Summary AI
The Town Board voted 4-1 to proceed with eminent domain to acquire 111 East Main Street (the vacant Long Island Science Center building) for downtown revitalization. The board also held public hearings on an amended site plan for Island Water Park and on expanding the town's e-bike code.
Key actions
- The board voted 4-1, with the supervisor voting no, to adopt findings authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire 111 East Main Street from A Place for Learning, Inc. for a municipal purpose related to downtown revitalization.
- The board approved a site plan modification for a property at 962 Berman Boulevard for River Edge LLC.
- The board authorized an order extending Riverhead Water District facilities for a water main extension serving the Summerwind Farm Subdivision on a parcel in Aquebogue.
- The board authorized execution of an appraisal agreement for the Railroad Avenue parking lot in connection with a transit-oriented development study.
- The board authorized execution of a stipulation with CSEA Local 1000, the town employees union.
- The board adopted local laws amending the town code on fire prevention, zoning supplementary regulations, and waterways and shellfish articles.
- The board scheduled public hearings on proposed fee amendments for the appeals board, coastal erosion hazard areas, and wetlands permits.
- The board approved a special event permit for USGA 2026 U.S. Open general parking and transportation operations.
- Multiple committee reappointments were approved, including members to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Open Space Advisory Committee.
Money
- The tax receiver reported total tax collections of approximately $120 million as of May 20 and approximately $169.7 million as of May 27, 2026.
- Board members stated that acquisition costs for 111 East Main Street would come from fund balance and be reimbursed upon resale; an appraisal has not yet been completed.
Public hearings & comment
- A public hearing was held on an amended site plan for Island Water Park (Scotts Point) seeking to add a zip line, battery-powered bumper boats, a fire suppression well, and to amend covenants to allow drift cars on the go-kart track; the hearing was left open for written comment for 10 days.
- Multiple speakers opposed removing the track covenant, arguing it was a condition of a prior negative environmental declaration and that eliminating it without a full environmental review would be unlawful under state environmental law.
- The water district representative stated the lake currently tests at drinking-water quality levels, and described a proposed enhanced monitoring schedule tied to any approval of drift-car use.
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.
Good afternoon, everybody. Today is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. We're here for a town board meeting, and why don't we stand for a Pledge of Allegiance before we begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, everyone. Councilman Rothwell, do we have anyone for the invocation today? We do. Once again, we are honored to have Lieutenant Togara from the Salvation Army, Riverhead here, and the Community Center. So I thank you very much for coming forward and leading our invocation today. Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. Let us take this time to pause and thank God for giving us the opportunity to gather here today and to ask him to guide us today as we deliberate and to bless this town. Let us pray. God of all creation, we come before you this afternoon with gratitude for the privilege of living and serving in this community. As we gather for this meeting, we pause in humility to recognize the responsibilities of those who lead and the hopes of those they serve. We thank you for the town of Rivard, for its people, neighborhoods, businesses, families, and the future. We give thanks for this community's diversity and for the many ways people contribute to its strength and well-being. May this town continue to be a place where neighbors care for one another, where differences are met with respect and where the common good is honored. We pray for the blessings upon the members of this town board and all who serve in public office. Grant them wisdom to understand the issues before them, patience to listen carefully, courage to make sound decisions, and grace to work together. In moments of agreement, may they give thanks. In moments of disagreement, may they speak respectively. And in moments of difficulty, may they seek what is fair, wise, and beneficial for all. We also remember the many people whose lives are touched by the decisions made here today. We pray for families striving to make ends meet, for children and young people growing in hope, for older adults seeking dignity and care, for workers and business owners, for educators, health care workers, first responders, and volunteers. Bless all who labor quietly and faithfully for this town's good. We also hold before you those bedded in body, mind, and spirit. comfort the sick, strengthen the weary, encourage the lonely, and grant peace to those facing hardship or uncertainty. May this community be known not only for its progress, but also for its compassion. Lord, guide this meeting and all that will be discussed here. Keep their words thoughtful, their motives pure, and their actions just. help them to value service above self-interest, understanding above division, and to hope above discouragement. May the work done in this chamber contribute to the well-being of Rivard and the blessing of generations to come. We ask your guidance, your mercy, your peace over this gathering, over this town, and over all who call it home. Amen. Thank you very much, Lieutenant. Thank you for your volunteer work for the Salvation Army. Are you clapping for an invitation? Oh, really? So we have a few announcements today. This Thursday is the 4th before the 4th at 5 p.m. at Granville Park. Our Chamber of Commerce is doing a great job putting together our next 250th celebration, and so we want everybody to be aware of that. We also have so many things coming up on July 4th, like our Grand Parade, which you can sign up for still. and we have fireworks at the South Jamesport Beach later that evening. Council, women or men, do we have any announcements? Yes. Just to mention, the CAP March is this Friday at Pulaski Street School where the children will be walking in unity against drugs and alcohol in their lives. It's a great event if you have never been to it. I encourage everybody to come on out. It's a terrific, terrific way to see the youth in the town. also on the 13th the composter and rain barrel pickup will happen between 9 and 12 so please check online if you haven't ordered a composter yet for your yard to help the environment and help the town also a duck pond day is going to be on June 14th over in the waiting River duck ponds so please come on out to those great events I think stuff yep one so this Saturday at the antique power Association everybody knows where that is right on sound Avenue you don't know I'll give you directions Saturday June 6 is the truck pull if you've never been to one it's a phenomenal event that it it's okay okay mark your calendars for Thursday June 25th at 6 o'clock at South James Port Beach we're going to have music again this summer on that day this is from the Beach Committee but our very own kluke kluke it's a clerk Jim Wooten is sponsoring a 60s band to come and play the event is free you must have a Riverhead Beach permit to park in the parking lot or anywhere outside of the parking lot. This is a great event. It was very well attended last year, and everybody had a great time and behaved very well, and we're hoping for the same this time. So I'm very excited about it. What's better than picking up a beach chair, bringing it down to the beach, and listening to live music? So come on down June 25th, 6 o'clock. Thank you. Good, thank you. All right, also this Sunday is our Recreations Pitch Hit and Run. at Stotsky Park at 10 a.m., Field 1. So with that in mind and our announcements over, I'll turn it over to correspondence and reports with our clerk, Mr. Wooten. Okay. Under correspondence, we received several letters, all on the agenda can be read on the websites, mostly dealing with the Long Island Science Center and also the 111 East Main Street, one of the same. Several letters about that eminent domain. We have a letter of greeting from Warren McKnight, reference to Meeting House Creek Park, and also violations and how they should be handled. A couple of letters from Brian Carroll, one dealing with the early retirement incentive and one dealing with the Peconic River Hotel. They were not published, but they certainly were circulated to the parties that they were meant to be going to. and that's about it for correspondence but like i said all those can be read on the agenda on our website verbatim on the reports we got receiver taxes the total tax collection as of may 20th 2026 was 119 million 976 thousand 446 dollars and two cents and then a week later on may 27th 169,728,805.22. And that concludes our reports for this meeting. Thank you, sir. With that in mind, we will move on to our very first public hearing. Our first public hearing was scheduled for 2 o'clock. It's 2.09. It's to amend the site plan for Scotts Point. And to begin us with that, we have our planner, Greg Bergman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Supervisor, members of the Board. For the record, Greg Bergman, Senior Planner with the Riverhead Planning Department. what we have today is a public hearing for a site plan application seeking to amend the previously approved site plan for island water park aka scott's point this application seeks to amend the plan which was previously given final site plan approval by the town board by resolution number 2025-571 which was adopted by the town board on june 17th 2025. this current application specifically specifically seeks to following amendments uh the installation of a zip line across the existing man-made lake the installation and use of temporary floating docks to facilitate the use of battery-powered bumper boats on the lake installation of a fire suppression well and also seeks to amend covenants and restrictions that were filed on on the property in connection with prior approvals including the following it seeks to amend a covenant restriction which currently states that the use of the go-kart track shall be limited to go-karts as stated by the applicant in its submittals and that the use of the track for any other type of vehicle shall be prohibited. The application seeks to change that language to the use of the go-kart track shall be permitted for go-karts as stated in the applicant's prior submittals and for special events utilizing drift cars as depicted in the applicant's amended site plan application. I will note for the board's knowledge and information that this condition the CNR was required and imposed as part of a conditioned negative declaration which was adopted by the board in connection with the prior application and that condition negative declaration was adopted by resolution 2025-234 and that was adopted on March 4th of 2025. The application also seeks to rescind in its entirety a CNR will filed with the county clerk on January 28th 2014 and replace it with the use of the on-site lake shall include proposed rope tow cable system and sealed environmentally safe marine battery-powered motorized watercraft including but not