Summary AI
The board unanimously adopted a resolution supporting county preservation of a 10-acre parcel at 1161 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Jamesport as natural open space, and swore in a new police officer. Public hearings were held on a sewer biosolids project cost increase, commercial dimensional regulation changes, solid waste fine increases, and a volunteer firefighter/ambulance worker surviving-spouse tax exemption.
Key actions
- The board unanimously adopted Resolution 2026-469, supporting Suffolk County preservation of the property at 1161 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Jamesport (Tax Map 600-94-1-6) as natural, unimproved open space to protect ecological value, habitat, and water quality.
- A new police officer was appointed and sworn in by the police chief in a unanimous vote, Resolution 2026-426.
- Resolution 452, authorizing the supervisor to sign an agreement with Suffolk County to reuse effluent water from Indian Island Golf Course, was tabled because the contract was not yet finalized.
- The board authorized pursuit of Suffolk County downtown revitalization funding for beautification of the Wading River Duck Pond, with the Wading River Civic Association as co-sponsor.
- Bids were awarded for installation of water mains at 203 East Main Street and for PFAS treatment at Well No. 5-2A in the Riverhead Water District.
- The board authorized the Community Development Department to submit applications to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation for sewer infrastructure grants.
- Several board and committee appointments were approved, including members to the Senior Citizen Advisory Council, East Creek Advisory Committee, and Hispanic Development, Empowerment, and Education Committee.
- Special event permits were approved for multiple events including a Chamber of Commerce Cardboard Boat Race, a carnival, a mud run, and a fireworks application for Riverhead Raceway.
Public hearings & comment
- A public hearing on a biosolids improvement project cost increase to approximately $2.4 million drew no public comment and was closed with 10 days left open for written submissions.
- A public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapter 301 commercial dimensional regulations, which would increase impervious surface allowances, drew significant opposition from multiple residents who argued the changes contradict the town's comprehensive plan and could worsen stormwater runoff; the hearing was closed with 10 days for written comment.
- A public hearing on amendments to Chapter 273 Solid Waste raised fine levels for dumping and placement violations substantially, with Category C violations for dumping in wetlands or mishandling hazardous waste rising to a maximum of $20,000 for third offenses; the hearing was closed with 10 days for written comment.
- A public hearing on amendments to Chapter 279 to extend property tax exemptions for surviving spouses of volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers killed in the line of duty drew general public support; changes remove the requirement that surviving spouses remain unmarried and reduce the required service term from five years to two years.
Discussed
- Board members and multiple residents debated the terms under which Suffolk County would fund preservation of the Peconic Bay Boulevard parcel, with County Legislator Dorosky cautioning that a requirement for zero improvements could make the property ineligible for state water quality funds and kill the deal.
- A resident raised unresolved concerns about the town assessor's valuation methodology for golf courses following an appellate court ruling, and asked whether outside water district counsel had been asked to review impact fee legality.
Auto-generated from an unofficial, machine-made transcript. It may misstate names, figures, or votes. Verify against the agenda and the full transcript below.
Full Transcript
Thank you.
Councilman Rothwell, do we have someone today for the invocation? We do. We are once again honored to have Pastor George Dupree from the Living Waterful Gospel Church to lead us in our invocation today, so we ask you to come forward. Thank you very much, Pastor. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to offer a prayer. Before I begin, I'd like to share a quick thought from the Bible that's been on my heart for our community. The Bible mentions the people of the tribe of Issachar, describing their leaders as people who understood the signs of the times. And because of that, they knew the best course as leaders to take. So this is my prayer. This is my prayer for today. May God bless this meeting and each of our town board members. I ask you, God, that you would give them wisdom, that you would give them the ability to see and understand what's happening in our town at this time, and to give them the clarity to know the best path forward as they lead and govern here in Riverhead. Amen. Thank you once again. Thank you very much, Pastor. And this Sunday is Mother's Day, so don't forget to call your mother. So celebrate her in so many ways. Council people, do we have any announcements today across the board? Yeah, I have one. Yes, sir. Happy Cinco de Mayo. Very much. Thank you. Taco Tuesday at the Moose. It's Taco Tuesday at the Moose because of Cinco de Mayo. Absolutely. Councilman Rothwell. So I just wanted to take a moment. I'm glad that Legislator Drosky is here today, but also I just wanted to take a moment that we are going to add a resolution because I think many people, there's been an overabundance of emails and phone calls, and we really appreciate that you listen to you. So we are going in the interest of time, I'm going to ask for support to pull a resolution off the floor that's simply going to state, it's a resolution to support the county preservation of the property at 1161 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Jamesport, Suffolk County Tax Map number 694-1-6 as open space without improvement or development, and instead to preserve the lands, ecological value and protect our habitat and water quality. So we are going to add that just because I know that I think we only have like a 30 day timeframe. So thank you for getting an extension. So allowed us to do due diligence. But everybody here knows that portion of property lies within 300 feet from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation tidal wetlands buffer. And other portions lie within the New York State coastal barrier resource area. So this is a piece of property that we very much want to protect from development. The preservation as natural unimproved open space would serve to protect the lands ecological value, habitats and the protection of our water areas. And the potential residential development would likely include if there was something there, there would be stormwater runoff keeping up. So keeping the property natural will avoid the flow of stormwater into the East Creek and out of the Peconic Bay. It's that so that would be a win for Riverhead and the other East End towns as well. Preservation will provide an excellent location for our coastal birds. And the preservation of open space, natural with no improvements will protect the tree line, avoid potential increase in traffic, avoid potential encroachment on the town property, and serve the continued quiet enjoyment of the immediate surrounding community. So I am going to bring that up. So I just want to let people know as they're coming forward perhaps today to share their thoughts and minds. And we'll certainly make this resolution that's coming off the floor later available to everybody to take a look at. So just make a comment. We all want to preserve land. I want the taxpayers to understand something. Every piece of land that we preserve, we get zero taxes. So when you know you really need to be cognizant of that when you're screaming for preservation, the land has to be served, preserved in the proper places. Remember, zero taxes. So thank you. I think the large concern was that was a major issue would become the quality of life. So if the, you know, preserving it as open space could potentially open things up to an agreement with the county. And that would be our concern is that if it was allowed for additional parking and then you have fishermen and picnic goers and other things, and how does that affect the surrounding neighborhood or people parking on Peconic Bay Boulevard and other areas. So those are the concerns that we've been kind of looking into. And so we hope to work very diligently with the county to protect that quality of life around it as well. I actually have a statement that I would like to read on that. Thank you for bringing that up, Councilman Rothwell. I'd like you to know that I support preserving. I'm not a big fan of preserving. I'm a big fan of preserving.
Right now, for me, the information feels incomplete, and that matters. People deserve clarity when decisions are made. This is also personal for me. It is right across the street from my home. This is the land that I view from my backyard. And my concerns are not opposition. They come from caring enough to ask the questions. And an email from Mr. Dorosky came to me that states that the potential for beach access is minimal. His word, minimal. That to me says possible. So you can see where my concern would be. Again, we still have no defined recreational plan. I am hopeful, but I also need it to be clear. I support open space of this property, should that be what the owner would want. And I would like for it to remain in its natural state with zero potentials of what ifs could happen for this property. So I am happy to move forward and support this later on in the meeting. I did listen to all of your emails. I read them. I spoke to people. This has been an ongoing thing for the past five days. And I care. And I hope that you realize that. That's all that I'd like to say on that. I'd like to just briefly make a statement as well. Obviously we want to preserve land for our town. But if someone comes in at a work session with no advance notice, no information, and just brings this to us on a Thursday and says, we need an answer on this Monday morning, you have to give people more time to figure out what it's all about. Just like any other type of contract. You can't demand an answer immediately. We're just asking for time because these types of things can impact all of our taxpayers, not just the residents of Jamesport. So we're just asking everyone for us to have an opportunity to have some clarity about what this all entails. And I believe there is more time now. So we are actively seeking information about it. And I support the resolution that's on the floor today. Thank you. Are there any other announcements? General announcements? All right. Thank you. So with that, we are actually going to take a resolution out of order today, a resolution that we're quite excited about. Resolution 2026-426, which is actually appointing a police officer to the police department. And before we have that read, that resolution, and vote on it, we do need to open it for comments on this resolution. So if you have any comments on this resolution, if you would like to step forward to the microphone, or if there's anyone online. I would like to comment. Do you want to just read the title, maybe, so people know what you're referring to? I did. I said appoints a police officer to the police department. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, sir. The resolution? No, it's for today. This resolution that we're taking is 2026-426, which appoints a police officer to the police department. Please, we would ask it if you have another question, just go to the microphone, please. Okay. Thank you.
Oh, thank you.
excited about this. We have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with Dan as he's been at the front desk waiting patiently for this special day. So this is an absolute yes for me. Great addition to the department. Welcome aboard. Mary Fields. Yes, and absolutely I can totally concur. It's been wonderful having you here greeting us every day. How wonderful you are to all the residents that come through the door. Very much appreciated and you're going to be a tremendous addition to the force. Congratulations. Kern. Dan. Excellent job. We're going to miss you at the desk. All of us. Maybe we should say no. Wait a second. On second thought, I'm not voting for Dan. We didn't want to ask. That's an absolute yes. Thanks. Rothwell. So yeah, this is a true gentleman that is what community policing is going to be all about here in the town of Riverhead. It's what exemplifies our best men and women in law enforcement. And you are a true gentleman and I greatly appreciate working closer with you and your smiles each morning and I thank you. We will miss you on the desk. Come visit us. But we once again will have another of Riverhead finest on the job. So thank you and that's an absolute yes. And Halpin. Daniel, thank you for choosing Riverhead. I know that you would have had many options as a police officer. Your family has to be proud. We're very proud of you. To the residents of Riverhead, we are lucky as each of the fellow council people have said. We are extremely lucky to have you as an officer. And it's not where you start, it's where you end. Thank you for making us your home and absolutely yes. That resolution has been adopted. And so with that, what we're going to do is we're going to have our police chief come in, come forward, swear him in, and we'll join him. Going to put you right to work immediately.
And yell.
Thank you, guys.
Somewhat. I have a big piece of paper.
Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you? Daniel. Solemnly swear that you will uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York and that you will faithfully perform the duties of the rank of police officer. Officer for the Riverhead Police Department to the best of your ability. So I'll help you guys. I do. Congratulations. Applause.
Thank you.
You're responsible.
I like that. That would be awesome. Absolutely. They make their way out. I have them. That's 13. Thank his family and everyone who brought him to where he is today.
So as they make their way out, Clerk Wooten, if you could prepare for our correspondence and our reports after the room clears out, that would be super. Okay. Well, under correspondence, we received two letters. Unknown residencies, but they were in favor of the motocross track in Calverton. Received a letter from John McAuliffe in reference to the town board meeting from April the 21st. Fallon Tooker, a local resident, in reference to immigrant neighbors. And a letter from Jen Hartnagle, director of the conservative advocacy group for the East End, on the amendments to Chapter 301. And all those letters can be read verbatim on the website. Under the agenda. Under reports, we received two tax collection reports. One from the 22nd of April of $111,238,067.11. And then a week later on the 29th of April of $113,867,101.67. And those are the only reports and announcements and correspondence for this meeting. Thank you, sir. Our next part of our meeting is the report on the ! Our main today, the time is now 2.16. We have a public hearing at 2 p.m. planned for biosolids reduction project. And today to kick off that, we have our superintendent of sewers with Tim Allen. Tim, I'd ask that you come to the podium and just kind of begin the conversation and the hearing.
