubbard yes motion is adopted uh i'm sorry uh no it's okay justin can you turn up jim's mic a little bit he's difficult to hear on this side that's unusual yeah i know i moved my club really he's gone to bed okay resolution is adopted resolution 700 ratifies the authorization of one police department employee to attend a governor's traffic safety DRE interview. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Let's get my snippet in here. Okay, good. Resolution number 701. Approves the attendance of one police department employee to attend the DCJS public safety symposium. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 702. Authorizes the removal of fixed assets. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 703. Ratifies authorization to the acceptance of donations from Pekanakake Foundation. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. I just have to say this is a pretty amazing project that was going along with over 2.8 million dollars donated to the town for a two ! It's been a collaborative effort by many people including large sponsors within the community. So proud to accept this and thank you for all their efforts from Pekanakake. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 704. Accepts donation from Joseph C. DiBendetto for the recreation department. So moved. Seconded. Local Local Local Local Budget transfer for Capital Project 12101 Town Square Properties. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Waskey. Merrifield. Sorry. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 706. Ratifies budget adjustment for grant allocation for East End Arts Council relocation. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 707. EWR 2025-2026 Road Resurfacing Grant Budget. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 706. 708. Chips. 2025 through 2026 Road Resurfacing Grant Budget. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 709. Pave New York 2025-2026 Road Resurfacing Grant Budget. Yes. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 710. Paupp, New York 2025-2026 Road Resurfacing Grant Budget. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Yes. Kern. Yes. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So moved. Second. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 712. Amends Resolution 2025-651. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 713. Amends Resolution 2025-653. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 714. Appoints a homemaker. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 715. Appoints a part-time harbor master. So moved. Second. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 716. I hate reading this one, but accepts the resignation of the chief building inspector. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Best of luck to you, Andreas. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. I just want to say, Andreas, you've been great to work with, and I've gotten over the years numerous compliments about your demeanor and how great you are working with other public office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office office received a ton of compliments for Andreas over the years working here. We wish him nothing but the best at the town of Brookhaven. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 717. Ratifies the resignation of a public safety dispatcher one. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 718. Accepts the resignation of a maintenance mechanic two. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 719. Authorizes the supervisor to order catering food for this evening for dinner. So moved. Second. Second. I didn't see that up here. No? You pulled off the floor. Yeah. All right. I pulled that one off the floor. All right. I tried. All right. Now the real one. 719. Ratifies the leave of absence. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 720. Ratifies authorization for the supervisor to execute stipulations. With the CSEA Local 1000 AFSCME AFL-CIO Riverhead Unit of the Suffolk Local Number 852. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 721. Authorizes license agreement with the Riverhead Volunteer Ambulance Corps. Yes. For the use of the Riverhead Town Hall basement for EMT course instruction 2025 to 2026. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 722. Authorizes supervisor to execute an agreement with Riverhead Youth Sports, Inc. for the Referee Umpire Services for Town of Riverhead Police Athletic League Football Program for 2025 calendar year. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 723. Authorizes the town attorney to execute an agreement with certified environmental professional Jeffrey Seaman. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 724. Accepts performance bond from Kathy Lane, LLC. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 725. Authorizes non-protonct town attorney to commence Supreme Court action against 1099 Royal, LLC. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 726. Ratifies the settlement of legal action in the matter of the town of Riverhead against Robert William Kramer, 510 Toomey Avenue, Riverhead, New York. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 727. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post public notice to consider a local law to amend Chapter 289 of the Riverhead Town Code titled Vehicles, Traffic, and Parking Regulations, Article 4, Parking, Standing, and Stopping. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 728. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post public notice to consider a local law to amend Chapter 213 of the Riverhead Town Code titled Bicycles and Electric Scooters, Article 1, Bicycles. So moved. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 729. Authorizes the town clerk to publish and post public notice to consider a local law to amend Chapter 213 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Bicycles and Electric Scooters, Article 2, Electric Scooters. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 730. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post public notice to consider a local law to amend Chapter 289 of the Riverhead Town Code titled Vehicles, Traffic and Parking Regulations, Article 1, Terminology. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 731. Authorizes the town clerk to publish and post notice to bidders for polymer mixing system for the Riverhead Sewer District. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 732. Authorizes the town clerk to publish and post notice to bidders for replacement of large meters for the Riverhead Water District. So moved. Seconded. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 733. Authorizes the town clerk to publish and post notice to bidders for CVE-US New York Riverhead 215-LLC Riverhead Landfill Water Main Extension. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Kim. Yes. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 734. Authorizes the town clerk to publish and post notice to bidders for disposal of town-generated construction and demolition materials. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. Yaesford. How about you just vote on the one? Yeah. I'm leaving it at that. Just shout out yes. Just say yes. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 736. But I think you owe a resolution to Waski. I know, I do. You want to read this one? Awards bid for sludge cake removal and disposal. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. You sure? Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 737. Awards bid for police uniform items. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 738. Did you want to read this one? No. No. No. Local Local
Awards bid for liquid sludge removal and disposal. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 741. Awards bid for 2025 annual construction contract. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 742. Awards rebid for 2025 annual procurement contract. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 743. Ratifies extension of bid for replacement of large meters. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 744. Ratifies designation of alcohol service vendors to serve alcohol at the Polish Hall Festival 2025. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 745. Approved. Seconded. !
Yes. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 747. Pay bills. So moved. Second. Vote, please. You've got that with a fast one. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 748. Authorized and supervised and executes stipulation with Riverhead Town Superior Officers Association, Inc. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. That concludes the resolutions. Okay. Those are all the resolutions we have on for today's calendar. Now I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up to comments from the public on any matter. Comments from the public on any matter. We still got a CDA meeting due. State your name, please, and you have three minutes. Okay. My name is Scott Hartman. I'm the current president of the Highlands at Reeves HOA. My address is 61 Bellflower Court, Riverhead. Thank you for the opportunity to address the town board regarding construction deficiencies at the Highlands at Reeves. These deficiencies are the following. These deficiencies, which include drainage issues of our ponds and roadways, were caused by the poor quality of workmanship by the town approved builder, Riverhead Reeves Associates, LLC. These issues were originally brought to the town attention through the town board on August 5th, 2016, nine years ago. The planning board allowed Riverhead Reeves two extensions on a performance bond regarding our community. Okay. The final extension of the $843,000 performance bond expired on June 4th, 2017. The planning board's agenda on June 1st, 2017, included a resolution to call in the performance bond. However, that never occurred. On July of 2017, a major rainfall event created dangerous flooding conditions at the Highlands at Reeves, and in particular on 1 Street, Starflower Row. The highlands at Reeves were flooded. The highlands at Reeves were flooded. Three engineer firms hired by the highlands at Reeves found numerous deviations from the original town approved site plan and identified major design flaws that caused the flooding. In September of 2022, the HOA board filed a lawsuit against Riverhead Reeves Beachwood Associates and their subcontractors to remediate all the deficiencies. On July 8th, 2025, three