limited to bumper boats, e-foils, canoes, kayaks, rental sailboats, and similar watercraft described in this application and just for the board and the public's knowledge I'm sure the board will recall subsequent to the submission of this application the applicant did receive the final reclamation approval from the New York State DEC's division of mineral resources they received that final reclamation notice on April 16th 2026 so that removed the New York State DEC's mine lands jurisdiction over the project site so that's the gist of this application what it's proposing what it's seeking at this point I would open up to public comment. So remember when you come up to speak during this time period, we ask that you speak specifically to this issue and this issue only. We'll have time for comments on other things that are on our agenda. Afternoon. Claudette Bianco, Bading Hollow. I'm here today to urge the town board to deny the proposed amended site plan for Island Water Park, aka Scotts Point. The reasons couldn't be clearer. Just one year ago, a covenant was placed to avoid a lengthy, full environmental impact study on the condition that only go-karts were to be allowed on the track, while other vehicles are prohibited. This was not a suggestion, and Mr. Scott agreed to it. The purpose of the covenant is to protect environmental safety. Moving it obviously opens the door to untold activity and runs the risk of contamination. Both the town and the DEC cited this risk and warned about possible spillage entering surface waters. It's also a little incongruous to allow this possibility while we fight the Navy to clean up a massive plume of toxic chemicals in the groundwater left behind at EPCAL in virtually the same location. It just makes no sense to allow this. Since this project was built, Mr. Scott has consistently violated laws and town rules, allowing him to manipulate the legal requirements whenever it's inconvenient, eliminates the town's control, and overrides your authority. In this latest iteration of his site plan, I believe there's also a discrepancy. On page 11 of the full environmental assessment form under E2, natural resources on or near the project site, question G, are there any unique geological features on the project site? Mr. Scott checked yes and wrote man-made lake. In the very next question, HII, do any wetlands or other water bodies adjoin the project site? Mr. Scott checked no. Is this a mistake or obfuscation? The pernicious behavior exhibited by both Mr. Scott and Project Manager Mr. Myers makes clear their intentions. They are subtly maneuvering to slowly achieve their real goal of a fully functional racetrack, despite all obstacles, legal, environmental, and over the objections of the community. Allowing the use of pick bikes or vehicles of any kind on the track should never be approved under any circumstances. Even a special permit for limited special events runs the risk of potential contamination. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. This is a sole source aquifer, our drinking water. There's no room for error. Thank you. If you have something to share, we'd ask that you come to the podium. You're welcome to speak. Just pull the mic up. Just name and just give your name. Just give your name and Ken Myers Lindenhurst, New York
The lake on the property is wetlands, but that says adjoining and we don't have according to the DC We don't have wetlands on the adjoining or adjacent properties. That's what it is So there's a difference between just so you know, I wanted to correct that mistake
Hi, good afternoon, Supervisor and members of the Town Board. My name is Jen Hartnagle, and I'm speaking on behalf of the group for the East End. We had previously submitted comments and letters to the record regarding this application. I'm here today to ask that you do not approve the requested amendments to the covenants that limit the use of the track to goat carts. The overall development of this site has never received a comprehensive environmental review. It was built illegally, directly adjacent to a man-made lake, which is a direct conduit to our drinking water, your drinking water. Although we and many community members and civic organizations advocated for a complete environmental review of the site, the town board opted to adopt a condition-negative declaration, utilize a covenant as a method of environmental mitigation to prevent contamination and degradation of the water in that lake. So I would like to read for the record the resolution that Greg noted before. It's the adopted negative declaration. It's two sentences. It's, quote, the following conditions which are hereby imposed on the site plan to eliminate or mitigate any potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. Number two, the use of the track shall be limited to goat carts, et cetera. End quote. So, town records include concerns registered by planning staff and the DEC about the tracks potential to cause contamination in the lake. This is all over your town records and this was given to you as a lead agency as your consideration in the approval of the last go around. Fast forward to today, nothing has changed about the potential for the vehicles other than go-karts to impact the surface water quality. And so, unless the town board as lead agency is willing to treat the environmental review process as simply a paperwork scheme, how will you justify moving forward with this request? Continually amending the size, scope, use, and magnitude of the uses on this site in separate site plan amendment applications segments the overall review process. And that's the exact opposite of what SECRA intends, and that's to look at the whole action. At some point, what's good for business is good for the town is not an acceptable mantra, especially when a natural resource that is shared by all of us and relied upon by all of us is jeopardized by the actions of one. Removing the Covenant sets a terrible precedent. In this instance, it blatantly disregards the purpose and intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and places our shared resources at risk. So I ask that you not approve that portion of the amendment site plan application. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Supervisor and members of the Board. My name is Barbara Blass and I live in Jamesport. Although tempted to recap the sordid history of this application from town and state violations, stop work orders, Supreme Court action, other offenses and blatant statements evidencing total disregard for the truth and the law on all levels, including seeker. In the interest of time, I'm skipping the details. That's something you don't hear me say often. If you do not take the most appropriate course of action and summarily deny the request to lift the filed covenants, please consider the following. Number one, the prior application was approved in the context of a conditional negative declaration and the prohibition against the use of automobiles was the foundation of that position. Thus, lifting this legally binding covenant is not a simple matter. Two, you cannot amend this site plan approval to remove a condition which supported your determination of non-significance without reopening SEEKR, issuing a positive deck, and commencing coordinated review with the other involved agencies. The expansion of use of automobiles is a major modification and introduces new, unmitigated, adverse impacts not associated with the go-kart use, including noise, air quality, fugitive particles, release of petroleum fluids, runoff, vehicle accidents, and fire suppression. Number three, these new impacts must be evaluated in an EIS. You need not take my word for it. The law is clear on the matter, and I cite Part 617.7D2. I won't read the text, but I'm sure Council will provide it for you. With respect to the bumper boats, the prohibition of the use of motorized vehicles in the lake originated with the DEC and was a condition incorporated into earlier town site plan approval. The prohibition served as a mitigation measure to avoid contaminants from entering our drinking water again. The town cannot just remove this covenant without doing additional due diligence in the context of a broader environmental review. Purely speaking, I admit a lithium ion battery powered bumper boat is still a motorized vehicle, albeit a more eco-friendly one. However, the use of lithium ion battery powered bumper boats on the lake has unique potential impacts, including health and safety hazards not previously evaluated since as recently as 2024, the applicant stated they would not be utilized. site plan and application deficiencies. Number one, no information has been provided on the type, make, or model of the batteries in the boats, nor has the industry fact sheet outlining the appropriate handling, use, storage, and disposal of spent batteries been provided. We should know the degree of impact which could be absorbed by the boats without jeopardizing the integrity of the battery and its component parts. Two, in the interest of health and safety, you must be assured that the staff, as well as the first responders have been properly educated on all safety protocols for lithium ion battery use on land and in the water. Three, the site plan must clearly show the location of the charging station. I could not find it on the plans provided and I apologize if it's there. But if it is already installed, was it done without an electrical permit and required electrical inspection? Four, the applicant must provide demonstration of compliance with NFPA 610, the Guide for Emergency and Safe Operations at Motorsports Venues, as required by the Chief Fire Marshal in his memo dated February 25th of 2025. Number five, the traffic and parking analysis must be updated. With the addition of pickleball, cords, go-car tracks, zipline, bumper boats, and other water attractions and potential expanded track uses, the original allocation of 60 parking spaces for all outdoor recreational uses has not increased. The parking must also accommodate the staff per the anticipated job creation pledged to the IDA of several hundred full-time employees. Six, the last IDA application also stated an intent to host regional and national competitions for island water park activities. Additional information should be provided now on the nature and extent of these events to avoid further segmented review. Seven, when the introduction of new uses require a change in the water monitoring schedule and its parameters. Finally, it is incumbent upon you as lead agency to correct the tortured seeker record on this application. There has never been an environmental review evaluating the cumulative impacts of the whole action, including all the development that occurred without permits. Since day one, development has taken place on this site with complete disregard for the lawful process. You know it and the applicant knows it. In compromising the integrity of the approval process, you have set a new low bar for compliance. This has to stop and the time is now. Thank you for your time and attention. Male Speaker 1 We have one online. If somebody else, if you'd like to speak, if you could just make your way over to right in front of the podium and we'll get to you in a second. Bring the person up online. Don't forget about all those wonderful announcements you heard of earlier. Our Cat March this Friday. The great stuff that's happening. We're almost ready. Chip? Nope. Are we not happening now, Chip? You can go ahead and approach there.