Thank you. The public notice is to give the town board, the board of Suffolk County, New York to meet today for the biosolids improvement project cost increase. It goes from, it's increased to $2.4 million for the increase because of the, it's still higher than the, lower than the last higher bid that was received. And it was because of getting grant money and stuff like that. And that's why it took a long time to get. Thank you, Tim. Are there any comments from the community or online about this specific hearing only? Just a moment. I don't see anybody here. I don't see anyone online. Let's give online just another second. All right. So with that said, we will close this public hearing. We'll keep it open for 10 days for written comment. And then at that time it will be closed, be brought to a vote. Our next public hearing at 2 p.m. is to amend Chapter 301. Thank you. Dimensional regulations. And to kind of start that off, we do have Matt Charters in the room, I believe. He was here? Nope. He is not here any longer. So Eric Coward, there you go. Yeah, I'll take care of this. Thank you, Supervisor. This public hearing proposed for an amendment to Town Code Chapter 301, Attachment 3, entitled Commercial Districts Schedule of Dimensional Regulations. The proposed amendments as recommended to the Town Board by the Business Advisory Committee, are as follows. The proposed amendments are as follows. [transcription gap]
summarizes the proposed changes. If anybody wants to be heard on the proposed amendment, we receive comment.
Hi, good afternoon. Takri Turchin, Greater Calverton Civic Association President. I will be brief. It seems that in reading this resolution and listening to the work session on the increase in lot coverage, what was not taken into account by the Business Advisory District Committee was that our comprehensive plan speaks directly to increased lot coverage and stormwater runoff, and I would caution you not to proceed without keeping that in mind. Thank you.
Thank you. Laura Jen Smith for Laurel. I just have a question. I did not get to see the work session or anything else. So the downtown District 3 to 80%, from 80% to 90%, that is backed by where in the comprehensive plan? Is that where you're getting the rationale for it, for these changes in the dimensions, actually for all the dimensions? Just asking what the supporting data is for the change. Thank you. Do you want to speak to that? Matt Charters can, if you want to come down. I don't support the change. Okay. So, but I mean, just as far as, because it's being brought up, was this information taken from a study that the town did, or is it in the pattern book or the comprehensive plan that is recommended? I think that that's a very good question, and I think it's a great Matt Charters question. So I will advise him. You can get him. I will advise him to watch this back. Okay. And. The first time this was presented to me was at a business advisory committee. Councilman Rothwell had Marty Sandaluski present this to me. So that was the first time I had heard of it. And so I did ask questions of our, as Matt Charters and Greg Bergman said, to echo Councilwoman Waskie, I think that would be a question where they came from. But the business advisory didn't use any, I'm sorry, I don't know, who's the chair? Laura, let me back up for you. So what happened was there was a project in Aqaba. And as a result of that project on union, all these dimensional regulations were changed. Nothing to do with the pattern book, nothing to do with anything. They were just changed for this one particular project. In doing so, and I was at the time liaison for the business. The dimensional table was changed for that, not a variance. Yeah, it was changed. Okay. And. Okay. And I worked, I had a meeting with Greg and we went over it when I was chair of the, I mean liaison for business advisory committee and agreed that the percentage was still not correct and they were corrected. So it's the best I can tell you. They've, they've come to a couple and Matt is here. They've come to a couple of work sessions where they've kind of made presentations of it. I think it's quite honestly been lingering for probably about a year and a half and multiple work sessions and it just, it has. HAVE MUCH MOVEMENT. SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO KIND OF GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK. SO IF YOU WANT, MAYBE WE CAN ASK MATT CHARTERS TO COME FORWARD TO LAY OUT SOME OF THE REASONS AND REGULATIONS AND THEN MAYBE BY MORE MEANS YOU CAN FOLLOW RIGHT UP WITH HIM. HE'S HERE NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE. MAYBE CAN YOU JUST COME UP AND EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT? SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS AN UNDERSTANDING AND THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND TO OR GENERALLY AN OVERVIEW? I'M NOT SURE THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WE HAD CHANGED THIS CODE TO PREVENT OVERLY DEVELOPING PARCELS WHICH IS KIND OF WHICH WE SPOKE TO ON THE COMP PLAN ALSO. SO IF YOU RECALL THERE WAS A SITE PLAN ON UNION AVENUE THAT WAS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR CODE IN TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS VERSUS PERVIOUS TO GO OVER ALLOWABLE COVERAGES SO WE CHANGED THE CODE TO PREVENT THAT. THIS SORT OF GOES THE OTHER WAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN REALLY SAY. I THINK IT'S SOMETIMES WHEN DIFFERENT COMMITTEES MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND YOU TRY TO MOVE THINGS AT LEAST TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT YOU KIND OF VALIDATE THE WORK THAT THE COMMITTEES ARE DOING. CORRECT. THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO AS OPPOSED TO GOING WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DISCUSS THIS, WE DON'T WANT TO BE GATEKEEPERS TO ANY OF THE COMMITTEES. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. AND WHICH I BELIEVE CAME OUT OF BUSINESS ADVISORY, RIGHT? I'M SORRY? CAME FROM BUSINESS ADVISORY. SO IF THE TOWN BOARD WANTS TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS, I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH MORE TO ADD OTHER THAN IT DOES CONTRADICT THE LANGUAGE IN THE COMPLAN IN TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THANKS, FONT. DO YOU HAVE A DIRECT QUESTION YOU WANT TO ASK, MATT? I WAS GOING TO ASK A QUICK QUESTION. WOULD THIS AFFECT THE BUILDING LOT COVERAGE, LIKE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE? IT WOULD, YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S IMPERVIOUS. WE DON'T NECESSARILY DEAL WITH JUST BUILDING LOT COVERAGE. WE DEAL WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SO THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. OKAY. SNAP. GOOD AFTERNOON, BARBARA BLAST, JAMESPORT. DID I GET IT? I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY UNWAVERING OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ATTACHMENT 3 OF CHAPTER 301 OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ALLOWANCE AND TO DO SO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. NUMBER ONE, AS WE'VE HEARD, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE BOARD ADOPTED AND APPROVED A GOAL TO, QUOTE, LIMIT FUTURE INCREASES IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OR ACTION ITEM TO, QUOTE, RE-EVALUATE AND REDUCE THE CURRENT LIMITS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. YOU CAN FIND THAT ON PAGE 119 OF THE PLAN. NUMBER TWO, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO TOWN LAW SECTION 272A, WHICH REQUIRES THAT ALL LAND USE REGULATIONS BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THREE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO SEVERAL OF THE LAND USE TENANTS OF A CLIMATE SMART COMMUNITY, A DESIGNATION OF A CITY THAT IS A RESPONSIBLE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ADMINISTRATION WHICH THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS PLEDGED TO ACHIEVE. FOUR, THERE IS NO EXPRESS JUSTIFICATION OR DISCERNABLE COMMUNITY BENEFIT. FIVE, A QUICK REVIEW OF THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS IN BOTH SOUTH HAMPTON AND SOUTH HOLD REVEALED THAT MOST OF RIVERHEAD'S CURRENT LIMITS FAR EXCEED THOSE OF NEIGHBORING TOWNS. SIX, AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACES LIKE ROOFTOPS, ROADS, AND TOWNS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO FLOODING AND POLLUTION OF GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS BY OVERWHELMING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. WE'RE ALL TOO FAMILIAR WITH DEC WARNINGS AGAINST SWIMMING AND CLIMBING IN LOCAL WATERS AFTER A HEAVY RAINFALL DUE TO HIGH BACTERIA COUNTS FROM STORMWATER RUNOFF. SEVEN, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ABSORB HEAT WHICH IS THEN RERADIATED INTO THE SURROUNDING AREA INCREASING AMBIENT TEMPERATURE. EIGHT, IF YOU'RE ADDING MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY REDUCING LANDSCAPED AND NATURAL AREAS WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL DRAINAGE AND AESTHETIC BENEFITS. AN INTERESTING METRIC, ONE ACRE OF PARKING CAN PRODUCE UP TO 15 TIMES MORE RUNOFF THAN AN ACRE OF VEGETATED LAND. FINALLY, ALTHOUGH ADVANCED BY THE BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS BY NO MEANS ANTIBUSINESS. RIVERHEAD'S BUSINESS FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENT IS EVIDENCED BY A RECENT STATEMENT BY NEW YORK STATE AND AFFIRMED BY OUR ASSESSOR'S OFFICE THAT RIVERHEAD HAS MORE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ON ITS ASSESSMENT ROLE THAN ANY OTHER TOWN IN SUFFOLK COUNTY. THIS IS A QUESTION OF BALANCING THE NEEDS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHILE RESPECTING OUR FRAGILE ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. WE'VE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL POTENTIAL NEGATIVE ECOLOGICAL HYDROLOGICAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS WHICH YOU MUST CONSIDER IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED ACTION. THESE ILL CONCEIVED AMENDMENTS ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR SUPPORT EITHER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. RIGHT ON. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM, IF THERE'S ANYBODY ONLINE. CHECKING, WAITING, NOPE, THERE IS NOT. ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ONE? WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON ONLINE. DON'T FORGET TO CALL YOUR MOTHER SUNDAY, MOTHER'S DAY. TELL HER HOW MUCH YOU LOVE HER. MAYBE? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, [transcription gap] NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
I was not on the business advisory committee now, but I was when this was discussed. Basically, what this was, was it was really intended to be a correction of issues that were on the in the dimensional regulations, which basically says that, for example, if you have 20 percent lot coverage for a building and you only have 30 percent impervious surface, it's impossible to meet the 20 percent lot coverage. One thing that Matt Charters said that really isn't isn't what it was based on. And I don't think it's true, is that the increase in impervious surface was only made or only recommended. Because if you have it on these certain zones based on the allowed lot coverage of the building, you cannot achieve that allowed lot coverage of the building without additional impervious surface to accommodate the parking. Let's say the average parking requirement for parking in Riverhead, I'm using an average is one car per 200 square feet. A parking space in Riverhead is 375 square feet. So for every percentage of the lot coverage of the building, you need an additional 1.875 of additional impervious surface to accommodate that footage. So that's what it was really in reaction to. And as Councilman Kern said, this really came up with a project where the town did a revision where there were pervious pavers. And a lot of developers were saying, well, this is a lot of work. And a lot of developers were utilizing pervious pavers in parking lots in order to gain the parking that they would need to accommodate the allowed lot coverage of the building. And the town changed that to where you're not allowed to use impervious pavers for parking anymore for specifically that reason. They said, well, we don't. That wasn't the intent of what impervious pavers are used for. So we're not allowing it anymore. So that means that that automatically drops the actual allowed coverage of the buildings. So the other way to look at this is to say, okay, we don't want to increase the lot coverage. Well, then you really should go back and change all the lot coverages in the zoning and reduce them to what could be accommodated based on the impervious surface and then reduce the assessments of those properties accordingly. Because they will be worth less value. And these lot coverage, lot coverage for the building did not change at all as part of the master plan. This is what was in there. And again, this wasn't done with reaction to anything in the master plan, et cetera. Basically, what it was is the committee looked at it and said, hey, there's a problem here because you cannot attain the allowable lot coverage of the building without having additional impervious pavers. Okay. So that's the first thing. So that's the second thing. Okay. [transcription gap] Realistically, what you're going to end up being faced with is fix it either way. You can fix it where you allow the percentage of lot coverage and increase the impervious to accommodate that. Or don't change the impervious surface. Reduce the allowable lot coverage for all of those zones and then reduce everybody's taxes accordingly. So that's basically the two ways to look at it. And again, the committee, when I was on the committee at that time, the purpose for doing this was simply to do a correction in the code to have the impervious surface match the building lot coverage. That was the only reason for the recommendation. Thank you. Anyone else online? One more.