residents met with the town approval agency. These are all the features of the flood. These are all the features of the flood. officials to request a status update of the performance bond currently held by the town since 2017. We were asked to formally put our request in writing, which we did on July 9th. On July 11th, Ms. Hurley, Deputy Town Attorney, sent a letter to Riverhead Reeves' attorney, Mr. Perrone, regarding the performance bond and requested what steps will be taken to remedy the deficiencies noted in a report from the town's engineering consultant. That was the Raynor company, the Raynor Group company. As per the letter, Riverhead Reeves was given two weeks to respond or the town would take necessary steps to call the performance bond. Mr. Perrone responded to the town on July 16th and stated that he was in settlement negotiations with the Highlands at Reeves' attorneys. On July 22nd, the HOA Board received the letter from Mr. Perrone, confirming that in light of the current pending lawsuit, the town would not be calling in the performance bond at this time. The truth of the matter is that the settlement negotiations with Riverhead Reeves, which just began a few months ago, not nine years ago, have been laughable, insulting, and nowhere near the estimated cost to remedy the noted deficiencies. These deficiencies at the Highlands at Reeves' have never been resolved. The Highlands at Reeves' attorneys have never been addressed by the builder and have progressively gotten worse. Previous town administrations did not fully address these infrastructure issues and deviations from the original town-approved site plan. I ask on behalf of the homeowners of the Highlands at Reeves, many who have waited out the entire meeting to stay here, I ask and I ask that on behalf of your constituents, that this town board support us and keep the pressure on Riverhead Reeves to remedy these issues. Thank you very much. And at this point, I'd like to present to the town council a copy of my statement and a timeline of the dates and all the correspondence that have taken place over these nine years. So you can see, you know, there's different people here. I'm sure that many of you were not even part of the board at that particular time. But I'd like to present these to you. Thank you and also thank you for your comments and the seriousness that you took involving the Suffolk County Water Authority issue and also the Cannabis Dispensary. I think all of us here have learned quite a bit about the Water Authority and Cannabis Dispensary. You've learned not to come back on a night we have eight public hearings. Well, yeah, I'm sure my neighbors are not going to be too happy sitting here this long. But we appreciate you waiting through all this. And I appreciate them waiting also. Thank you very much. I appreciate you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Hi. My name is Louis Melfi. I reside at the Highlands at Reeves also. As a follow-up to our HOA president, I would like to know, what's the process for calling in a performance bond? I'll turn that over to the town attorney. Well, first, we would have our engineer recommend it. I don't know that we're at that point yet. In as much as there's a pending lawsuit, I think that I would want to speak to the town board in an executive session. And I would like to speak to the town board in an executive session. As to whether and under what circumstances we would take that action, because there would be consequences for it. So I think the board needs benefit of counsel before getting to that point. I just hope the residents realize that this is a long time for you, but this is new to us. So that's why, you know, give us a little bit to review. I'd like to just add a follow-up question of my kind of own. I'd like to know how the town, how the town gave or granted the COs for the community, when in fact all these deficiencies existed.
I don't know. I wasn't part of that process at all. We will have to find that answer out for you. So, you know, typically how it works is there's a subdivision application. It gets reviewed by the planning board. It gets granted. It gets filed with the county. Then there's plans that are submitted and a building permit will be issued. And from there, you know, the development goes through the process that was presented to the planning board and ultimately the individual structures get inspected by the building department and assuming they conform with whatever the plans were that were submitted, they would receive COs.