James Fishler, Hunter, New York. Good afternoon, Supervisor Halpin, council members, fellow concerned citizens. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I grew up on Long Island and I've known Eric since we were kids and that alone would have been enough for me to drop everything and show my support here today. However, the reason I dropped everything and came from Atlanta is because I've spent the last 30 years at companies like Apple, Sony, Samsung, and work closely with local and state governments on integrating businesses into local communities. In my role as Chief Commercial Officer, I've evaluated locations for U.S. assembly plants and major facilities. And one of the first things we look at is tax impact, local talent availability, but as important, if not more important, is how local governments treat businesses already in a market, predicting how companies will be treated in the future. This is more than just a business. It's a mission. Scotts Point gives families and kids of all ages a safe, fun, engaging place right here in our community, both indoors and outdoors. It creates jobs, enhances tourism, and delivers real economic value to the area. Look at Thrill's Indoor Amusement Park. They have two locations in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Recently looking to expand, they dropped New York from their consideration set for a number of reasons. But the single biggest factor in their decision was to move to Atlanta where the government was welcoming and the community supported it. They started this planning in late 2024 and in less than 18 months, later this month, will open day one. That's a government that understands the impact of local businesses coming in. With my time at Samsung, I learned a lot about their Disney-like theme park in South Korea. This has created thousands of jobs annually and has a roughly $250 million impact to the economic area surrounding the park. This includes amendments to the original plans almost annually to ensure that the park meets the changing needs of the community. a key factor in situations like this. Decisions these local governments make send a loud message. Observing how situations like this are handled will certainly influence which businesses consider Riverhead for further expansion and or new opportunities. And I know I will be paying close attention as I consider where to build future factories and offices. Not approving the request in front of the town will ensure the residents lose out on the family experience, potential employment for those same families, and existing or potential future businesses will think differently if Riverhead is where they want to be as I am proof of that. Let's do the right thing and support Scotts Point fully so they can have the positive impact on the economics of Riverhead and as important its residents who deserve Scotts Point as a destination. Thank you. Is that right? Male Speaker 1 Yep, it is. Male Speaker 2 Ken Myers, Lindenhurst again. Male Speaker 1 Sorry, I didn't hear you. Male Speaker 2 Ladies and gentlemen, if you could keep your conversations to not happening. Male Speaker 1 I've been working with Frank Mancini from the Redwater District on potential of if this is approved, moving forward with a new testing schedule, which would be several times during the summer, looking at all the chemicals that would apply, volatiles, anything involving gas-powered vehicles. If it were to either go in the lake or not, if something were to go in the lake, there would be a much more comprehensive comparable to the Navy test. I have this here for you. Ken Frank agreed with this being a very comprehensive program that would help us. I think it actually strengthens the testing that we do already, that we agreed to last time. Can I bring this forward? Sure. You can give it to the clerk. Thank you. I mean, did you have something you wanted to say? No, I was saying something about... I just realized I heard something.
Sorry if I did. Thank you. Mr. Myers? So just like clarification, I know you've been working close with Mr. Mancini from the Woodlands, but this application has different components, and so I think specifically, if I'm correct, that this additional testing would only proceed if we allowed the drifting at the park. The drifting specifically. That's where there is... If that covenant will be, this is to be, to make sure that there's no concerns with that moving forward. And it would do it during the duration even if there wasn't an incident and if there's a higher level of testing if there were an incident of any kind whether there were a fire on the track, a spill, or some sort of an accident or God forbid which would never happen a vehicle making its way into the water which seems to be it would be impossible but if that would ever happen but also can you tell us because I know you do significant testing up there and I think a lot of testing you do is really to protect you yeah or then then you you know you don't have the contaminants but we are watching you know potentially a plume that's up at Calvert in its direction movements and so those tests a lot of them in place to protect you but tell us a little bit about because I know you do additional water testing on a regular basis. The water that's been pulled from the wells, both yours and ours and the lake specifically, which has been done by Long Island analytics and by the New York State Health Department, is some of the cleanest water you're going to see in New York State. It's immaculate. It's drinking level water out of the lake right now. That is the way they tested. They were there, they just approved our bathing beach last week and we're again singing the praises of how clean the water is we've been in with three years of operation now that water is immaculate and remains that way and we intend on keeping it that way that's why I spoke with Frank about this and he agreed with the program I think you should speak to him he knows about this better than anybody in this room yeah that's why I think it's important to note that you you do have regularly active monitoring taking place up there we have to we watch the water coming into the site and leaving the site that's what we have to do because we all know there could be something evident happening in there that we don't know about you guys have it on your end but what if it would happen to us our water right now is immaculate and with our activities are going to keep it that way there's nothing that we do to change that yes that would be something from the past and we're helping to self-go safeguard that we're not the problem we're part of the solution I think you've done a great job up there that might get lake and high levels of clean water up there I just want to make sure that people aware that that the contaminants and stuff what that's outside the site. I don't even think they realize that the health department tests every two weeks. And they test six weeks before the season begins. It's constant, the testing. It needs to be. We don't, you know, we're a part of that process. So this report that you're putting forth, you're basically stating that should drifting be allowed, you would then allow additional testing. We would test instead of biannually. We would test monthly during the summer, during the drifting season monthly with that big test of all the volatiles, all those things that we're worried about. And then there's a much deeper, more intense test if there were to be an incident of any kind. And that would be at our expense. Perfect. All right. Thank you, guys. While you're up there, a question for you. So it's my understanding with electric boats, they are on aquifers throughout the state. Yes. So they're operating? They're operating. That's how they're used all throughout. Reservoirs, they're used by the DEC. They're used on the line. I'm sorry, I meant to say reservoirs. Yes, drinking reservoirs, that's the standard. That is what is used. This is going forever, and we're not a drinking reservoir. We're road water. I completely get it. No, I appreciate that. We're 30 feet down. We're not hundreds of feet down. It's a different thing. These batteries are in closed container, separated, so there's not in contact with any water at all. The protocols have been in place forever. The designs of the units themselves, the boats, all of these things are encased themselves. Then the batteries are uniquely encased with no liquid in them. They're just not designed the same way as their marine batteries. And I did last time, I don't know if I included it this time, I did provide the spec sheet. So I'm not sure why that didn't make it into their well-being. But I did provide you all a spec sheet last time I was here. I looked at it and I researched it. And look, electric-powered boats are proliferating. It's the standard. On saltwater, on freshwater. It's the standard. It's what people are doing. And it's everything they do in places where they have to dredge. That's where the places where they don't even want to have any activity whatsoever for whatever reason, that's what they use, whether it's dredging for scientific studies. That's what they implement, those battery-powered equipment. Everything can convert to battery-powered. It's where the future is going. Thank you, sir. What I want to do is state facts and straighten out the fake news. We are not drinking water, not even close. When he says 30 feet, you go down on the south side of the property, it's four feet down. Everybody knows Otis Lake. If you don't, go take a ride by it. Cars can drive in there. There's no barriers. There's no nothing. That's the same water table as mine. There's nothing different. That water and my water are the same exact. That's only two feet down from Middle Country Road. every leaking car leaks into artist lake same water that fake news is complaining about so with that being said is my water comes back drinking water your swimming pool doesn't come back drinking water any family a kid that's left my place leaves with a smile but we'll have people that don't enjoy fun try to ruin it for everybody now to get to the drift of cars 500 feet away from my property you already gave an approval and now you can say it's not by the water anybody with a brain will know it's easier to clean up a spill in water than it is in dirt or blacktop well dirt it seeps down you have to keep going till you get to the core of it oil and gasoline gasoline evaporates because it's alcohol which is only two gallons of gas three tops anyway oil four quarts loads to the top, you can clean it. But the biggest thing out of everything, you couldn't get a drifted car in my lake if you were paid to get it in there. You would have to go in the parking lot that everybody drives in and drive it into the lake. So somebody could come in my parking lot and launch their car off and drive into the lake the same way they can in Otis Lake, the same way they can. And they get to this complaining about electric. Every boat on the water has batteries, every single solitary one. But we're going to go make up these. We want me to have to do another engineering, another environmental study like I've been doing for 30 years that they said I didn't do anything. And it's clear you have the battery tight, but fake news comes, spreads these lies. So people listen, you cannot come to my facility and not see we worry about the environment and our community. It's first class. We've never had the police called. We've never had a problem except for the people that create the problems. Every day they fly drones over us, complain, they do everything. And we're just trying to open a business and get back to their thing about the employment. How can we employ these people? We're at 10% capacity. I would, I should have never opened up if I knew the town was going to welcome I mean, we were three years of open arms to get past all these hurdles, and we can blame it on Eric all we want. When's the last time? Splish splash. When I'm entertainment, I'm allowed to air these events and then make sure it meets the approvals. They turned this into this big old slow me down for somebody else's political gain. Whatever the reasons are, I could care less. Hopefully this board now understands the difference between right and wrong and understands that everything that they're trying to say with the batteries, with the drift, the carts that go on 500 feet away from me, literally 500 feet, the corner of my property, I bet you it's less than 500. But we're doing it right there. But we'll complain about if Eric does it. They were doing go-carts, but Eric wasn't allowed to. Everything I do, a hurdle gets put there. And as James said, hopefully this regime understands the importance of bringing viable businesses for employment, to bring out-of-towners. we have a ski, we have a wakeboard tournament coming we got people coming from Australia California, Texas in the next two weeks but somehow you guys turned Scott's Point into the villains I don't care what they do, I do care what you five do and hopefully you see the importance of us being your community because I can tell you this, any other town would love to have us, there's no bad, Scott's Point doesn't bring any negative to a town except for people that will find negative in anything. And the next and final last thing is, we're opening up the, you guys talk about drugs, you're doing a drug thing for the kids, but we open up these drug dispensaries like the pizza places. I can't get five votes, yes, but you'll get five for a drugstore. But we're saying we don't want our kids on drugs. Well, I'm the place to keep the kids off of drugs. We put them in my place, all they do is they run, have fun, have a blast, they go go-karting, whatever. Our fate's in your hands, Hopefully you do the right thing.