All right. The team is working hard to get that person online for us. Appreciate them.
Good afternoon. Kathy McGraw, Northville. I have an intention to do a correction in the code to have the impervious surface match the building lot coverage. I intended to speak on this public hearing, but it seems to me that this was studied in the comp plan. And I don't understand why the concerns weren't raised at the time the comp plan was done. It seems to me that this town should enforce the comp plan and make the changes on lot coverage that are required, given the conclusion in the comp plan regarding. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. McGraw. Anyone else online? No one else. All right. With that being said, I don't think there's anybody else in the room that has had an opportunity to speak that hasn't. And we'll be closing this public hearing, keeping it open for written comment for 10 days. And with that, we will be moving on to our third public hearing of the day to amend Chapter 273, Solid Waste. And, Councillor Haslam? Councillor Howard is going to walk us through that. All right. Thank you, Supervisor. All right. So this is an amendment, a proposed amendment, to Chapter 273-17. This is enforcement and penalties for offenses. We previously broke this down into three categories of offense, A, B, and C, under Section 17. This increases the fines as set forth in the proposed amendment. Under A, it would be, it would go from 500 to... $1,000 as a minimum, and then 2,000 as a maximum. For a second violation within one year, it would be not less than 2,000 rather than 1,000, and up to 2,500. For a third and subsequent offenses, it would be fine not less than 2,500, nor more than 3,500. And these are specified violations which relate to times for placement, screening, placing seasonal and bulk items, container replacement. These are required violations. And then under B, these are slightly higher fines. We're going from 1,500 to 2,500 as a minimum, up to 3,500 as a maximum on the first offense. And the second offense, not less than 3,500 rather than 2,500, and up to 6,000 as a maximum. For a third and subsequent offense within one year, fine not less than 6,000 rather than 5,000, and up to 11,000. These would relate to... And then under B, these are slightly higher fines. These would relate to dumping violations under Section 16A and B in designated areas. Then Section C under 273.17 is the more, I guess, highest level of violation, which is dumping in wetlands or improper handling and dumping of medical, toxic, hazardous wastes. These would increase from 2,500 to 5,000. And not more than 10,000 on the first offense. For a second offense within one year, fine not less than 10,000 or more than 15,000. For a third and subsequent offense within one year, not less than 15,000 or more than 20,000. These under Section C are designed to address the most egregious violations. Thank you, Counselor. Is there anyone in the room, if you'd like to speak on this during this hearing time, if you'd come to the microphone. And if there's anyone online, we'll give everyone a few seconds. Mr. Constable. Keep our town clean and these fines won't hurt you. I'm happy with the work that was done on this, so thank you, whoever did this. Bob did. It was proposed by Councilman Kern and Ms. Hurley worked on it in my office. Excellent job. As the liaison to the Anti-Litter Committee, they really have taught me to open up my eyes and look around and see some of the things. I really didn't focus in on prior to being on that committee. And we do have several areas that severely need to be addressed. And hopefully people will think twice once they see these fines that have been upped. Because you need to hold people accountable. There's no better way to hold people accountable than when you're hitting their pocketbook. Thank you. All right. I believe with that. I don't see any comments online or in person. So thank you, Councilwoman, for your comments. And we will close this hearing and keep it once again open for 10 days, which will bring us to our next meeting. We'll load on the thin. And for our final public hearing today, the time is 238. We have a 215 public hearing to amend Chapter 279, Taxation, Exemption for Volunteers. And once again, Councillor Howard, if you could walk us through that. Thank you, Supervisor. This is Chapter 279, Taxation, relating to Article 8, Exemption. For Volunteer Firefighters and Volunteer Ambulance Workers. This is an amendment to bring our code into consistency with Section 466A, Sub 4 of New York State Real Property Tax Law, granting a property tax exemption to surviving spouses of volunteer firefighters and volunteer ambulance workers killed in the line of duty to the extent of 50% of the assessed value of the property. The law previously required the... surviving spouses to be unremarried. That is being eliminated. And it reduces the term of service for the service member that is deceased from the five-year requirement to a two-year requirement, which is the minimum allowable pursuant to state law. So I put forth this legislation. Basically, it's just... It's a great amount of data. It's a debt of... It's a debt of gratitude to all of our volunteers, whether it be in the fire departments or our VAC ambulance services. And I just think that, God forbid, I hope this legislation is never necessary and that our volunteers stay safe. But recently, we did change the code for tax reductions from five years down to two years in an attempt to maintain and keep volunteers. So when our younger people come in and that's when they're potentially purchasing a house, and getting married, and it's beginning in life, and we want to keep them in the fire service and the ambulance service, the amount of training that goes into that is astronomical, you know, for just to remain a volunteer. And so that's why we lowered it to two years. We want to keep that incentive. So because some are working two jobs, multiple jobs trying to make an income. And so this was a retention effort. So we did have to adjust this as well. I think the year should match. And certainly, sometimes you have, you know, when, God forbid, somebody is killed in the line of duty, you know, they're not going to be able to get out of the fire service. And so we're going to have to adjust that. And we also want to be conscientious that, you know, the surviving spouse has an opportunity to move on and not worry about not getting remarried, losing benefits, things like that. If you suffered that loss, then I want that gratitude to follow you, you know, throughout the rest of the life to the surviving spouse. And so that you should not fear about getting remarried or, you know, continuing on in life because the grief never ends. Thank you. We've covered in our police department, so we're just showing the equal opportunity and debt of gratitude to our fire service as well as our ambulance workers. Are there any comments from our, you just have to come to the microphone, Warren, and say your name and your hamlet. Warren McKnight, Riverhead. Everywhere I see needs for volunteers, volunteers, it's the hardest thing to get, and that's what's needed is becoming less and less. I think there should be public relations saying what has been done to this, so when young people who want to do volunteer work, instead of going to a service club or another thing, they could say, well, this is more important, and it'll also help provide for my family. So I think in order to get more volunteers, you have to make this more well-known to the community. You have to make this more known to other people. That's all I have to say. Warren? Anyone online? Give everybody a couple more seconds. John Newman, . My question is, I'm a volunteer. I'm a volunteer. Is this retroactive to a particular point in time, or is it as of this state forward? And also, does it include people dying from heart attacks, things like that, cancers, et cetera? So the fire departments would classify whether something is a line of duty death. So to answer that question, you may have somebody directing traffic as a heart attack. There is a period of time after a fire call. And if somebody has a heart attack, and they're going to be in a hospital, or a volunteer may go home, and after pulling fire hoses all night and fighting a fire, and hours later have a heart attack at home, the fire department will determine if it's related. Sheer exhaustion causes a heart attack hours later at home, and if somebody has a heart attack and should pass away, it still becomes a line of duty death. But it's classified by the fire departments towards what is a line of duty death. And they're certain the fire department has their terms. They're certain they're going to be in a hospital. They're quite paid if there's a death in the line of duty that can be classified after the law is adopted. It could then be made application to the assessor's office. There's no provision for retroactive application. It's only prospective. But it could deal with deaths in the line of duty going backwards. Okay. No, I get that. But say this law or resolution, whatever it is, gets certified today, voted on by people, does it have retroactivity going back, say, a year from now, a year prior to now, or two years from now? You didn't answer my question. Are you asking, John, are you asking, like, if somebody's spouse died a few years ago? Are you asking, like, In other words, if somebody died from a line of duty considered death a year ago, are they still? Are they still eligible for this benefit? Or is this law effective as of today? Well, the benefit was already there in our code. Yeah. This amends what we already had to permit it for surviving spouses, irrespective of whether they're remarried or not. And it is for members who are enrolled for at least two years rather than the previous five. And then it increases the extent of the exemption. And from what we had before, which I believe was 10% to 50%. 50%, yeah. I understand the percentages. I'm just asking, like, say somebody who's a firefighter passed away a year ago. All right. Are you retroactively including that death as a? It's already a town law. So if they would have qualified a year ago, they would have those benefits, and they would be receiving those benefits today. Okay. Going forward, should that survive? If the surviving spouse decide to get remarried, that person wouldn't lose the benefits. Okay. Does that make sense? Yes, I got it. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Any comments online? Anyone else in the room? All right. Well, with that said, we will close that public hearing for today. We'll keep it, again, once again open for 10 days for written comment. And with that, we'll bring it back around. And I believe that ends our public hearing. And in the next section, we will have comments on our resolutions from the public. Again, during this time period, we'll have three minutes that we ask that you adhere to for your neighbors and that you stick to the resolutions that are in the packet today with that. And then we will have open comments at the end. So with that, we'll open up our microphone. And could you? Okay.
If you want to, could you come up? Come up and address them. I'm sorry. I'm Lisa Lay, Mill Road, Riverhead. Hi. I just want to request that the resolution that you're going to take off the floor be distributed before this session as it's supposed to be. Typically, the way we would do it, we would be going to. If people are going to be asked, excuse me, but if people are going to be asked to comment on it, it should be made available with the opportunity for them to read it according to this open meetings law. Yes, ma'am. Typically, the way we would do it is that we would actually go through all of our resolutions. And then we would make this one of, we would pull this one off the floor, make it available. And so just to. I'm sorry, Mr. Supervisor. Just to read the provision of the open meetings law. Agency records available to the public pursuant. That's FOIL. Okay. As well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation, policy, or any amendment thereto that is scheduled to be subject of discussion by public body or acted on shall, upon request, therefore, to the extent practical be made available for at least 24 hours to the meeting during the meeting. Okay. Which the records will be discussed. Copies may be made available for a reasonable fee. All right. And it can be made available at the meeting. And it should be also posted to the website if you maintain a high-speed Internet connection, which I think sometimes it's a high-speed Internet connection. But anyway. I don't see any reason why we can't. We obviously have. You can. Absolutely. I'm just going to hand them out now. Let me read them. All right. Do we have. Yes. And I would. Completely. Agree with that. If the resolution was scheduled. It's not scheduled. It's a resolution off the floor. So it's not actually properly before the town board at this point. You would vote to take it off the floor because it wasn't in the packet. And at that time, you would then give reasonable opportunity to review the proposed resolution. That being said, if the town board is amenable, I do have additional copies that can be distributed now. Yes. Hand them out. Let people read it. Absolutely. Well, can we make a motion now to take this motion? Yes. Thank you. Definitely call it out of order. If you want to call it out of order so people can actually see it and do it, that's fine. I'll get my staff to make copies. I think Eric has, do you have any copies? I have four copies. We can make additional copies. You know, it's hard to anticipate how many people are going to show up to a 2 o'clock meeting. Put them up there. I'm not going to take them on the cell phone. So what I can do is I can read the resolution. We'll pass copies out. We'll go through all the other resolutions, give time for people to read them, and then respond. Could you, just, he's going to make copies, so if you could wait, please. Yeah, I was going to have my staff do it. She's coming in now. Just, Devin will give you two. Let's see how many people are up. I think we can still continue on. We don't need to. All right. Just give us a second to. Okay, we have one of Goddard's. I don't know if we need one. All right, so is there. We have to come to the clerk's office. Just went to go make more copies. Yeah. All right. So we have to go make more copies. So as they make copies and they get those prepared, Councilman Rothwell has agreed to read the resolution to you. So we'll take it off the floor now, giving everybody a chance to get your copies. You have time to read it, and as we go through all the other resolutions, you'll have time to comment on it. So I'm going to make a motion to pull Resolution 2026-469 off the floor, Resolution to Support County Preservation of Property. That is, to apply to the resolution to support the land's ecological value and protect habitats and water quality. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Blaschke. Yes, to move off the floor. Merrifield. Yes, to move off the floor. Kern. Yes, to move off the floor. Rothwell. Yes, to move off the floor. And
Raupen. So we have one second to look it over. ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
Yes, to pull off the floor. That resolution is off the floor.