Okay. So my understanding is that the plans that were submitted, you know, the plans that were submitted, they would receive COs. Okay. So my understanding is as all, since none of you were here at the time, you will look into this though. Correct. Correct. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening, Mr. Supervisor, members of the board. My name is Charlene Cagle Betts. I reside at 99 Starflower Row. I am the treasurer for the board of the HOA. We will continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue REQUEST RELATING TO THE STATUS OF THE PERFORMANCE BOND FROM RIVERHEAD REEVES LLC I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE BOND REMAINS IN THE AMOUNT OF $843,333. AND AS RECALLING THE BOND IT MIGHT SEEM DUPLICATIVE, SHE SAYS, TO RECALL SUCH A BOND IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT PENDING LAWSUIT ENTITLED HIGHLANDS AT REEVES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED VERSUS RIVERHEAD REEVES ASSOCIATE AT ELLE WHICH IS I GUESS THERE'S MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS. WHEREIN IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DRAINAGE ISSUES YOU RAISED IN YOUR RECENT MEETING WILL EXTENSIVELY BE ADDRESSED EITHER VIA SETTLEMENT OR ORDER OF THE COURT UPON CONCLUSION OF THE SAID LAWSUIT AND OF THE EXTENT NECESSARY THE TOPIC OF RECALLING THE BOND WILL BE REVISITED. SO WHAT I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I SPENT MANY YEARS AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. I RECENTLY RETIRED. WE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS DUPLICATIVE. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. WE FEEL THAT THE DRAINAGE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE TOWN IS HOLDING THE PERFORMANCE BOND ARE REAL. THE TOWN APPROVED THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS COMMUNITY DECADES AGO AND REQUIRED THE POSTING OF A PERFORMANCE BOND BY THIS DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPER DID NOT BUILD THE COMMUNITY ACROSS THE STATE. THE DEVELOPER DID NOT BUILD THE COMMUNITY ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TOWN TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPERS BUILD ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IT IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TOWN TO ENSURE THAT THE BUILDERS COMPLY WITH PLANNING AND ZONING CODES. IN 2017, THE PLANNING BOARD VOTED TO CALL THIS PERFORMANCE BOND BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION. THE FACT THAT THE HOA HAS A PENDING LAWSUIT, THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION, THE FACT THAT THE LAWSUIT IS REGARDLESS, THE WORK MUST BE COMPLETED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE OUTCOME OF THE LAWSUIT IS IN OUR FAVOR OR IN THE FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE TOWN DO ITS JOB, CALL THE BOND AND MAKE THE REQUIRED REPAIRS. AND THAT'S THE POSITION OF THE BOARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER. WE KNOW THAT YOU'LL TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN THIS INVOLVED IN Thank you. Thank you, Charlene. If I could just say, I think what we need to do is also study the implications of like what if the restorative work is a million and a half? And if we take that bond away, who's liable for the balance? So I think we need to know the effects of recalling the bond. Like if it's not enough money, is it better to be settled in court to determine the money with the bond and additional money? Or if we recall it, are we saying that that's it, that's all the money that we need? And what if it's nearly not enough money to complete the work that's in there? I think that's where we have to really do a little study on the legal side of things to what is the effects of recalling that bond. Right? Okay. Thank you for taking our questions and hopefully getting resolution to our concerns. My name is Bob Kelly. I'm a lawyer. I am the secretary of the HOA board in Riverhead Reefs. I live at 97 Chris Sundrop Court. I essentially have one question. What happens if the performance bond is called by the town and the cost to cover the required deficiencies exceed the total amount remaining on the performance bond? That's the $64,000. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. We have to look into this and find out. Okay. Can we, any estimated time that we would get some type of a response? It shouldn't take that long. But you might need to wait the results of the legal case. That's why we're thinking like, you know. Legal case has no bearing on the deficiencies that the town has identified in 2017. You're suing the developer over the alleged deficiencies, correct? Yes. Right? Yes. Okay. So how does it not have any bearing on the performance bond? The performance bond was. What I'm seeing is you collectively as a community have already taken an action against the developer, right? Yes. However. However. The town in 2017 and followed up with a 2018 letter from your engineering consultant directed Riverhead Rees Associates to correct the deficiencies that were identified by the town of Riverhead. Not by us. And to date they haven't corrected those deficiencies? They have done nothing. Okay. So what is the status of the legal proceeding? I guess. Too many people talking. Who's Highland's attorney on this? I'm sorry? Who's your attorney on this? She works for a law firm in Smithtown. I'm sorry. I don't know the name of the firm off the top of my head. All right. So what I'll do is. Scott may be able to answer that. I'll give her a call and I'll have her. I'll have a conversation with her about the status of the case. So what I'll do is. Scott may be able to answer that. I'll give her a call and I'll have her. I'll have a conversation with her about the status of the case. Okay. case all right yeah why don't you give me your information following the meeting okay all right i think the fear would be to recall the bond and then then the argument in their case it would be