Warren McKnight, Riverhead. I'm glad he's here. Warren McKnight, Riverhead. I'm glad he's here. Two-thirds of the American families in this country have trouble paying their bills. And Riverhead is more like 80%. So, I appeal to these people. This should benefit Riverhead people. So, just any Riverhead person should get a discount. If they could drive there, they could get their sticker. If they could take a bus or a scoot bus there, they could do their identification. We don't want to be like Mexico, where they have tourists from all over the world, and our local people don't benefit. And talk about drugs and cap and everything else. Well, most of the kids, most of the people who are vulnerable to that can't afford it. So help us out, please. Mr. McKnight, we just want to make sure we're trying to keep it to just a site plan. But this is pertinent to it, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry, but this should benefit the community. If it doesn't, thank you. Thank you, Mr. McKnight. Is there anyone online? One online.
If you want to pull that person up online, and then I think somebody else is making their way to the podium.
Good afternoon. Mike Foley, Reeves Park. Can you hear me okay? Yes, sir, we can. Thank you. Um, it's very interesting to see this application come, as I can see, within a year of covenants being signed and a vote of four to one by the town board in favor of allowing forgiveness when Eric did not ask for permission. when he took down some trees to put up a pickleball court, made a second floor from storage to catering, and to me, the most egregious thing, put a racetrack around an aquifer-supplied lake. This was just absolutely outrageous. And there's no secret to people that follow these meetings that I supported Tim Hubbard on a lot of things. This was one of the things that before I went to the microphone publicly to object to Tim voting in favor of allowing these three violations, not even giving us the respect to adhere to the process. Just, you know, cutting down trees and putting up pickleball courts, converting a storage floor into catering, and putting a racetrack, a go-kart track, by an aquifer kind of showed that, you know, Eric comes up and he sounds like he's being persecuted. Eric, some of the persecution complex you have is because of your disregard for the process. If you came through on normal channels and adhered to those things, I don't think you'd hear as much negative stuff. So that is the seed that you planted, Eric, not the town board. You planted it. And in order to get over on these improvements to your bottom line without any application, you just put it in. And, you know, I thank Denise for being the only one of the five board members to vote no on this. She saw back then what was going on. And regardless of whatever political pressure there was or internal pressure from the town board or from donators, Denise stood tall and said no. And Denise, I thank you for that. And I certainly hope there'll be a couple more people on this board that will stand with you on this application. I do remember Joanne, and I have not had a time to look at the last public hearing. But I'm pretty sure, Joanne, that you had also mentioned that this was the red line, that allowing these improvements, this track, this pickleball court, this catering hall to go ahead with a $50,000 slap on the wrist was the final bit that would be tolerated in improving Scott's point. And I want Scott to know something. I want his business to succeed. I want improvements that do not threaten the environment to be properly applied for and investigated. And I would support those things. When I hear Barbara Blass talk about battery threats, I certainly trust Barbara more than the owner of Scott's Point. And that's something that should be thoroughly investigated before it's allowed. Certainly me as a layman, it seems to me that battery operated boats are benign, but I could be wrong. And I heard a few other people that certainly are hired and supported by Scott to say that these are things that go on. And I understand that. So on that note, if it is acceptable after investigation, I can see that. A zip line. I have no problem with a zip line. But this gas track coming anywhere near our aquifer after he got over like a fat cat without an application to have these gold carts go is a step too far. So, Joanne, I hope I quoted you and your feelings on this properly in 2025. five. Tim, excuse me, Ken and Bob, I don't remember your comments, but I will be going back to the last public hearing to see what you had to say. And of course, Mr. Supervisor, your opinion on this is really unknown right now. I guess we'll find out when it comes up to a vote. But let's just understand something. This persecution complex that Eric Scott just put to the microphone is laughable and it's arrogant and i just hope that the people on the stand that are listening to this or out there can see it and i certainly hope the five people sitting there represent the people of rivad will vote no on this project if it must be withdrawn to reconfigure it so that the zip line's okay and the battery operated boats once they're investigated is fine But under no circumstances should this go-kart increase in danger to our aquifer be allowed. I thank you for listening.
Anybody else? There's no one else in our room. Then we'll do as usual. Oh, Mr. Mancini, you did want to speak. Sorry. Oh, go ahead, John. Mr. McCullough, go ahead. Okay. John McAuliffe, Rolling Woods, and Riverhead. I did not plan to speak on this because I think there are a number of very capable people you've heard from. But it does raise questions that I think have to do with governance in small towns or small cities. We have to regard ourselves. given the history of violations given the history of rewrites given the confrontations of the past would we be here today if the applicant were not part of an in-group not a campaign donor not an ideological we aligned person in the characterization is fake news we know where that language comes from I think that I hope the board is able to separate all of the not so obvious reasons to let something like this go through from an objective decision I agree with Mike which I don't always always agree with him on. And I would say that with Mr. Scott, I do agree with his position on the drug stores, the drug dispensaries. So we're not 100% in disagreement. But I think in this particular case that the board would be well following its responsible position by voting against the points that have been noted. Greg, could you just come forward and explain to me, if you don't mind, the difference, like, why in five years we've never seen an application become for the board for Splish Splash, but yet each step that Island Water Park does come in and each activity that they want to do, they stand before us. What exactly is the significant difference why we don't see anything from Splish Splash come forward to us? I can't speak to that. i have in 10 years with the town i've never seen anything for splash splash coming for us so i i have no knowledge i can't speak to that as to why that's not i mean they add new rides and so forth don't they have to go through the building department and the planning department to have those approved i i can't speak to that i've never never received anything from them i can't speak to whether or not they do have to come before us i'm not going to offer just opinion I'm not gonna just speak out of turn so I cannot speak to that
Seems we're dealing with the people are the best that put the mic on first you did this instead of permission I've recently rode my bike. I ride my bike through the Calverton area all the time. I went by by Skoslo's place where he does the drifting out on the runways now. I highly recommend that each of you take a ride down the runways where he does his drifting because off the runway and into the dirt, you'll see fresh graded material, meaning a car went off the track. I've watched drifted racing on TV for 40 years. When it's on, I watch it. I enjoy watching it. Is there ever a wipeout during the drifting? absolutely people cars fall apart they go rolling over this is on an aquifer that was pretty much illegally built when he made the go-kart track I'm totally against it and I'm sure my old friend Richard Ampert would be 100% against it thank you for your time Hey, this is Frank Mancini from the Water District, and I heard my name a number of times so I figured I'd come up here. It is true that I've worked with Ken from Island Water Park for years at this point on mitigating concerns we have about contaminating groundwater in the area because it is a very sensitive area for us. So I just want to remind everybody, they did agree to do more monitoring than any other project in Riverhead. in fact, any other project I've ever worked on in my career, every other year they sample the water quality for a complete list of every contaminant the water district is required to look for. So it gives us a really good baseline of what the current water quality is. And in this current arrangement, while the final deal will be worked out through the town attorney's office, if we sample, the best way to mitigate potential contamination is to constantly monitor. area. So if they agree to sampling the lake on a monthly basis for any the contaminants we've identified that we consider a risk or that could come out of whatever the actions they're taking that would be the highest level of monitoring that we could ask for. It was more than I originally asked for. And then I like the idea of an incident related response. So if there's an incident the cart does go into the lake catches on fire there's a more extensive list that they would then look at and and I also remind everybody that in the business that I'm in if our well gets impacted I'm gonna litigate the polluter and go after them for the cost of treatment so these arrangements benefit both of us it protects them and it also protects the water district so that's pretty much it right thank you sir anybody else online I believe there's anybody else in the room so we'll leave this public hearing open for written comment for 10 days as we do each and every one and then after that our next public hearing is scheduled for 2 15 it is 2 51 public hearing is to amend chapter 2 13 article 2 electric scooters and I believe councillor Hurley is here to guide us through that good afternoon DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY DANIEL HURLEY. I CAN'T HEAR. THERE YOU GO. WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE BROADENING OF TOWN CODE CHAPTER 213-11 TO INCLUDE BICYCLES WITH AN ELECTRIC ASSIST. THIS AMENDMENT IS BASED OFF OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY'S CODE, WHICH WAS SIMILARLY ADOPTED IN APRIL OF 2026. Having our own Riverhead town code on this topic allows our police to impound violators and allows our town attorney's office to prosecute these violations as charges in our justice court as opposed to the DA's office and allows all fines collected to go to the town of Riverhead general fund. So I would like to open this up for public hearing. Thank you, ma'am. there's anybody in the room that would like to speak if you make your way over and if there's any doesn't think there's anyone online just yet yes sir you can make your way to the podium just your name and your Hamlet hi I'm Bruce Kagan I live in waiting River part of Riverhead I am a chairperson of the Riverhead ATC which is an advisory committee for things things pedestrian and bicycle in the town. I am not speaking to you today as a voice for the ATC. I'm speaking to you as a concerned citizen, a bicyclist, and a teacher, so I've done some homework that I think you should know as our government when you rewrite or finalize your codes. Okay, first is that Suffolk County has expanded its e-bicycle code to include both Class 1 and Class 2 bicycles. They are electric assist. The only difference between a Class 1... I'm sorry. Can you just take your hand off the mic? I think they're having a leg. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. The only difference between a Class 1 and a Class 2 is that there's a lever on the handlebar that allows the throttle, it's called a throttle, allows the machine to be operated by throttle in addition to pedal assist where the electric comes in. Now, I was at Rocky Point Bicycles yesterday and said that people are gravitating towards the Class 2 because they are more user-friendly for those of us that are not as strong. to start a class one pedal assist only bicycle you need more balance and power i'm a good bicyclist but when i tried to start the class one bicycle alone i had to watch my balance and it really took a lot more effort when rocky point cycles reconnected it by one little wire and made it a class two it became almost effortless to get on and operate the class two. I bring this to you because Suffolk County has changed their permission and now they permit both class one and class two bicycles. I've done some other homework that Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington DC and Maryland all allow class 1 and class 2 bicycles in their parks. I was at the Cape Cod bicycle trail and people are on with bicycles, electric bicycles. bicycles, class 1 and class 2 are permitted on trails in these states because they make the bicycling more accessible to those that are, well, not quite as strong. I just want to say that they do not allow e-bicycles class 1 or class 2 on roads that are 30 miles an hour speed limit or more. These bicycles have the same engine, 750 watts, and they have a governance on their motors and speed. Both Class 1 and 2 are limited to 20 miles an hour. Class 3 allows the bicycle, even with the pedals and a motor assist, to go over 28 miles an hour. They're not legal in these areas. in these states. So basically I just had to bring this to you that class two is now being considered legal by Suffolk County in, excuse me, in these states in parks. Suffolk County is not allowing either class one or class two e-bicycles on the North Shore Rails to Trail or in any park so you as the municipality have the right to say well we're going to allow this in our park or parks because you have that right to do that but i just wanted you to know that cape cod bike trail and other bike trails that are very challenging are allowing both class one and class two there's just a fine line and one makes it easier for those that are a little physically or whatever it's more user friendly i just had to bring that to your knowledge yes no i was going to ask danielle to come up and because i i just want to address are you i'm sorry i mean didn't you know should i stay here or sit down no uh if you're finished i would yeah i am finished thank you sir thank you very much for your help thanks danielle i know we work together on this code yes and if i'm not mistaken we do have you know the x in excess of 20 miles per hour number one right and the other the other uh thing that we worked on and because of a liaison to the atc committee was that the only way that you could get on like the uh vets on the trail and vets park is if you were handicapped well so i think just correct me i'll let you finish yes so um let Let me explain. So yes, that's correct. The code states in B, no person shall operate a bicycle with an electric assist in excess of 20 miles per hour. So that's similar to what was stated. There is no regulation against e-bikes on the VETS Memorial Trail. The only thing that is not permitted are electric scooters. So Class 1 and 2 are allowed on the bike trail. Yeah, I think we need to look at that because initially I think that was for people, you know, for handicapped people. Well, people who are handicapped would be covered under the ADA, so they would be allowed to use those items. That's what I'm saying. Yes, they are still allowed. IN GENERAL, IT WAS SENIOR CITIZENS THAT USED THAT TRAIL ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS THAT PERHAPS CAN'T CYCLE A FULL NINE MILES AND WANT TO DO THE LOOP. THE E-BIKE DOES ASSIST OUR SENIOR CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT. YOU'RE RIGHT THERE BY FRESH POND AVENUE WHERE YOU HAVE TWO LARGE SENIOR CITIZEN COMMUNITIES THAT DO BIKE UP TO VETERANS OF OIL PARK AND THEY ENTER THAT AND THEY DO THAT TRAIL. THEY JUST DID NOT WANT TO BE LIMITED TO NOT BE ABLE TO USE THAT. MUCH SAFER RIDE OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW TO BE AN ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT AT THE UPCAL NINE MILE TRAIL THAN FOR THEM TO BE OUT YOU KNOW ON ON MAIN STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES WITH TRAFFIC SO THAT WAS OUR CONCERN AND THE LAST TIME THAT WE MADE THIS PRESENTATION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GIVING SENIORS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STILL UTILIZE THE BIKE TRAIL YES AND IT'S LIMITED ON THE SPEED AND OTHER THINGS TO KEEP IT SAFE IT'S NOT AN OPEN YOU KNOW YES THAT'S CORRECT THE FIRST DRAFT ALLOWED only class one on the trail and then we brought the topic to work session and those concerns were raised and it was changed to allow class one and two on the trail i think exactly what i believe mr kagan was was speaking about it does seem to assist seniors a little bit better on the class too
daniel all right there's nobody else in the room that would like to speak we have no one online so So we will keep this public hearing open for public comment for the next 10 days, and it will be closed at that time as we look at it. So with that, we will end our section of public hearings. We'll move on to resolutions, and this time we'll take comments from the public on just our resolutions. Again, there is a three-minute time period. We ask that you adhere to that for your neighbors and friends and that you stick to only the resolutions in coming, if you could say your name, where you're from. And then also if you could please state which resolution you're speaking directly to. That would be greatly appreciated. And we will open the floor to that.
Anyone online?
Oops, let me go back. Slow getting up. John McCullough, excuse me, John McCullough, Rolling Woods. This was what I had come intending to speak on. Is there anyone here from the Science Center? Can you just tell us what resolution is and speak towards us? Okay, sure. The resolution is 27 concerning the Long Island Science Center. Is there anyone here? Oh, John, I'm sorry. You just need to speak towards us. I don't know where the rest of the panel is. turning to see if there's anyone here from the Science Center to is it yeah well you just present their case I mean I have a view of this but I and I know that at the hearing that they did not contribute their views because their attorney had told them not to do that and I find that odd advice but that's between them and their attorney and if that's also the case that they're not in In this discussion, I think that's unfortunate. But I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Presumably, it has to do with the preparations for fighting you in court if you do adopt this. I wanted you to notice the t-shirt. It has to do with your previous eminent domain, which is bringing us the horrific hotel that we will be discussing on June 10 at the hearing. But I think that it is, in particular in this case on the question of the science center, I'm just disappointed that you're rushing, you don't think it's rushing ahead, but I think it is rushing ahead to destroy an important potential community facility that would have the kind of impact that Ms. Waskie has spoken to of encouraging people to move beyond the aquarium and actually walk down Main Street and take advantage. Now I did send you a letter and I don't know if it's an option. There is this vacant building across the street. If you're really after that piece of property, then I think that you could maybe facilitate it and avoid all of the legal mess. you could help them get that spot because from the Science Center's viewpoint I would guess that that would be as good a spot as where they're in now I do think that we heard it at the hearing from two members of the board from Miss wasky and mr. Kern that they had not had any private discussions or about or with anyone who was a potential buyer of the 111 spot I would love to hear from Mr. Rothwell and Ms. Merrifield and also from Ms. Thomas and from Mr. Petrucelli if they'd had any discussions with potential buyers of that spot. It's an awkward situation, but I think the problem is that we don't know what it is that you actually have in mind. And so I hope you stop and think about another way of solving the problem. Thank you for your comments. So happy to be here. Cindy Clifford, Riverhead. That you had 90 days to review the public input, but posted this item on the agenda, number 553, before the public comment period closed, seems a little out of line. You are apparently going to be voting today, whether or not to take the Long Island Science Center property, but no one still is saying what could possibly cost taxpayers. The board will vote on proceeding with eminent domain to replace what is an educational and community asset with, well, you're not telling us that either. All we know is that CDA Director Dawn Thomas and board members Rothwell, Kern, Waskey, and Merrifield pointed to the Science Center's financial status to justify taking the property for, well, again, we don't know why. These same board members, had the town been supportive as they are to other projects, the Science Center could be close to or already opening. Instead, you are looking to vote for eminent domain that will result in a far longer stretch before legalities are settled and the board's unannounced project gets a shovel in the ground. With all the focus on new projects, where is the board's support for our existing downtown businesses that are suffering during this ongoing upheaval. Now the town's renewed threat of eminent domain has effectively frozen funding from grant lenders. It seems the Long Island Science Center was set up to fail and is now being blamed for failing. At last month's public hearing, as board members worked to disparage the Science Center's financial status, Councilman Kern offered an analogy that if you want an ice cream cone, you have to have the money to pay for it. But if they won't tell you how much that cone is going to cost, then are you still going to buy it? Why are board members and Ms. Thomas unable or unwilling to tell us how many millions of dollars this takeover could cost us? How much have we already spent on outside counsel? And how long could that cost drag on? We deserve to know who and what is behind the ongoing drive to take this property and why it's not being made public. Have you been talking to developers? We've asked you before, you didn't answer. Are there already potential plans for this site? We've asked you, you haven't answered. Is someone waiting in the wings? Still waiting, can't get an answer, but we should have one. We deserve to have an answer. Instead of looking for a blank check for a mystery project, we want our Town Board and Community Development Director to support the Science Center. As Supervisor Halpin's working to stabilize our budget and avoid raising taxes why are other board members so cavalier about spending without accountability and why aren't they also working to keep our taxes from going up again the science center should be a downtown anchor and it should continue to benefit riverhead long after you have all left office thank you
if you want to pull the one up online that would be great and if you're in the room and you'd like like to speak if you just make your way to the side so we know you're there.