So when that resolution comes back in, with all of our resolutions, I will give you ample time to look at it, and I will allow you to comment on it. But while we're waiting on that to happen, in the essence of time, do you have any comments on other resolutions? Please feel free to come up and state the resolution, your name, and again, once again, you have three minutes. So there are copies that have just come in. If you'd like those, they are being distributed now. So any comments on any other resolutions at all?
So this is the open comment period, correct? I think so. This is comments on resolutions. Okay, so I'm going to comment on the resolution we were just handed. I did not have a chance to read it, but I did read your press release from the other day. I would assume that this resolution follows along those lines. If you want to take time to sit down and read it. That's okay. I don't. Okay. I actually have the extra time to do it. I think the urgency of the time was that we've got 30 days before the county makes a decision and we're trying to show support for open space. I understand. So I will comment, and for the title of the resolution that you read seems very similar to what you were proposing in the press release that you sent out to leave it open space. So I just wanted to make a few comments as it pertains to the resolution. So I just wanted to correct the record because the resolution was not in the press release. the public is being given a version of this that does not match the facts the county is not proposing a hamlet park the county is not proposing active recreation like ball fields or playgrounds that narrative is coming from you the board and it's being used to justify stepping away from the project the town itself supports as open space that's not a small distinction it's a functional one there are two types of applications that can be made to the county one is active recreation and hamlet centers and one is open space the application was for preservation for open space protecting land natural resources and community character a management plan doesn't change that it is a tool that defines it and locks it in it's where you decide it enforces terms what is allowed and what is not so raising concerns about uses that aren't actually being proposed and the land is not a tool that defines it and what is allowed and what is not so raising concerns about uses that aren't actually being proposed doesn't protect the land it distracts from the real decision in front of you because the alternative to a management plan or lack of providing a management plan is not better open space it is possibly a deal killer and no deal means no preservation it means this property remains exactly what it is today land with an approved subdivision in place this is the outcome that the board is currently moving forward the city of g what open space means to the town of Riverhead and is put forth in our codes. It is a step away from that. You are not defending local control. You are giving it up. You are not allowing the outcome to be shaped without your direct input, or worse, allowing the project to collapse and default to development. So let's be clear what's happening. The public is being told to be concerned about uses that are not being proposed, while the real risk, the loss of preservation altogether, is not being fully acknowledged. That's not protecting the community. That's misdirecting it. This board has the ability right now to do exactly what it says it believes in, exercise home rule, set clear limits, and secure this land and negotiate with the town as open space. County, I'm sorry. So you can continue down a path that sounds, or you can continue down this path that sounds protective, but in practice leads to... I'm sorry. ...to the opposite result. With Ed Romaine at the table, this comes down to whether the board is willing to work and partner with the county to define this appropriate use, or continue to point to worst case scenario and outcomes as a reason not to act in action or refuse to negotiate. So I urge you to correct course, engage in a management plan, and deliver the preservation outcome that the town originally sought. And I hope that you'll... Thank you. ...consider doing the management plan. Thank you. Cindy Clifford, Riverhead. Let's first consider that the people who live near this 10-acre parcel on Peconic Bay Boulevard already have issues with the water table and flooding. We can all probably point to local examples of where development made flooding and runoff, but I think that the city has a lot of room to do its job. I'm not sure if you can see the water table. Oh, thank you.
program, which we all want, with the added bonus of not having to purchase it ourselves. This could be and should be a win for all of us. The residents want you, our town board, to preserve this land. The party objection of the likelihood of it becoming a playground or a three-ring circus or anything more than a path with two or three parking spots at the most would only be possible if the application the town had filled out had included any of those options. But it did not. And the concern that the town would need to issue a blank check for an unknown amount for an unknown project is also just as unwarranted and sounds like scare tactics. That this idea was first proposed under the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program by a Republican and is being carried forward by a Democrat is exactly the kind of teamwork and collaboration that we should jump at and that we should aspire to. And for the record, after Friday night at the Suffolk, I keep thinking, wouldn't it be nice if the only... the only parties we had in Riverhead were the ones we had to celebrate something good? Please consider this collaboration for the good of our present and our future, and maybe we could have a party to celebrate when it's all done. Thank you.
Greg Dorowski, Suffolk County Legislature, Suffolk County District 1st District, Suffolk County District 2nd District, Thank you. Nice to see you all again. I'm Greg Dorowski, Suffolk County Legislature, for the 1st District. You know, I'd like to thank the board for the robust, robust debate surrounding the preservation of this parcel. And I believe that debate's foundational to our democracy. It also serves real educational value for the community as we discuss these complex programs. You know, I also want to recognize Riverhead's track record with preserving land. Your transfer of development rights program in particular is something that South Old Town still hasn't worked out. It's been very effective in Riverhead. And you should be celebrated for that. I also want us to be careful. You know, how we handle this acquisition sends a signal. If Riverhead pushes back on county-funded preservation, we risk telling the county and also property owners that we're not a good partner. And with over 6,000 acres still in play, I sure hope there's another deal at the table. You know, Suffolk County, is prepared to spend serious money to preserve this 10 acres of environmentally sensitive and scenic parcel on Peconic Bay Boulevard. What the county needs and what I came to ask for at work session was not a contract. But it was for an agreement to work with the county to negotiate a partnership. As I've said repeatedly, this is not a blank check. The town negotiates the terms, which I'd also like to point out, gives it more authority than if the county purchased and managed the property alone. Now we got lucky this month with some other offers not coming back, so we have more time. But there's steep competition for these funds. And I believe there's really a foot race against development across the East End. Every second counts. We need to be ready to make these offers. You know, if the town says, No, this parcel has an approved four lot subdivision on flood prone land. It will be built on. This opportunity at preservation will be gone forever. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here, especially when holding out gets us a worse outcome. More development in environmentally sensitive and scenic area. Now, as I said during the work session, Riverhead is not South Old, but I believe my experience is that Riverhead is not South Old, but I believe my experience is informative there. On cost, as I've mentioned, South Old manages 640 preserved acres for around 46 bucks per acre. In every case with Suffolk, they have required very little. And our expenditures prove that in South Old. Four new homes, on the other hand, put serious risk of taxes in Riverhead. Just the schools alone, $19,000 a year. Now, I know Councilman Kern pointed out that, you know, preservation comes at a cost. And he suggested that there's a lot more second homes in Riverhead and they don't have students. But if you look at the census data, only 5% of the housing stock in Riverhead is what they call occasional use. That compares to 25% in South Old, and over 40% on the South Fork. So these are all primary residences that are being built right now.
I think an example in Wading Rivers, useful to point here, Councilman Rothwell and I have been working. Greg, I'm going to have to ask. Just let me have 10 seconds. On the Venetian Square parcel, to get some gravel parking there, and maybe a few benches. This is a light touch. The county always has a light touch in mind. And when we talk about Suffolk County, you and I are all part of Suffolk County. And I, as a county, am a part of Suffolk County.
moving in the right direction i do have some concerns that it's saying or it's suggesting that i want to do certain things or i've suggested doing certain things as much i i agree with councilwoman waski i'd love this to be farmland the problem is it's just not eligible those are the rules i don't make the rules the choice before us is open space preservation there's no access to the beach here yes if they put in a few parking spots people could walk to to south james port beach that's a half mile away here i don't think that's really a risk i asked i guess to close and thank you for the extra time i appreciate this this resolution is a step in the right direction i hope maybe i can come to another work session and we can work together to put together what a management plan could look like because we can't say unimproved we do need to look at some sort of public access in the future i agree i want it to be the lightest touch as possible you know as i said in my email to you i think it's annual or maybe bi-annual mowing and an agreement to uh to cut down any trees that that fall down so thank you and thank you for this
it says it right in the second whereas just in in terms of what um prior i think she's unfortunately left the room lord jen smith said just to reiterate um she asked that insinuated perhaps that there was no management agreement but it does state here in the second whereas the county of suffolk sought a preservation plan to include partnership with the town of red on the potential acquisition with the town either contributed funding or by a management agreement thank you for pointing that out because it's in the second whereas and it's exactly what you're talking about and so we we need to sit down and figure this out it's the people that get up here and make this a political thing or anything else like that it just they need something to say what can i say i i hope you don't see what i'm saying is that i'm really trying to work with you absolutely the second whereas i just want to reiterate the ultimate goal and and whether it's possible is to preserve it as is and leave it the way it is for wildbite refuge for wetland that's what we all want sitting up here at least the four members of the board that wrote that
press release. We want it. We're just concerned simply about whether or not it's going to be accessed through multiple people from Suffolk County coming in parking and then those three parking spaces end up leaving other individuals parking along Peconic Bay Boulevard, carrying fishing poles through the woods. Is it night fishing? We have issues down in South Janesport where we have people fishing at midnight and bringing, you know, we have commercial. So it's just about making certain that there's not a quality of life impact as well with the surrounding residents. Are you insinuating that I didn't support it? Because I didn't. I can't speak for you. You're welcome to speak in and speak for yourself. Go ahead. Please let me. I don't care what the matter is. He can share his thoughts. Am I allowed to speak now? So I. The town council people are able to put press releases out just like the supervisor puts his own press releases out. Absolutely. Just. It's not a back and forth like this. If you'd like to speak, you come to the podium and to honor that. But I do support this wholeheartedly. I have always supported that. Just to answer the councilman's concerns. You know, the idea that I think this parcel, even with a few parking spots, presents a risk for fishing. I just don't see that. You know, the parcel itself. And I think maybe this speaks to Ms. Civiletti's comment that maybe we should have noticed it a little bit better when we came to work session, provided actual copies of the parcels and all of this and that, because the parcel itself does not have any access to the water. But it joins riverhead land that's protected. So there's very much a pathway that goes to riverhead parcel to the water. It does. But I think you would you're expecting a lot of people to march through a heavily wooded area. And, you know, the idea that there's a risk for it becoming a hotspot. So I don't see it there. Would you be willing to state on the record that you promise there will be no trails put through those woods to go to any other joining areas that that it creates that activity? That's all. We just want to protect the residents in the area. So I can tell you my and this is what I would like to work with all of you on. And my concern here is that saying that it's unimproved may not make it eligible under the state water quality funds that are used for this. Open space preservation to use those funds, you do need to provide for public access. I think obviously and this is what we're kind of getting at here is the devil is in the details. And when I was at work session and I know you referenced it in in in your press release, which frankly, I felt like took some of the things I was saying out of context because I was really just suggesting, for example, based on my experience in South Old Town, I think what would be required would be a [transcription gap] see that there's no access to the beach within a half a mile as is currently as it currently stands people could park on peconic bay boulevard and access the beach closer i was just down there today and there's no no parking signs there are no parking signs at the the the ramp itself but i i see this as coming up with a solution for something that's not a problem and my concern here is that if we say too firmly that we can't do any improvements we run the risk of killing this whole project so i really hope we can use this as a starting point to work together to negotiate what a management agreement i agree a thousand percent and i think that uh i agree and i think the county's workable i think ed romaine's staff they're they're incredible they want to work with us i don't think they're going to hoodwink us that's my opinion i think they're going to be very amenable to that i think they're going to want to do they ed lives out on the east end he knows us he cares about it i see that being a possibility and i think this is quite honestly to the taxpayers this is a good good thing that we're wrestling through you know we talk about this all the time i think this is a good thing that we all want to see you know obviously our first preference is as councilman waski said the other day would have been to maintain farmland we want farmland to stay in riverhead everybody's sitting up here we want to see that continue and i think to push and to challenge ourselves and to think this through is good for our community so when we leave here today i want us to be unified in the fact that we all want what's best and that is is to preserve uh what we have for the next