that the towns already took the money for the work so it's done and then meantime there could be a certain substantial gap between what it actually costs and how much is there in the bond hence my question if if the money is insufficient you got to pay well i mean i think something that has to be considered in this is so this is a subdivision that was approved back in what like the early 2000s you know so the amount of a performance bond at that time is probably wildly different from what you would require now you are correct then if it had been uh allowed to be reduced over a period of time you know there's not really a way to recapture what the value in the early 2000s would be now right the performance bond was originally for 2.5 million okay the sponsors right went and re put a the top coat of asphalt on all the roads and subsequently that they asked for the pond a performance bond to be reduced and it went from 2.5 million to the 844 thousand dollars as it currently is that was if i were to call correctly there's a couple other steps down on the way to the eight to the 840 i think no okay not not that we are aware of um in in any event my my point is what the point was so the value the value then is not necessarily the value now that's why i think the best way to address this is through through the litigation you can get a settlement where they're actually paying to pay present-day cost of making the repairs rather than relying on you know pulling or calling a 840 000 bond that might not get the job done i understand what you're saying however the town directed riverhead reese to fix all the deficiencies the town unfortunately did not follow up with the well i think i think our engineering consultant has been working on fixing all the deficiencies and we are not working on fixing all the deficiencies the town unfortunately did not follow up with the well i think i think our engineering consultant has been pretty clear and consistent in that they haven't adequately done that. Yeah, you're correct. He did that in 2018. Okay. Here we are in 2025, and the builder, developer, has not addressed any of the deficiencies noted. This is why I'm asking for your attorney's information so I can sort of get to the bottom of where the case stands. Okay. Hi. I'm Susan Schott, and thank you for hearing us. I also live on Bellflower Court, Riverhead. My question is pretty simple. And by the way, when I was asked to do this, I think it's important to note that I didn't know it was a test of my stamina and staying up so late. So I'm an early bird. What could I tell you? Anyway, my question is really very straightforward, and that is, where is the $143,000? Is it invested? Is it with a bank? Where is it? And is it, in fact, earning interest? Because we've asked this question a number of times, and when I reference asking it a few times, and Mr. Howard, to your questions, I was once former president of the board, and at that time, we, we're told by the town that things had been lost. This was with the town attorney at the time. The things had been lost in a fire. And in fact, that was not true. The documents that we sought in order to employ our own engineers to give us an understanding of how much work was involved was, in fact, available to us. But that took years to identify. We worked with the town attorney at the time. That town attorney told us that we needed to bring forward better counsel because they weren't cooperating. So we did, in fact, do that. And the, Evan's last name, it moots me, Kidder, thank, Kidder, and Lisa Albert, again, yes, we will certainly get you all of those materials because we have them. But again, we were told by them that this was the process with which this, the town would like us to operate and that was that we were going to sue them and we would have your support in providing the information and the bond where it was at the time. Judge hear that answer if you could reach out then with our attorneys and discuss it. Sure. But the town attorneys and our attorneys did meet, and I know because I was present for those meetings. I mean, I'm just making an assumption here, but I would assume that your attorney has a copy of the most recent bond letter. We have. Say that one more time. I would assume that your attorney has a copy of the most recent bond letter, or at least the original bond letter that says where it's held. Certainly, yes, it would. Okay. Thank you for your time. Well, I mean, yeah, I think I do. I just don't have it here on my iPad. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Hi. I'm Catherine Leepa-Levenson, and I live on Chris Sundrop Court. And that, by the way, is a flower. And I had to look that up. And I moved to Riverhead. I have to say, I really so appreciated being here tonight and watching all of you. It was really quite remarkable. And my neighbor talked about stamina, and I'm very impressed with all of your stamina to listen to all of us. So I really do thank you very much for that. I have a couple of questions, but I just wanted to note a couple of things about our neighborhood. It is really wonderful. And we are all very proud. We are all very proud Riverhead denizens. And we work very hard. We have retired police officers. We have artists. We have teachers. We have nurses. We have lawyers. We have doctors. We come from all religious backgrounds, all ethnic and racial backgrounds. It is a remarkable neighborhood. And we are really proud to be a part of the Riverhead community. And I was wondering about the bond. Is it conceivable? Is it possible that we could get a release of the bond and still continue with our lawsuit to make up the difference? The reason why I'm asking this, and I understand about litigation, my father was a judge. We have many other relatives who were lawyers. But I'm simply wondering about this because the litigation can go on a very, very long time. And their lawyers and this particular group are quite different. And I'm wondering, what is the relationship between the two? And I'm wondering, what is the relationship between the two? Because my father and my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would say, well, my father would And we not only own, each of us, a beautiful plot of land that we pay for collectively, we own 22 acres. And on that 22 acres, it's clean of buildings. And it is good for the ecosystem of Riverhead. And it has beautiful trees and grasses. And we really support, I believe, the ecosystem of Riverhead. So if there's any way that you could look into that for us, perhaps that we could get the bond so we could start with the deficiencies and continue with our lawsuit, I think that that would be wonderful. At any rate, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Sure. You get bonus time for the late hours. Sorry for adding to the time. I just want to mention that in the negotiations, once our attorneys contacted the Riverhead Reeves LLC's attorney and said that we were contacting the town to investigate the bond, miraculously, the negotiation settlement went drastically up. Not to the point that we feel that would cover the deficiencies. And I agree, the $843,000 from all the estimates, and we've done our due diligence, past boards have done their due diligence. And putting together the cost factor for fixing all these deficiencies and changes in the site plans, the $843,000 is not going to cover it. So we're pushing forward with the lawsuit, with the settlement. We do have another court conference with Judge Tenary, I believe his name is. And he wants us to sit down and he wants to hear from us personally. Which is the first time. It's always been attorney to attorney. And we're hoping to be able to provide information as we're providing you tonight to push this thing forward. Get a settlement that is acceptable. I don't believe that the original ask number is going to happen. But I do believe that we can work something out, hopefully. With the right people. Thank you. We will continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue to continue Somebody mentioned stamina before. We are all wearing diapers up here. That's how we make it through the night.
Speak for yourself. I'm not. And Jim took all the snacks. Yeah, Jim. Hello? Hi, Colleen O'Brien-Aquabock. How are you? This will be short, I promise. Thank you for staying so late. I know it's been a tough evening. I just wanted to bring to your attention that I had foiled the capital improvement list for the Pecan Ice Hockey Bank. Of course, that's my pet peeve. In March of 2025, the numbers that were provided to me that were allegedly provided to the town by Pecan Hockey, the numbers that were provided to me are different than what you've just taken as donations and capitalizes our basis. So you might want to go back and look at the numbers that were provided. And see what the difference is. Because obviously I'm going to want enough. There is backup for these because I'm going to foil all the backup because it seems strange that there'd be a disparity from 23 to 25 and 24 to 25. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention to make sure that we have the appropriate and correct basis for the rank. Thank you. Thank you, Colleen. Have a nice night. You too. Yeah.
We have one more on line.
Have a seat. Have a seat. Sit here.
We have nobody online. Okay. All right. At this point in time, I'm going to make a motion to close the town board meeting and open up the CDA meeting. Can I have a motion to close the town board meeting? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Town board meeting is closed. Ms. Thomas, if you would like. There's a whole other meeting about it. A whole other meeting? Don't leave yet. Don't go yet. Come on. We're just getting started. This was about an hour. Good evening. Hopefully this will be short. We have no resolutions on the agenda, so we would be looking for comments on CDA matters only. And if there are any, we could take them now. Comments on CDA matters only. None online. Not seeing any in the. Room? Okay. Then we can go ahead and close the CDA meeting. We need a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. CDA meeting is closed. Okay. With that, we will end this evening. I thank all the people that have come out for tonight's meeting and all those watching at home. We appreciate you tuning in. We will be back again next week. Well, we'll have to wait. We'll have work session on Thursday. And have a great week, people. We'll see you next time. We don't have work session. Okay.