I listened to some of the comments while we're waiting and I wish that you would answer some of your own questions Ms. Clifford. The CDA has worked many times and given many options to the Science Center to try to find additional locations. There are open locations right now down on down Main Street THAT THEY CAN MOVE TO. SCIENCE CENTER CURRENTLY ONCE AGAIN IS UP AT TANGER MALL. IT'S NOT DOWNTOWN. WHAT'S DOWNTOWN IS A VACANT, DILAPIDATED BUILDING THAT AT SOME POINT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. YOU TALK ABOUT SURVIVAL OF OUR BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS BOARD IS TRYING TO DO. WE PROMISED THAT WE WOULD BUILD A TOWN SQUARE THAT WOULD BECOME A DRIVING FORCE FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND TO BRING TOURISM HERE SO THAT SPECIFICALLY THOSE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN CAN THRIVE AND THEY'VE BEEN WAITING. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, SADLY I'VE ATTENDED RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONIES IN GREAT JOY AND I'VE SEEN THOSE SAME BUILDINGS CLOSE DOWN AND NOT SURVIVE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ACTIVATION SPACE THAT IS SO GREATLY NEEDED. SO THERE IS NOTHING POLITICAL ABOUT ANY OF THIS. IT IS SIMPLY THE FACT THAT WE PROMISED to activate downtown Riverhead, and that's what I certainly intend to do my best to do that, to be successful down there, because we owe it to each and every business downtown. I'll let Mr. Harari speak. Go ahead. You'd be welcome to, you can re-loop through, but you'd have to wait your turn again. So yes, yes, sir. Mr. Harari, can you hear us? Thank you. I have previously made a formal submission to the town regarding the eminent domain seizure of the science center. I believe that there may be ethical and professional responsibility issues involving lawyers on this dais that require that, at the very least, the matter be referred to the town's ethic board for consideration. However, I noticed that the town clerk omitted my submission in the letters included in the notice of hearing today. today i think that continues to be part of the ongoing failure to disclose uh material facts and a violation of the town clerk's responsibility under the town law to maintain proper records of this proceeding and i echo the uh concerns raised by a fellow uh constituent um you've had members OF THE BOARD ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO DISCLOSE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY DEALINGS OR INTERACTION WITH THE NO BID MASTER DEVELOPER AND NO MEMBER OF THE BOARD RESPONDED TO THOSE HIGHLY RELEVANT QUESTIONS IN FACT MS. WASKE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED COUNCILWOMAN MARYFIELD NOT TO DISCLOSE THAT YOU WERE IN THE ROOM FOR THAT EXCUSE ME YOU WEREN'T IN THE ROOM FOR THAT I TURNED TO DENISE and said that because there were several members of the audience that started pointing at her and singling her out and demanding an answer from her and i didn't think that she needed to respond to that at that time with the way that she was being well well i'm singling you out i'm singling you out and i ask that all of you respond to that question whether or not given the lack of any specificity of what the plans are, whether any members of the board have had discussions with the master developer, who incidentally was not present at that hearing. And if you do not answer and take the fifth amendment on this, I ask the taxpayers of our town to draw the worst possible inference as to why you failed to disclose that material information. And as for you, Mr. Wooten, as you fail to include my detailed submission, we will be compelled to notify the Committee on Open Government of your dereliction of your duties. I really don't know what you're talking about, Ron, but that's all right. I welcome your challenge. Thank you. I don't know what you're talking about. Well, let me be clear. I'm not going to talk about it. So as long as you expressed your lack of knowledge, I would note that September 28th. I watch every correspondence that comes in and put it in. It's not included. So it's not included in the letters included on your notice. Well, then maybe you should check your e-mail address. Jim, you're a friend, okay? So let me just alert some point. This is a matter that is ripe for litigation. Mr. Herrera, you know I wouldn't do that, Ron. Mr. Herrera, we're going to end this conversation right now because your time is up. No, he's asked the question. I have a right to respond. I didn't ask the question. I said I wouldn't do that. All right. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak? Yes, Kevin. First, I did submit a document on Friday. It didn't get in there, but I know why. I think you had a 10 o'clock in the morning limit on that on a Friday after the 10-day for, oh, I'm sorry, Kevin Shea, Bading Hollow, and also this is about 553 resolution? Yeah, 553, thank you, sir. Thank you, first of all. Sorry about that. It's okay. I submitted a second document for arguing not to continue with the eminent domain. Today I'm just going to be coming up with 12 perspectives on the situation. I do know you have the vote. I know it's happening today. So I'm hoping that the last 11th hour or the 11th minute to 12 o'clock we'll be able to get done. I have about two minutes, so I'll go through the perspectives. But the ultimate goal is understanding what I listened to was that downtown Riverhead needs an immediate economic activation, rapid revitalization, financial stability and visual continuity alongside the new town square. I hope that that's what you believe. The facility at 101 East Main Street appears stalled. Internal renovations have paused. The municipal leadership worries that an incomplete project creates a blight on the town's momentum. So it would be nice, again, if both the town and the Long Island Science Center desire this exact same result. They both want a vibrant, architecturally sound, heavily trafficked, anchored destination that draws thousands of families to Main Street, support local businesses, and injects millions of dollars of non-taxpayer funding into our local economy. So with that, I don't think the M&A domain might be the way, and I just want to make sure I go through some of them with the time remaining. I'm going to go with 12 perspectives. I'm not going to get through them all. I can submit this and then one of them when you get later, but obviously I have to vote now. The first one is technological and innovation perspective. The town desires the cutting edge, the high-tech infrastructure that updates the face of Riverhead. The board fears this lack of tangible modern progress at the site. The evidence shows that Phase 1 design engineered by the Manhattan's prestigious DXA studio outlines a world class 24,000 square foot facility featuring a premier planetarium, cyber learning suites, and interactive steam labs designed to transition Riverhead into East End Innovation Hub. The workaround is, rather than initiating an eminent domain proceeding that freezes all the technological growth during the years of court battles, the town can celebrate this private innovation. Embracing LISC fulfills a technological mandate without drawing a single cent for municipal IT or infrastructure budgets. Okay, 16 seconds. I'll try to get through two. Environmental sustainability. Town board has raised explicit concerns regarding the flooding, the environmental compliance, and the local water table along the Peconic River Corridor. So, the evidence shows that the LLSC is designed to facilitate enclosed careful... Stop? Yes, thank you, sir. All right, guys, sorry. Thank you. No time.