generation beyond us i'm sorry miss here go ahead that's okay good afternoon uh jones sear from james port and first i want to say thank you i appreciate the attention that the town board members are giving to this issue and to preserving peconic farms and to listening to the residents i know you've got a lot of phone calls a lot of emails and i appreciate that that that you heard what we had to say and i also appreciate the resolution from the floor expressing the town's support to preserve the peconic farms parcel as open space but only if it's left in its natural state i agree that would be the ideal outcome however based on what legislator dorosky has said it doesn't know that that option will be acceptable or condition i should say acceptable to the county which would provide the funds to preserve the property riverhead town has repeatedly said we don't have the money for land preservation here's a gift that's being offered to you accept the gift i'm here today to urge the town board to engage in discussions with suffolk county on the potential preservation of this land and to do so as soon as possible we've got that 30-day window that's going to close really fast and and remain open please please to listening to what the county might propose this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to preserve environmentally sensitive land please consider that it may not be possible for the town to achieve its perfectly desired outcome but i think it would be shameful shameful if the town lost an opportunity for the county to fund president or the county to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the project and the city to fund the projecthead land because of one singular rigid requirement. And I fear it has the potential to discourage the county from working with the town on preservation in the future. We'll be seen as an unwilling participant. So please, I urge you to enter into discussions with the county to find a way to preserve the Peconic Farms parcel, even if it's not the ideal outcome. And I thank Suffolk County Legislator Dorosky for advocating with the county on behalf of the residents of Riverhead. And I thank all of the residents of Riverhead Town and Jamesport who have voiced their support for the preservation of this parcel. Thank you. So I want to thank everybody who recognized the second whereas, which is exactly what everybody is talking about. But I want to be clear for myself that there's still a landowner here who owns the land. And I think that's very, very important. No matter what we want, if the landowner gets a better offer, you know, they're going to sell their land. And I wouldn't, you know, would protect everybody in this room and protect your land if you made a decision to sell your land, not to the county, but to someone else. I think this resolution does show the desire. That we do want to preserve this as open space. Warren McKnight from Riverhead again. I recently want to tell you when you worked with the county, I was here last autumn. A woman on Northville Turnpike was complaining about the traffic and accidents, the noise. And I'm going to tell you, we contacted the county. I wrote a letter to Ed Romaine. One of his aides came here and he said they solved the problem at Northville Turnpike and Dr. Spath, who's been there for years. There's a four-way sign. And how they did this was very simple. Working together. Now the first thing they had the state police, the Riverhead police, and the Suffolk County police working with you guys. And they're a great staff. I mean, they wrote me a letter. They wrote me a letter and sent me a Christmas card. Come on. They're willing to talk and do things. So work with them. Work with the new guy here on a block. We already are. Thank you, Warren. We are. Thank you so much, Warren. Ladies and gentlemen, how many years did it take to get the four-way stop sign and how many accidents happened? Sir? Way too many. Just for the record, Warren, the Traffic Advisory Committee has worked very diligently on there with our chief of police. And we've sent a number of letters. Thank you. To the county to work to get that project completed. So you have to credit the Traffic Safety Committee as well. Yeah. Well, I sent one letter and they called me up. I don't know. Thank you. They've been on ongoing talks. They've done a great job on it. Yeah. Thanks, Warren. We did not get a Christmas card. But we know we're well loved. Good afternoon. Taki Church. I'm with Greater Calvert-Henselvick Association again. Thank you for putting this resolution in place. Thank you. We have the option together to show a little bit of the bond that you have with the public trust. The release that went out, and it is a little bit new to me the process where the town board members not necessarily the supervisor can put out a press release. I fear that your release sent the wrong message. And it riled up people in the wrong way. And so... Maybe we save this for open comments because this is on the resolutions alone. Is it about this resolution? resolution. The press release is on this resolution. Okay, sorry. So I just caution you that yes, there was a work session last week where legislator Drozdky came and requested to work together on this, but that press release sent the wrong message. It riled people up. I read it and I was like, it doesn't sound like they're trying to work it out. So just a little caution there, but thank you so much for listening to the people who've called in and written in in the short amount of time that we had to do that. Wherever we can, I know this is preaching to the choir, but it is important to say we have 6,000 more acres to work on here in Riverhead. We value it. Let's demonstrate it.
Good afternoon, Catherine Kent, Baiting Hollow. There's a piece of land on Beconic Bay Boulevard that our community once preserved. Today, I'm here to speak to the will of the people. I'm proud to work for legislator Drozdky, but these are my words and I speak today as a lifelong resident of this town. I grew up here, raised my family here, taught in Riverhead schools for over 30 years and served on the town board. I've been advocating for this community most of my adult life. Riverhead has real assets, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, waterways, deep agricultural roots, no pun intended, and a close-knit, diverse community that shows up for one another. We have preserved farmland and open space, built affordable housing, and supported each other in hard times. We know how to get things right when we want to. The people of this community have been consistent. They show up and they say the same thing, preserve our open space. That is not a fringe position. It is the will of the people. So let's talk about this parcel. Despite what's been routinely claimed, it has no water access, it's not eligible for farmland preservation. The concern that preserving it will somehow overwhelm our shoreline and bring large numbers of outsiders simply does not hold up. This space will be used by people who live nearby. An open space adds value to our entire town. I personally do not see people in Babylon saying, I don't want to live here. I don't want to live here. I don't think that the city fees, money specifically designed for green space, waived for large apartment complexes downtown. And now we cannot find the will to fund a gravel path and a couple of parking spaces? In February, all 18 Suffolk County legislators received a letter from Councilman Waskie urging the preservation of farmland and open space. Those were the right words. Now this board has the opportunity to match them with action right here on Peconic Bay Boulevard. We should be making decisions that improve the quality of life for the people who live here. That is what a board was elected to do. So let's put aside the politics and come to the table, partner with Peconic Land Trust and Suffolk County and preserve this parcel with improvements. Thank you. Just for the record, I don't think there's anybody sitting up here on this board that has ever waived fees, not since I've ever been here for any apartment complex downtown, not in my tenure. Not that I'm aware of. I know that. I'm aware of that. Okay. I just wanted clarity. When you make a statement that it's not, no one on this board, I certainly have never waived those fees. It wasn't this present board. I actually said the town. Okay. When I came on the board in 2018, I said the town. When I came on the board in 2018, I learned about within the code, the park and rec fees are within the code. And I believe four of the apartment buildings, the fees were waived. Riverview Loft was one of them. And at that time, I think it was around $2,500 or $3,000 per unit. They were not collected, but it was before I was on the board. And you'll know that when I came on the board, we raised it to $5,000 per thing. So we're collecting more money now. But those actions were just taken before my arrival. And I think I'm the senior member of the board. So I just want that to be clear that this board has never done anything. And we had, you know, I want, you know, I want those park and rec fees because we've done a lot of great projects ahead of us. Yeah, I know that, but I just want the people to know, I don't know the people in the town know that's, that's in our code. And if you look at Riverview Loft, so 116 apartments, and it was about 3,000 per unit, that was a lot of money. You know, we could have used that money. You know, we, you know, we, you know, we, you know, we, you know, we, you know, we pay high taxes here. Were you on the board then? No, I, when I came on, you know, I don't like to tout things, but when I came on the board, I demanded that the new apartment building over by the library pay the park and rec fees, and they did. And we raised it for them, yeah, the fees. Thank you. Anybody online? So remember this is, this would be on all resolutions. I know this one is getting the majority of the time. This is off the floor. This is still active. Right. Right. Good point. So. This has been moved and . John McAuliffe, Roanoke Landing in Riverhead. Thanks. I, one, I forget whether it was Mr. Kern or Mr. Rothwell said something about the land could be bought by somebody else, which raised the question in my mind, who is it that has gotten the permits for the four lots? Who is it that stands to profit if somehow this land is not become a public charge? Do you know that? Do we know who those, who is behind those four lots? I don't know. I wonder how the indigenous. It's the property owner. No, that's not the property owner. It's somebody that would buy it from the property owner, I think was the implication. Well, if they're going to subdivide the land and build four houses, I would think that they would sell it. So it's the current property owner who has subdivided? Yes. Or is that, is there some other party? My understanding from when I was on the planning board, yes. So it was that, so it's the current property owner who has the four lots and might have an interest in not having this process go forward. I'm going to go get water. Thank you. John, I don't want to be rude, but I'm going to go get water. Oh, and I wonder how the indigenous people have taken their land. Hi, Nancy Murphy from Aquebaugh. I'm not clear. The subdivision has apparently already been improved, but you said this has wetlands. It's in a flood zone? Did I? There are wetlands. It is in, a part of it is in a flood zone, and it has been before the planning board for several years now. And originally, the proposal for what the yield was allowed to be for how many houses could be on there, I believe was either eight or nine. And the property owner scaled it back to only four. So as of right, he could put more houses there, but he doesn't want to do that. Okay. So the property owner, may I understand, is looking to sell this and not develop it himself, even though he put in the subdivision? Do you know the answer to that one? I do, only because I know the process. Okay. To get to where we are today, the property owner had to be contacted by the county, and he had to assert interest in finding out what the county was willing to offer for the property for the preservation of open space. And the county gave him an offer? I do not know if an offer has been made. I just know that it was... Has it? This is unbelievable. I wouldn't know that. I'm not the property owner. No, no. I'm not the property owner. Okay. And has he been contacted by the county? No, and Councilwoman Woskie is right. There is a multi... I believe it's actually 15 steps to get to contract, and we're, I would say, around step 7 or 8, let's say. And this is where Suffolk County came to Riverhead Town to get to the point to make the offer. They're asking Riverhead Town to agree to manage the property. No offer has been made. There is an appraisal. But as everyone points out... the owner does have the ability to say no and this is part of my concern here with any delay that we're experiencing is he is both moving further along in the process of getting his he's been approved by the town but making his way through Suffolk County Health Department to get wastewater approval the further along he gets in the development process there's more of a risk that our appraised value that we're willing to pay is not comparable with what the actual value is based on what the development potential is and this is my belief you know this is part of the the reason that I'm so concerned here and why we really need to use this as an example to work together to figure out what Riverhead Town is willing to do what Suffolk County is going to require so we can both capture this parcel and acquire it but also look for other parcels in the future so we make that offer right away and I think these are all really good things we're gonna bring this back to a work session obviously but we want to make sure that's okay we want to make sure that we are we are having comments specifically on this resolution that's before us that's been brought off the floor which I understand these pertain to so that was a great question I still want to get too far off but did you want a few had a couple more seconds if you'd like to say anything else Greg's a tall guy excuse me a short problem sorry I happen to live on Peconic Bay Boulevard and I've been there for 36 years fortunately and I can remember the very first time I drove on that road okay and that was years before I ever purchased my house there and I can remember thinking what a calming lovely area we already have two developments that have been approved very very close to each other on that road um it gets crazy as you should probably know in the fall it takes me twenty minutes to get out of my development and usually an hour and a half of a don't time it correctly on a weekend of the fall to get back home for a five mile trip it's like ridiculous why would you add to it and again I am a property owner and I really don't want the person that owns this property get quite short but one person if they have to sacrifice a little bit of a budget a Okay, and I'm sorry, everybody puts money out of their pocket. Every one of us does with our tax increases that constantly go up. Someone else said that you would get a tax benefit to this. You know, four houses, is it really worth the tax added to your community? There are many other developments going in this area and other tax advantages can come our way from a development in another area. Peconic Bay is not the place to keep adding houses and property and people coming in. It's really just not. And I hate to say that and sound like I'm here and nobody else should be because I don't mean to come off that way, but you can overdo stuff and really, really damage the area. And I think that will happen if you keep continuing to allow stuff like this to go through, especially on property. That part of it is in a flood zone. You know, I've seen Basis Creek Bridge flood over two times from the bay. Two times, okay? You know, the weather is changing, the climate is changing. You really have to think for the future on this, in my opinion. And I think you're making a very bad mistake if you decide to go vote and let this property be sold for development. Thank you.
Ma'am, would you like to speak? Virginia Lammers, South Jamesport. I want you to ponder this for a long time. It's the 7th generation principle rooted in the Hondasani Confederacy philosophy. Decisions made today should result in a sustainable world. Seven generations in the future. That's about 150 to 200 years. Let's think about our future generation and what's happening here. I think any time the town has a chance to get any, to develop, not to develop, to preserve any property near the bay or on the bay, I think it should grab at it. Not knock a gift horse in the mouth. Because the property on the bay, I've lived here 37 years and I've seen you give an inch and take a mile. Down in South James Fort there's always little scraps about who owns what and the medium line and it's been like that for 37 years. And it's a shame. Because as far as I can remember. As far as I'm concerned, nobody should own the beach or the water. We should be like California. But I know there's different rules here and it's a medium high tide mark. But I just want you to just think about that. I was thinking, I don't know, maybe this will be developed a little bit if you get it. And I was thinking of something like a living museum where you have maybe the coastal plants planted and marked and people can take a little walk through this area. And no rugosa roses, please. They're not native. But that's something to think about. Maybe you can involve the Cornell Cooperative, some other groups and have like a little. And then classes could come there and learn about the different coastal native plants. Just a suggestion if you have to do something. And maybe eventually a fishing pier for people that like to fish. But that may be in the. You want a fishing pier on this property? I was thinking. No, I'm just throwing that out as an idea for later. That's my concern is later. It would have to be parallel though to the beach. And there really isn't beach there. I've walked there. Can't walk anymore without a bathing suit because somebody went way out with their dock. But it's not really too much beach there at all. I've been there for a few years. But it's. And the other thing you have to think about is the runoff. And this being assaulted. Salinated. An area back there. A lot of it. You know, the soil salinated. Why not put in a native coastal planting? Okay. I'm just. Good luck with your decision. I hope you decide for the community and for the people. And .
[transcription gap] back and we fought it back and we fought it back and now that land is protected and it is the pathway into Riverhead from 105 and I can tell you that we don't get a lot of people parking on Riverside Drive traipsing through the woods down to the Peconic River okay to go fishing although sometimes there are some hunters down there but sometimes what there are hunters in hunting season down there I can tell you what time they start shooting in the morning but it seems to be a partnership that has worked out and it is possible to do and I can only say that when we we started this we did get the the environmental council North Fork environmental council did step in and help with some of the negotiations to protect the land that we have adjacent to the river and I can only say that once these undeveloped parcels are gone they're gone and we can't get any more back thank you very much
so I think that's our I don't see any more comments on that and we're going to open it back up in just a second but before we do I'd like to take a vote to move to yeah we have an active motion off the floor and it everybody here is a support of this resolution but we might as well call it so um the motion uh resolution number 469. resolution to support resolution to support county preservation of property at 1161 Peconic Bay Boulevard Janesport New York Suffolk County tax map number 600-94-1-6 as open space without improvement or development and instead to preserve the land's ecological value and protect habitats and water quality so moved second vote please boski yes I look forward to further discussion Murrayfield yes for me absolutely look forward to discussion for me the key issue was the
this was the legislator came in on a Thursday we had no advance notice of this whatsoever and all of a sudden on Monday we were supposed to now make a decision as a responsible town council person I needed more time to really know what the county's true intentions are with this property because I can't as a council person commit taxpayer dollars to something I don't know he doesn't know as he sits here today he was guessing or hoping or lying on other things that happened in Southhold so all I'm saying is I'm happy that this gives us time some time to see what the county really wants out of that property for all of us so I vote yes Kern yes Rothwell yes so we definitely want to do our best to preserve it as open space and I just you know we'll work diligently so we'll make a commitment with legislative drosky to work diligently on what may be a managerial agreement and so we've I think this resolution expresses our absolute desire to preserve and protect this product this particular parcel of land with the least amount of intrusion and whether it be public access and so forth so let's keep its ecological value I vote yes and Halpin yes thank you to the legislator and to everybody for their discussion on this this is uh this is in the right direction we want to preserve as much as possible this is a great discussion and I think that we're going to continue farmland obviously is always something that's our number one priority but right behind it is open space when not available and this qualifies so yes this this piece to move forward okay resolution is adopted
all right so if we have any comments on any other resolutions that are on the table on the docket sorry anybody online ladies and gentlemen if you're in the room we just asked we're going to continue to conduct our business we ask you to take it outside or uh be silent
anybody have anything else that they'd like to come to the podium and speak about
ladies once again I just ask if you're in our room if you could keep your voices down as we're still conducting our meeting thank you very very much appreciate that you have to go back to the room and we'll be back in a minute that's what we're doing yes sir we're asking if anybody has any comments on resolutions you can come up to the podium and speak or if they have anybody online we have all of them there so give everybody a second to gather themselves speak
I think oh we do have one can't think about it
we have one person online if I'm mistaken don't forget mother's day
when is that again sunday right after cinco de mayo which bob's buying everybody's tacos and stays the whole meeting if you stay the whole time bob's buying his tacos so
I'm sorry ladies they'll take care of you right outside if you see our deputy she'll take care of you there's somebody online kathy mcgraw northville I don't know what happened there but I did put in that I wanted to speak on resolutions and uh I'd like to say about the one that you just voted on that I didn't get to comment about I would say that the resolution and the press release that the four town board members issued in my view call into sincere call into question your sincerity about preservation you you listed a parade of horribles that could disturb the residents I don't know what you said in your resolution that you just passed because I can't see it but it strikes me that rather than put on this public facade if you really want to preserve this land you didn't have to go through all this just set up a meeting with suffolk county and talk about this that's all that's required and I don't understand why you didn't just do this and why you went through all of this. But that's neither here nor there. I wanted to comment on Resolution 467. The public hearing on Island Water Park. I have a problem with the public notice. Namely, the description of what this hearing is going to be about. It mentions the bumper cars and the tow rope, but it says with respect to covenants, to amend certain covenants and restrictions governing the use of go-kart track as well as man-made lake. That does not make clear at all to the public what Island Water Park wants to do there, have drifting events. And I would really like to see that public notice modified to give the public true notice of what is going to be going on in that public hearing. And just one or two other comments. I read the EAF that went along with this resolution and I noticed that there was a question does proposed action include new non-residential construction? Total number of structures. It says three. I don't know where that comes from because they said there would be no square foot footage of building area added. They added zero in another part of the EAF. And I recall from the work session that when they brought up the amended site plan, they didn't even mention the temporary structure that they plan to make into a permanent building. They just tacked that on at the end. So I'd like to know what it is they're really planning to do. Are they going to build three buildings there? It would be helpful to know. And the last thing I'd like to mention is that with respect to the covenant, with respect to go-karts only, they are saying that the part of the covenant they want to change is to add special events using drift cars. Well, at that work session, they also said they wanted to... Kathy, it seems you wrap up as quick as possible. They wanted to add pitbikes. I'm not sure what pitbikes consist of, but it's not realistic the description of what they want to do because I could imagine pitbikes could make a whole lot of noise and they're a different creature from a go-kart. So I would just ask... I'm going to have to stop you... ...for the notice... Kathy... Kathy, you're a minute over. And I'm sorry I took the time, but I didn't get to speak on the other resolution. Thank you for your patience. You're a minute over. Thank you, Kathy. I'm sorry. Thank you. So thank you very much. Do we have anybody else online for any other resolutions? All right. Anybody else? So that being said, thank you for everyone's comments today and the passion that you have for Riverhead. I appreciate it. And we'll ask our Clerk Wooten to begin us with our resolution. All right. Let's start with Resolution No. 1, which is Resolution 412. Capital Project 12503, Wading River Highway Building Budget Adjustment. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Halpin. Yes, sir. The resolution is adopted. Resolution 413. Sewer District Capital Project No. 82609, Northville Commons Budget Adoption. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Murrayfield. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Halpin. Yes, sir. Where are you going? Resolution is adopted. Resolution 414. Water District Capital Project 82303-203, Main Street Budget Adjustment. East Main Street Budget Adjustment. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Halpin. Yes. Second. Oh, that's me. Water District Capital Project No. 82308, Well No. 5-2A, budget adjustment. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Halpin. Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 416. Water District Capital Project 82608, 645 Grumman Boulevard budget adoption. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 417. Water District Capital Project number 82610, R.H. Hampton's LLC, Hydrant Replacement, Budget Adoption. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 418. Authorizes removal of fixed assets. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. And Rothwell, I'm sorry. Sure, yes. Got ahead of myself. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number... 419. Accept donation. Resolution from Kenneth Rothwell, Alexander... Alexander, sorry, my daughter's... Alexander Rothwell, Funeral Home for PAL. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Thank you. Murrayfield? Yes. Thank you very much, Ken. Kern? Yes. Thank you. Rothwell? Thank you, Ken. I'm going to abstain. Halpin? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 420. Resolution number 422. Halpin? Yes, sir. Rothwell? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 421. Authorize the sewer district employees to attend seminar. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 423. Set salaries for 2026 recreation summer camp coordinator personnel. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Waskey? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 424. Rehires and sets salaries for seasonal employees and changes the status of current call-in employees to seasonal employees in the recreation department. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 425. Seconded. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 427. Ratifies the appointment of a fire marshal one. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Welcome to the town. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 428. Ratifies the reclassification of a maintenance mechanic two to a maintenance mechanic three. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 429. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 430. Ratifies and accepts the resignation of a traffic control specialist. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 432. Appoints Megan Stettinger to the Senior Citizen Advisory Council. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 434. Appoints Kyle Conklin to the East Creek Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 434. Appoints Kyle Conklin to the East Creek Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 435. Appoints Charles Thomas to the East Creek Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 437. Reappoints Gary Vogel to the Hispanic Development, Empowerment, and Education Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 438. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 439. Reappoint Stephen, who knows how to say this last name. Dr. Oz, we say. Ozonian? Ozonian. I apologize to the Hispanic Development, Empowerment, and Education Committee. So moved. Seconded. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Dr. O does a lot of tremendous things, and he's been working with the committee since its inception, and he's had so many free screenings for cancer and all different programs that he coordinates through the hospital. He's done a phenomenal job. Vote yes. Thank you, Dr. O. And Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 439. Dr. O? Yes. Dr. O? Yes. Dr. O? Yes. Dr. O? Yes. Dr. O? Yes. Dr. O? Yes. Dr. Rahead? Rahead?