Good afternoon. Joan Cyr and James Port. I have two questions regarding resolution 2026553, Long Island Science Center 111 East Maine. And the first one is that the accompanying fiscal impact statement that accompanies the resolution says there will be no fiscal impact. And can someone explain to me how we can acquire a building, how we can purchase a building and it doesn't have a fiscal impact? This resolution just makes a determination. It doesn't address what the compensation is going to be that would be subject to a subsequent resolution. Right, but it makes a determination. But whether it's $1 or it's $3 million, it's a fiscal impact. So how can the town say there's no fiscal impact, Mr. Howard? There's no fiscal impact with respect to what is done by this resolution. Okay, then clarify for us what you're talking about will be addressed by subsequent resolution when there's more clarity on what that impact will be. So today we're determining exactly what that will have no fiscal impact. And I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm really trying to understand this. This is a determination as to whether there's a basis to move forward with the condemnation. Okay, so if this resolution is approved, what does that empower the town to do, please? It would empower the town to proceed with eminent domain through a court action or negotiation with the property owner. And at some point, there will be another resolution that will lay out the fiscal impact to the town and the taxpayers? Yes. Thank you for that. The next question is related to the same resolution and to other resolutions, and this is directed to Mr. Wooten. Can you please explain for me why some of the letters that people write are listed, but then it says not published in the town board packet? Because it was a policy made back with all the issues going on with the charter school and Motocross that we were getting inundated with thousands of letters, and there was some discussion at the board and from the public that they felt that there was a lot of weight being put on decision-making from people outside of Riverhead. So we made a policy decision that we would publish those from people who reside in Riverhead and not publish those that don't. But they still get circulated the same way. Everybody gets every letter that comes in. All the board gets them, so that's the way we do that. And then we just so I mean it gets sent to where it has to go publishing is something that that I started It was never done before So so so 100% of the unpublished letters are from people who do not reside it within the town That's correct, and it says right this it says it says right on the on the town clerk website that you know letters will be Circulated and go into their intended prop party, but only those from residents will be published I I can confirm we do get every single letter. So when somebody writes it to the town clerk, it goes back. And if a resident's letter is not published, they submit a letter and it was not published, they should alert you so that you can publish it next time? Yeah, well, just, right. I mean, we don't publish your address, but just tell us your jurisdiction where you live. Thank you. You can say James Ford or Black Wolf. Right, but if somebody lives in Riverhead and their letter was not published, they can contact you and say, oops, you forgot to publish my letter. Would you please? Oh, I'm sorry, ma'am. Please don't address it until she comes over. So they can contact you and say, oops, you forgot to publish my letter. Would you please publish it? Yeah, well, I had that with Claudette. I mean, I know she lived in it. I'll be honest with you. I checked the correspondence, but it's actually put into the agenda by my staff, and they look for that. And when I saw that, I said, wait, I know Claudette. I know where she lives. So I made sure that I got it. Thanks very much. I know most, I don't want to, I know a lot of people in Riverhead and I know a lot of people by name and especially those that elevate themselves to write letters. I pretty much know pretty much everybody in Riverhead. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Carroll. I am a Riverhead resident. I thought it was Mount Sinai. I'm sorry. I did notice that some of my letters were redacted from the public comment. I bring that up as a notion that I am indeed a Riverhead resident. I've been a Riverhead resident for seven years, but that is not the point that I come to the podium today on. I come to the podium on because the resolution 553 seems to be materially deficient in that the resolution is silent on alternatives as well as its response to section 204B3 which not only misses the compensation acknowledgement references to the obligation under Article 3 and no indication of appraisal if one is planned or one exists. Additionally, I would like to bring to the fact that there is no statement within that resolution requiring the town attorney's office to proceed with settlement conference or with action of the board so I raise those because this silence of it is not being considered thank you
Wouldn't your office need the direction from the Board to have the vote to have you move forward to seek an appraisal? Yes. That's the entire purpose of what this resolution is about. Right. Yeah. And so we did that previously. We did that last year by resolution. We authorized retaining Mr. Eisler to proceed with eminent domain and going through the process. So that's already there, and then the appraisal is also there. Also, as to the points raised, I'm comfortable with the way the resolution is drafted. I added it, I reviewed it last night, or before the final cutoff for publishing the final packet, and I added some of the more procedural requirements that weren't in the original draft. I just I was out Thursday and Friday last week so I didn't get a chance to review it until yesterday Thank you, sir, John fell in Northville again 553 as I read the Resolution here right at the very end. It says a place for learning I kind of know how this board's gonna vote on this issue today But this a place for learning is something that would be great in downtown Riverhead Another hotel, another building. It's going to be the same for Riverhead as is. I've seen Ben and Jerry's turn over four times in the last five years. I've seen the restaurants turn over left and right because they just can't make it. I think you need to get people into town, kids into town. A place for learning would be wanted in town versus something else. Thank you. I agree. I agree. John McAuliffe, Rolling Woods, again on the same resolution. Mr. Rothwell, I was the person who raised the question of alternative sites. Your response on alternative sites is reminiscent of the game that was played with Crafted. Oh, there's another site you can go. Well, what we found in the Crafted experience was that, yeah, potentially but it was much more expensive it wasn't viable and they certainly didn't receive any help from the board at the time the question is a practical one if you want to avoid going to court then the question is whether you can help facilitate an exchange of property that would allow you to get to the property you want on that property I hope that the board would pledge that whoever then is your private investor that you want to hand it over to or sell to is restricted on height. Mr. McCullough we're not here to talk about the future of it we're just talking about the eminent domain of this property. I'm talking about eminent domain that the eminent domain should not go forward unless there is a pledge that nothing over two stories will go into that space otherwise we perpetuate the horrific five-story destruction of downtown overhead the Science Center plan was more than two stories was a planetarium on the two stories with the planetarium and the total planetarium was a very special feature and I think that would have come up for discussion but I think the principle that we've already destroyed much of the downtown downriver historic character putting in five-story buildings. This is a place to stop, is not to continue moving west along Main Street with an additional five-story building, which if you go back to the early Petrucelli proposal, Petrucelli had in mind putting another big building on that side of the square. So I think a pledge to go forward on eminent domain with no intention of putting another five story in that would be something that people would appreciate. MR. Yes, sir. MR. I specifically asked last week at the last meeting if there was an appraisal done on this property to give us some idea of what this was going to cost us. And Mr. Rothwell, you specifically told me there was no sense spending money on an appraisal until you had the authorization to do the eminent domain. And Mr. Howard, you enforced that. Mr. Howard just mentioned that there is an appraisal in the file, I believe. No, there's no appraisal in the file. The appraisal was previously authorized by separate resolution. We haven't done that. It was authorized to be done but hasn't been done. No, it's not complete. Thank you. It was these proceedings started well over a year ago when those were discussed. So the appraisal was approved for potentially moving forward a year ago just for clarification. We did not take that action because we gave the Science Center an entire year to develop the program and to open, which they have not done. SO IN FAIRNESS, NOW WE NEED TO RECAP, REGROUP AND SEE IF THERE IS IN FACT SUPPORT HERE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN BUT WE WOULDN'T GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY ON APPRAISAL IF THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD AT ANY POINT NOT SUPPORTING EMINENT DOMAIN ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS. WE DON'T SPEND UNLESS IT'S APPROVED. WHAT WOULD AN ESTIMATE OF AN APPRAISAL COST? ARE WE TALKING $1,000, $5,000? I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO WHAT ON THAT. APPRAISAL OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS PROBABLY A COUPLE THOUSAND. A COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS? AT LEAST. AND YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS PRUDENT BEFORE YOU CAME FORWARD AND DECIDED TO SPEND MONEY ON APPRAISAL IF THE TOWN BOARD WAS NOT GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEMAND AND DOMAIN WOULD BE WASTING WHETHER IT'S $1,000 OR IT'S $10. I WORK FOR THE TAXPAYER. So what the potential cost is for this property is of no relevance in your decision, whether it's a million dollars or five million dollars. No, we intend to any money that we put into it, whether it be the purchase of the property, the appraisal, if any, clean up, anything that needs to be done would be calculated and put in to a new sale price to recapture any money spent. So that in the end, just as we've done on the other projects on Main Street, where the funds were replaced. So sometimes we have to move forward with the spending knowing that on the market we'll get that money back. But that's the goal. We're not going to purchase it more and sell it for less, so the appraisal will give the guidance in that. And again, as I said last time, I'm ignorant to these processes. But it seems to me, outside of the legalities and the legal steps, you as the board are telling the townspeople, we're going to cut a check that's our money. And we don't know what size that check is going to be. and we don't even think it's prudent to have an idea of how big that check will be before we decide to take someone else's property, to forcefully take someone else's property, and we don't feel a responsibility to tell the taxpayers a ballpark of what that number could be. Do I have that correct? No, I think we're not at that stage yet. So this begins the legal process to determine that. And then there will be an appraisal and we'll evaluate it as we go along. But this is the beginning. But you're shutting down the Long Island Science Center. We're not shutting down the Long Island Science Center. The Long Island Science Center is currently up at the Tangram Wall. No, it's up at the Tangram Wall and they're not open all the time, but you can make an appointment and you can go and visit the Tangram. We're talking about a vacant building. You know that's what they want. But they haven't done it. what they want and it actually speaks louder than words sir okay so okay so it's you're right as the five members of the town board mr tucker i'm just going to give you like like 10 seconds someone else's property on our check and not even tell us whether it's a million or five million dollars It's insane. Thank you.