Second. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Yes, sir. Resolution adopted. Resolution 441. Before I say it, I just want to thank our town board coordinator, Tina, for cleaning up all the committee names, which hasn't been done in like three years. I appreciate it. Thank you. So reappoint Sarah Mayo to the Senior Citizen Advisory Council. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Yes, sir. Resolution adopted. Resolution 442. Approves request for a leave of absence. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Yes. Resolution adopted. Resolution 443. Ratifies. The extension of an unpaid leave of absence. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 444. Ratifies the approval of Special Event Chapter 255 application for Costco Wholesale CMN fundraising event. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Yes. Resolution. Is adopted. Resolution 445. Approved Special Event Chapter 255 application for Muddy Princess, Muddy Kids, and Muddy Princess 5K obstacle course mud run. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. That's a lot of mud. Kern. Yes. You should do it, Bob. I am. Rothwell. Yes. And Hoppin. Yes, sir. Resolution. Is adopted. Resolution 446. Approved Special Event Chapter 255 application for Wonderland Midway Family Carnival. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. And Hoppin. Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 447. Approved Special Event Chapter 255 application for Riverhead Chamber of Commerce Cardboard Boat Race. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Before I vote, I just want to say that officially on record, I am challenging the supervisor of Southampton and Sheriff Errol Toulon to peep me in a cardboard boat race, which I'm sure they both will, but we'll have a good time doing it. Yes. We have a motor on our boat. Don't worry about it. That's it. That resolution is approved and awaited. Resolution number 449. 449.
448. I knew that. 448. Special event, Chapter 255, application for the Riverhead Chamber of Commerce, the fourth before the fourth. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskie. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hoppin. Yes. That resolution is adopted. Resolution 449. Approves fireworks application for Riverhead Raceway Special Effects Wizard. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Yes. Maryfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 450. Authorizes designated alcohol service vendors to serve alcohol at the Rooted Spring Fest. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Maryfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Authorizes the supervisor to enter into an agreement with the CSEA to restructure the titles within the water district. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Maryfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 452. Make a motion to table resolution 452. Authorizes supervisor to enter into an agreement with the CSEA to restructure the titles within the water district. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Maryfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Authorizes the supervisor to sign agreement with Suffolk County to reuse effluent water from the Indian Island Golf Course because I believe our contract is not finalized. Correct and I'll second that to table it. I'll vote to table please. Okay. Waske? Yes. To table. Maryfield? Yes. To table. Kern? Yes. To table. Rothwell? Yes. To table. And Halpin? Yes. To table. That resolution is tabled. Okay. Resolution 453. Authorizes the supervisor to execute a license agreement with the East End Disability Associates, Inc. for property located at River Road, Calvichan, and known as the Henry Pfeiffer Community Center. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Maryfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 454. Authorizes the supervisor to execute an agreement authorizing the town to accept funds from Suffolk County Office of the Aging to supplement the town's shopping assistance program for the elderly, 2026. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Maryfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 455. Authorizes the supervisor to execute an agreement with Suffolk County to reuse effluent water from the Indian Island Golf Course because I believe our contract is not finalized. Yes. Is adopted. Resolution 454. Is adopted. with Three Little Scoops, Inc., doing business as Ben and Jerry's. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 456. Ratifies the authorization for the supervisor to execute a stipulation with an employee. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 457. Ratifies the authorization for the supervisor to execute stipulation with the CSEA Local 1000 AFSCME AFL-CIO Riverhead Unit of the Suffolk Local No. 852. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 458. Ratifies the authorization for the supervisor to sign a consultant professional services agreement with Elizabeth McAuley. Seconded. So moved. McAuley. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. And thank you. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. And Halpin? Yes. Thank you for the CSEA. That's the one we just approved. And this one, both making that happen. Yes. Great. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 458. Resolution 459. Authorizes pursuit of Suffolk County downtown revitalization round 24 funding for the beautification of Wading River Duck Pond. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Thank you very much to the Wading River Civic Association that is helping co-sponsor our application. And this is something very exciting. So, and thank you for the CEDA working so hard on this. So thank you for the contribution. Ann Halpin. Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 460. Awards bid for installation of water mains at 203 East Main Street, Riverhead Water District. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 461. Awards bid for rebid PFA treatment at well number 5-2A, SRF project number 19591, Riverhead Water District. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 462. Resolution authorizing the Community Development Department to submit applications to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation for sewer department infrastructure grants. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 463. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post notice of public hearing to amend Chapter 231 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Fire Prevention, Article 4, Mitigation of Hazardous Conditions, or Occurrence. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 464. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post notice of public hearing to amend Chapter 301 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Zoning and Land Development Part 3 Supplementary Regulations, Article 52, Commercial Solar Energy Production Systems. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. And Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 465. 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 2, Electric Scooters. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 466. Authorizes the town clerk to post and publish notice for a public hearing to amend Town Code Chapter 301, Article 16, 17, entitled Business F, Zoning Use District Manufacturers Outlet Center Overlay Zone. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 467. Schedules public hearing for the amended site plan application of Scotts Point. I'm sorry. I'm reading Joanne. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, no. Keep going. Go ahead. Sorry. AKA Island Water Park, 5835 Middle Country Road, California, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map number 600, 135-1-7.4. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. All right. Let me change my move in a second here. OK. You take the next one. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes, for a public hearing. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. That resolution has been adopted. Resolution number 468. You, Joanne. I'm not looking back. I'm giving you back one. It's good. Baybill, so moved. Second. Vote, please. Who did all that? OK. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. And Halpin? Yes, sir. That resolution is adopted. That concludes the resolutions for this meeting. This concludes our resolutions, as our town clerk just informed us. And so at this time, I'd like to open it up where you can comment on anything. You do have a three minute time limit, and we will be listening to understand. And so if we don't reply, please grasp that. And we do care about you. We thank you for your comments. Please come to the podium. Say your name and your hamlet. And please let us know if there's anyone online, if you could. I'll be very brief. It's been a long meeting and everything else. I want to commend you. I wrote a letter about the farm country kitchen, dark area. People come out at night, and you put up the watch out for pedestrian signs. You're saving lives and everything else. More will be done. More will be done by you. But I want to compliment. Great. Great Rotary for putting the sign at the circle, promoting the flower sale to help the community. But I think we also should use it to promote public safety. Set the message to everybody that drives around that circle. Yield to pedestrians. And perhaps law enforcement does great enforcement. I see the sirens going. People getting tickets all the time. I'm sorry. Maybe they should enforce people who don't yield to pedestrians driving. Because after all, we get behind the cars, we seem to get an empowerment. But they don't realize it's a deadly weapon. And people actually get mad at me and honk their horn when I see a pedestrian cross the street. You know? It's human life there. So please continue this, but also think of putting that sign around. And I'll be back. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Oh thank you.
I watch you on TV once sometimes. I live in South Jamesport. I've lived there since 98. I live on Green. I'm concerned about the terminuses at the end of the street. It's town property. All the streets lead to the beach, to the bay in South Jamesport. There are six of them. Green, Willow, Point, South Jamesport Avenue, Center, and West. Now, some of them are maintained and some are not. There is a little contention on the one in Center because one of the property owners planted things on there. I know because I've been here for a long time, and I wrote up one of those reports and never heard a thing. And I don't know how many years now, 15, 20. I just would like to see a little bit more maintenance of those accesses to the beach because people do use them. And it's great because we don't have that much on the bay. Riverhead really doesn't when you think about it. We have the main one. We have one down at the end of Laurel. And then I think you're fixing up the one on Meeting House Creek, I hope. Yes. We didn't give that to anybody. We were waiting for the DEC to give us the go-ahead. I'll tell you, grab as much of the water as you can because things are changing out here very quickly. And I think the town needs even sound side. Thank you. Thank you for whatever you'll do. And I don't know who this goes to. I've called so many people. I've called Jordan. I've called Ray. I've called someone, the guys in the building grounds because I understand it's building grounds that keep everything trimmed. Mainly center and west I'm a little concerned about and maybe point. All right. I'll follow up on that. Okay. Thank you. Because the thing is you couldn't get a carriage or a wagon through in some of them. Thank you. And I worry about ticks too. Okay. I can't control that. No, I know. All right. Thank you very much. It's a legal department. One more thing. And I think you're maybe you're looking into this. The. Oh, get up. The microphone. Sorry. The. There's drainage on all the beaches down there from the from the from the from the street. This is something that really needs to be taken care of. I know. Green. Point. Now the point one's covered up for now. I don't know for how long. Point. Let's see where else that other. I don't know what. Yes, there is one down on Willow too. Willow. That's one that's closed up right now. I don't know about center or west. But in South Jamesport there might be one. But I think it's covered. But the water is coming down. It's coming into the beach. And I don't think the DEC is going to like that either. So. I know. It's a high water area there. And we're going to get a lot of rain. Oh, is that part of the problem? Is it going to rain and the tide is high? Yeah. I know it's difficult. I don't know if anything can be done. But it would be nice if. Because years ago I left another board. I left a group for the East End did a study with South Hold about the drainage and all. And I left the brochures on each of the supervisor and the representatives on their desks. I never heard a thing from anyone. Of course, I didn't follow up either. I didn't call back. But that was years ago. Thank you. Thank you so much. I heard you. We have one online is that what you said? Two online. It's growing. Are we ready for that first one online? Hello. I'm a senior.
Hi, Marty. We can hear you. Yes, sir. Hi. Martin Zinluski 215 Ronauk Avenue, Riverhead. I'm just following up with regard to a previous item that I brought up at the February 18th meeting. It was regarding resolution 2026193, which is when the town hired outside legal counsel for the Riverhead water district including the services to include impact the analysis. We have the
have confused you because at that meeting i noted that i had forwarded a package uh for you to refer to which was uh goes back to the original adoption of impact fees as well as some state supreme court rulings um i realized that i sent it to the wrong email address for uh the town clerk i had his old email uh so it wasn't in there um i did verify that it was in the following meeting on march 3rd however it was only the three pages of the letter there was a whole bunch of attachments so what i've done is i've forwarded all of those attachments to the town board coordinator and the town board members we were myself and on behalf of many applicants that i have we were not in agreement with some of the impact fees being charged by the water district uh we we still don't agree with them uh the town attorney's office has indicated that those fees uh additional In fact, fees were warranted and legitimate, which we still don't agree with. But in either case, at the time, since the town is bringing in or has brought in, had hired council to the Warden District to include impact analysis of fee analysis, at the time we had asked if the town board, as their first service, could request that that council provide you with an opinion letter as to whether or not those fees that we've been arguing indeed are legal or not, because we feel that they are still not legal based on the Supreme Court rulings in those matters. So we had asked if you would do that. My questions would be to ask whether you have done that. If you haven't, if you're going to, and if you're not going to, why?
I think those are fair questions, and I believe we can write those down. I don't know if you want to address any of those. I mean, I would just say generally that any advice provided by Water District Council to the town board would be protected as attorney-client privilege. Appreciate that. Oh, I'm not asking for the info. I'm just asking if you've done it for the town itself. I mean, if I have one applicant who's got to pay $35,000 in a fee that may not be justified, it's probably not worth chasing. But what happens if some attorney goes back and gathers all the people that paid fees and goes in with a class action suit? It could be an issue. I'm just saying you may want to look into it. Thank you, Marty. Thank you. One more. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. The News Review published an article this past week entitled Resident's Fume Over 160% Spike in Tax Bill. And the News Review also had reported that in the past decade, something in excess of $10 million has had to be refunded due to the... of $10 million has had to be refunded due to the mistakes by the town assessor. The News Review also reported that just this past year, there were over 800 grievances filed against the town. Is that your idea of a great job? Well, let me just tell you, the over 800 grievances that are filed, these are coming from companies that send letters out to all the residents and allure them into believing that they are being over-assessed. And these companies, they send the grievance in for Grievance Day, which is this month in May. So that's not really an accurate account of how many grievances there actually have been. Yeah. And we did address last week that we lost a lawsuit that it was at the hands of a judge that decided that Friars Head shouldn't be paying the taxes that they were being assessed for. So that's out of our hands. That's out of the assessor's hands. Yeah, the judge actually found in the Appellate Division, the Second Department of Firm, that the golf course in question had been assessed at triple one. What? What was really worth based upon the assessor's improper methodology. My question is that when interviewed by the News Review, assessor Tenenberg said she had no idea what additional refunds may be required. Note there are multiple golf courses involved. And I don't know whether you mean these companies have lured taxpayers in our town. He's got, you know, an appellate division ruling against the town based upon its faulty methodology. But do any of you have any idea what the additional potential liability to the town will be based upon your assessor using the wrong methodology in her analysis of the values of these properties? Because, again, I think, again, a lot of speakers indicate they were, I think, taken by surprise by the substantial tax hike, which is particularly troubling now given $5 gasoline and $7 diesel charges. Do any of you have any of you investigated what potential exposure may lie ahead for us due to these mistakes? Mr. Harry, I'm, you're 30. I didn't give you an extension of 30 seconds. I appreciate your comments and your time. Let me make, let me make a comment, sir. Well, when, when members of our community take the time out to address you, you would be well served as a graduate of Bible school in Kentucky with the church down from the junkyard of listening to us and perhaps learning something. Well, I always listen to understand. I appreciate you. Thank you for your comments and I hope you have a wonderful week. So thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Carrie Flanagan from River. Had on Friday, May 1st, I delivered a petition to the town clerk's office, a petition signed by people who work and or live in Riverhead regarding the East End public safety and accountability law. While the quantity of signatures may not be significant, the people behind those signatures and their significance to our town are considerable. They represent the heart of Riverhead, a diverse group of people, a 20 something year old working in a main street food establishment, an attorney who practices in a Riverhead law firm, a retired teacher who taught in Riverhead, a therapist for young children with disabilities, a business owner with an office in Riverhead, a retired federal employee, a parent of a five year old, a former nurse from South Hampton Hospital, a person who worked in the New York City school system, and a 62 year old paralegal. All of these people represent a cross section of our town. All of them signed the petition because they know and love this town, but have concerns about the state of our town. They have concerns about their future safety. They want to continue to live in a safe town where our police officers are well informed and are not lacking vital information that could threaten that safety. They understand that our public safety laws are meant for everyone in Riverhead, including the safety of our police officers and emergency responders who they rely on in a time of crisis. Everyone's safety is compromised when federal agents come to Riverhead and have no communication, accountability, or transparency with Riverhead PD. When the DEA or any other federal agency is conducting an undercover investigation or making early morning raids in Riverhead, whether for gang activity, drug activity, sex trafficking, those federal agencies inform Riverhead police ahead of time of their presence so that law enforcement knows what is happening and there is no possibility of a police officer being caught off guard by another agency showing up unannounced, and heavily armed. That is standard practice in any police agency. The proposed law doesn't ask our police or town officials to interfere or impede ICE, but there have to be defined roles and an effective emergency plan during ICE raids, raids which create fear, panic, chaos, and injury in Riverhead. The people who sign the petition now in the town's possession, as well as all other members of our community, should know our town officials continue to have their safety in mind, like you have always done. We know you want this for your own families, too. I hope you will keep all families in mind when you consider the proposed law. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Colin Tooker from Riverhead. [transcription gap] So let's talk about crime and law enforcement. And I wish the police officers that were here earlier were still here. The Cato Institute recently released an in-depth study on the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants. I can't begin to scratch the surface of it here, but the data clearly shows that immigrants, specifically illegal immigrants, commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than native-born Americans. Statistically, as a class, illegal immigrants are not causing our crime problems.
You are statistically more likely to find violent criminals by focusing on native-born Americans who have already shown a tendency to flout our local laws. And for this point, I will say that I'm glad the police officer's not here. But I will say you would be better off focusing on people like me, who routinely drive 70 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway, because statistically, I am more likely to be a violent criminal than an immigrant from Guatemala who's overstayed his visa. This is reality. According to the statistics. Immigrants, as a class, are not causing these problems. But even more relevant to you, the board, ICE has not been tasked with keeping Riverhead streets free of crime. Their job is to enforce immigration violations. Keeping our streets safe from criminals is the primary duty of the police officers who were here earlier. And if you, as a board, feel that you're not doing your job, then you are quite It's a public safety issue. It's a quality of life issue. Some 20% of Riverhead's population is made up of Latino immigrants. Many of them don't feel safe right now. Many are afraid. Since they are statistically less likely to commit crime in our town than you or I, their safety and well-being should be a town priority. Legislation, like what is being proposed, will make our town safer, primarily for our Latino residents. That's true, but also safer for you and for me and for everybody here. Mr. Tilger, I did give you an extra 30 seconds. I would ask that you honor that. One more sentence. Because a town that ignores the safety and well-being of 20% of its population is quite simply not safe.
Laura McKnight. First of all, the town could only do so much. The weakest form of government. The Constitution is being violated several times, many times, if you investigate, by ICE. Everybody is entitled to due process. You're just like us. You can't do anything. We have a congressman that has to answer to us. Maybe you should contact that congressman and see, what his answers are. He seems to, you know, when you violate due process and nobody does anything about it, you know, Kings Day and everything else, what else can I say? Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we have to go by. When you stray from it, we're in trouble. All of us. Okay. I know you want to. Okay.
John McCullough from Oak Landing. I'm afraid this is a theme that's going to continue to come up at board meetings. There is less of a sense of crisis right now because of the public reaction against the ICE raids and because there's a new Secretary of Homeland Security. But they're still, they have this immense budget. There's a sense, there's still a commitment from the President and from Stephen Miller of mass deportation and the fear of displacement behind that so that we cannot be sure that we're not going to see a renewal of ICE raids on the East End. There's also, I think, underlying this concern, maybe not in New York State but in other states, that ICE may be used during the midterm elections to try to affect who's voting and what the results would be. So I think the ICE issue is still front and center for us. I sent you a letter today very late, but I would note that the East Hampton Town Council had a nine-minute hearing and adopted the resolution for the OLA Legislature. It's online when my letter is published. Next cycle, people can get that link. The other thing I want to note is the issue of warehousing of the imprisonment of migrants. Some people call it concentration camps from the way they've operated in different places. Some people call it a prison camp. I don't know if ICE is going to be looking for another location in Suffolk County. I hope that the Board would find a way to make clear that it in no way would accept any kind of detention center within Riverhead. But so far, that's more theoretical than immediate. The final thing I wanted to say. I'm sorry. The last thing I wanted to say is that my letter the topic was not mentioned. The topic has to do both with the last meeting and the next meeting because it has to do with the issue of how the Board is going to deal with the eminent domain question. And the next meeting, which is a Wednesday the 20th, my guess is that you're going to have a lot of people coming in to express trust. We have the right to trust. strong opinions about that issue. And I hope that everybody's listening to everybody else and that the information that I, the requests I included in my letter for information are responded to during that hearing. So thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. I don't believe we have anybody else in the room, nobody online, so with that thought, okay, if you just would like to stand up, that would be great, sorry. Mm-hmm.
So, again, identifying myself, that's what every Riverhead Town employee should do when I ask them who they are. They should be able to tell me who they are. So I'm Dawn Zabrowski from River Road. And given the evident communication lapses throughout Town Hall, I come before you today to share with you my most recent correspondence with the so-called Labor Management Committee. Whether or not the committee received said correspondence is unsurprisingly unclear. I'm going to share with you now the copy that I sent to Ms. Tucci. Dear Ms. Tucci, I recently had the pleasure of attending the April 7th Town Board Meeting at which Highway Superintendent Zaleski, on behalf of the Labor Management Committee, awarded my next-door neighbor, Scott Vance, Riverhead Town Employee of the Year. I would like to congratulate you for selecting him. He is a kind, courteous, lovely man. He has a strong work ethic that contributes substantially to our neighborhood and this town, and exemplifies the sort of standard that all town employees should strive to uphold. I don't imagine that it has occurred to you that your effort to promote such standards with this sort of distinction is substantially undermined by your failure to record, review, and resolve reports of employee misconduct whenever and however such reports may be brought to your attention. The standards exemplified by Bucket Man and Ryan Nameless and Enable, and Enable, and Enable, and Enable, and Enable, by leadership at the Highway Department, substantially diminish all other municipal employees, but particularly those you might seek to distinguish. It has been made clear to me in correspondence from Ms. Hurley that your committee considers my standing to bring to your attention such misconduct to be non-existent. Would it surprise you that Mr. Howard, the town attorney, in written correspondence dated March 16th, 2026, invited me to call him if I had any questions to discuss the matter further, and that when I did so, not only did he not take my call, he failed to bother to return it? This non-existence of mine is beginning to give me a complex. At any rate, I have some concern that the obvious issues related to the promotion of harmony, communication, and productivity, detailed in my September 2, 2025, complaint may have no small direct connection to there being no discernible representation from the Highway Department on the Labor Management Committee. This despite the presence of representation from other significant departments across the municipality, including two from the sewer department, as well as a CSEA official not found in regional or state directories. So I would appreciate some clarification of this point at your earliest convenience, despite my rather troubling non-existence. Thanks kindly for your attention, however scant, to this inquiry. Respectfully, Dawn Zabrowski. FYI, unlike the mystery president listed as serving on the so-called Labor Management Committee, the actual president of the CSEA is a woman named Mary E. Sullivan, who claims to be, very sorry for the trouble I have been having with Riverhead Town. And I just wanted to make one other point for Denise Merrifield, who says that deportation is not discrimination. In fact, deportation without due process is the definition of discrimination. It is a civil rights violation. And I thought you, with your legal background, would know better. So we appreciate so much that's happened today throughout our town. And don't forget, we started this meeting off with such a great announcement of adding a new police officer. We had so many great things to happen throughout our meeting today. And don't forget today is Cinco de Mayo and Call Your Mother. May I have a first and second to close our meeting? So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye.
Thank you.