So I'll just clarify quickly. The public hearing process determines whether the taking is for a proper municipal purpose. Well, this isn't a public hearing. The vote. Right. Well, no, the prior public hearing that we had. Thereafter, if the town board determines that taking the property does serve a proper municipal purpose, it's then incumbent upon the town board to justly compensate the property owner part of determining what just compensation is requires getting an appraisal that would be what occurs next should the resolution be adopted are there any other comments on resolutions at all there's one online. Mr. Harry, can you hear us? Yes. First of all, I just want to thank Town Clerk Wooten. He has since received our submission regarding the eminent domain seizure of the Science Center. And Jim, I would simply ask that it be included in the record because I think we have raised some substantive and procedural objections to moving this forward. And I certainly anticipate litigation challenging any action to seize this private property at this time. And I also would like to highlight what I think is a clear misstatement by Councilman Rothwell, who represented to the constituents at the last board meeting that the town has been made whole in connection with the multimillion dollar crafted building. In fact, the town hasn't been made whole. There has been no closing on that. The closing has been delayed for months and months and months. The sale to Mr. Petrocelli doesn't include the appreciation and value, doesn't include the time, effort spent by town officials in increasing the value of that property. So your statement, your representation of the constituents was a falsehood, and we deserve an apology. And what I am extremely concerned is with the drastic lack of transparency in this deal, we may see, particularly in light of the board members' refusal to explain whether they had any communications with Mr. Petrosali, who was absent from the last hearing, or any other developer, whether we will see another no-bid giveaway of taxpayers' assets to a member of the Friends and Family Network in another backroom deal. Thank you. Mr. Herrera, your comments are, once again, incorrect. We have put out and we have associated all costs with the transfer of the property. when we expect to close imminent and in the interim we are collecting $17,000 a month rent on the property so we're covering our expenses so it is it's not costing the taxpayers money it's an it was an investment overall downtown and the money is re was it was essentially be fully reimbursed from the buyer and developer so you just I can debate it with you but that's accurate I was persisted through the entire process to make sure that we were getting everything that we put into it, we were getting it back, and we have and will. Yeah, so just to clarify, real estate on the east end has increased by 50 to 60 percent over the same period. Certainly, even getting something back when, if and when you have a closing, if the investors don't bail because there's no parking for this proposed hotel, is speculation. And you haven't accounted, A, for the appreciation and value, nor the value of the able work of Dawn Thomas and her staff in working on this project to increase its value. As long as the taxpayers are protected, I'm perfectly fine with it. And I might even be perfectly fine with Mr. Petrucelli working on the project in a transparent, open process. But unfortunately, that is not what we've had here. So thank you. And maybe in the future, we'll address this lack of transparency concern that I continue to have with everything that's going on. But again, thank you, Jim. You know, just to remind everyone that I certainly believe there will be extensive litigation in the future regarding this. and because we've raised... I'm sorry, we are out of time. We'll let you go a minute and a half over. So thank you for your comments. We just are way over on your time there. So is anybody else in the room, if you'd like to come up to the podium? Doesn't look like it, so we will close our comments on our resolution. Sir, if you just come to the... I'm sorry, board. Kevin Shea, Bading Hollow. The next thing I'm going to try to argue again on is trying to halt the stop work order and not continue on with the eminent domain. And the argument I'm going to use is a biased economic study. So that would be my perspective. So it goes. The administrative momentum to bypass the LISC for DRI funding and shift towards condemnation was steered by the local planning committee, co-chair David Kappel and CDA director Dawn Thomas, which was heavily reliant on the 2021 Street Sense economic study. If for the other people, you guys may know, David Capello was widely recognized across Long Island for utilizing the condemnation as an aggressive primary tool for municipal development, notably seen in the historic Greenport waterfront park seizure. While effective for the cleared shipyards, applying this aggressive framework to an active asset-backed educational nonprofit relies entirely on a flawed, hyper-commercialized data of this StreetSense study. Critics, community advocates, and urban planners arguing on behalf of the Long Island Science Center point out that the 2021 StreetSense economic study is built upon classic retail consulting structural biases and logical fallacies. While the study is standard for commercial real estate forecasting, applying it to its narrow framework to a mixed public-private Square created several significant analytical flaws. There are four of them. I'm going to try to get through at least a couple. We'll start with the monetization bias. The most prominent flaw in the study is it's an inherent selection bias toward direct sales tax generation over non-monetized community value. The flaw in this is that the algorithmic models utilized by retail consulting firms are optimized exclusively to calculate highest and best used through direct sales tax generation. That's nightly hotel room rates, restaurant checks, and retail sales per square foot. This model treats cultural institutions, museums, and civic spaces as dead weight or low value properties because they do not generate immediate sales tax. It completely lacks the indicators to measure the qualitative economic ripple effect of an educational anchor specifically how a world-class digital planetarium pulls multi-generational family foot traffic into downtown riverhead distributing consumer spending across multiple local shops restaurants and parking corridors i have nine seconds i will not complete the others they were submitted in for your review by your direct email as well into it for the public record thank you just to say just for the record the street sense committee was formed in 2021 was formed by town board as well as state officials and miss dawn thomas was not on that committee sir thank you sir so with that said thank you for everyone for your comments on our resolutions we're going to be online so we will move this time to our our town clerk mr wooten to walk us through our resolutions okay our first resolution is resolution number 527 authorizes removal of fixed assets so moved second vote please waski yes Maryfield yes Kern yes Rothwell yes up and yes resolution is adopted resolution number 528 ratifies acceptance of donation of plants from Gabrielson's Country Plant Farm, May 2026. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waski. Yes, thank you. Merrifield. Yes, thank you. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. And Halpin. Thank you, yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 529. Accepts the donation of the use of a marine barge to the town of Riverhead for the America 250 Fireworks show so moved seconded. Oh, please watch me this needs To be amended. Okay, John Reeve There is no s there's no senior. No, junior. Just John Reeve. Yeah, you brought that up at work session. They can't So we need to make a motion to make a motion to to amend okay, and I'll second it Okay, so I'll read it as amended then? It doesn't change the name. Except the donation of the use of marine barge to the town of Riverhead for the America 250 fireworks show as amended. Second. Vote, please. Okay, Waski? Yes, as amended. Thanks, John. Murrayfield? Yes, thank you very much. Kern? Thank you, John. Yes, as amended. Rothwell? Thank you, John. Yes. And Halpern? Thank you and yes. Resolution is adopted as amended. Resolution number 530. Ratifies authorization of the acceptance of donations from Peconic Hockey Foundation. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Yes, thank you. Merrifield. Yes, thank you very much. Kern. Yes, thank you. Rothwell. Yes, thank you. Halpin. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Thank you. Resolution number 531. appoint seasonal personnel to the recreation department so moved second vote please waski yes Maryfield yes yes Rothwell yes open yes sir resolution is adopted resolution 532 ratifies the appointment of a part-time bilingual office assistant so moved second vote please Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Thank you. That resolution is adopted. Resolution 533. Appoints an intern to the police department. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 534. Appoints a network and systems administrator. So moved. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. And Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 535. Ratifies and accepts the resignation of a traffic control specialist. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 536. Reappoints Phil Schmidt to the Agricultural Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. [transcription gap] Second it vote, please Waski yes, very few yes turn yes Rothwell yes, Alvin yes, sir resolutions adopted resolution 539 reappoints Nancy Gilbert to the open space Advisory Committee so moved second vote, please Waski yes Merrifield yes, turn yes, well yes Alvin yes, sir Resolution is adopted resolution 540 reappoints Marjorie Acevedo to the Open Space Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Hearn? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Alpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 541. Reappoint George Bartnick to the Open Space Advisory Committee. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Hearn? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Alpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 542. Acceptance of 2025 CPF audited financial statements. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hopping? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 543. Grants approval for site plan modification application entitled River Edge LLC 962 Berman Boulevard, Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-135.20-10-1-5. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murphy? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 544. Order. Establishing the extension of facilities of the Riverhead Water District for Summerwind Farm Subdivision for a water main extension at the property known as Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-86-2-8.2 in Aquabog, New York. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Watsky? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 545. Voters and and Resolution is adopted. Resolution 546. Approves fireworks application for Bathing Hollow Club on August 15, 2026. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 547. Approves fireworks application for Bathing Hollow Club on October 27, 2026. So moved. Second. Vote, please. All right. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Alton? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 548. Approve special event chapter 255 application for the United States Golf Association 2026 U.S. Open General Parking and Transportation Operations. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolutions adopted. Resolution 549. Amends Resolution 449-2026, Firework Application for the Riverhead Raceway, Rain Date Changed to June 6, 2026. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolutions adopted. Resolution 550. Amends Resolution 2026-511 Approve Special Event Resolution Chapter 255 Application for Railroad Museum So moved Seconded Vote please Waske Yes Merrifield Yes Kern Yes Rothwell Yes Albin Yes sir Resolution is adopted Resolution 551 Authorizes designated alcohol service vendors To serve alcohol to 2026 Alive on 25 Street Festival So moved Second. Vote please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution adopted. Resolution 552. Authorize the supervisor to execute an agreement with Goodman Marks Associates, Inc. to conduct an appraisal on Railroad Avenue parking lot for TOD. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 553. Resolution adopting findings and determination pursuant to Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law regarding acquisition of fee title to 111 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York. Reputed owner, A Place for Learning, Inc. Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-129-1-11. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Merrifield? Yes, and I'd like to make a statement. First, I want to first acknowledge that I have received several letters to myself and to the town board, all under the false belief that 111 East Main Street has been the location of the Children's Science Center. It has never been that. The Children's Science Center is currently located in Tanger 1. Several falsely believe in these letters that eminent domain of 111 East Main Street, that the town is destroying a 30-year educational institution. It has never existed at that location, and it still does exist at Tanger 1. Further, they say that it served more than 375,000 children and families, where families could attend birthday parties, scouting programs, and school events. Again, 111 East Main Street has never been open, has never served 375,000 children and families. Nobody's ever attended birthday parties there or scout programs. It has simply always been, since it was purchased in 2019, it has always been a vacant, empty building that has never been open for business. It has always been a blight to Main Street. No children have ever had parties there. No children have ever had any science programs there. I want to further state that downtown and the town square is very important to all of us on the town board and all of the residents in this town. The town of Riverhead has been actively attempting to reactivate and revitalize the downtown for over 30 years. To that end, since 1993, multiple studies have been conducted, all intended to make East Main Street area a vibrant, activated business district. The idea was to connect Main Street to the river. To that end, since 2018, grant funding has been obtained from the federal government and from the state government to advance our Town Square project. That Town Square project was intended to become a focal point of public activation. The federal government and New York State have given Riverhead over $30 million dollars to make this downtown revitalization happen. It's simply too important to just let this vacant blighted building sit there and deter all those efforts of the federal government of the state and of our town to revitalize our downtown. All of the pieces are now coming together. We have the playground about to start. We have the hotel about to start. We have the town square about to start. We have the East End Arts moving their buildings forward and about to start. And we also have the streetscapes, all to help revitalize the downtown. That is all just about to start right now. But what's happened at 111 East Main Street? Nothing. Nothing. For seven years, it has sat there blighted and vacant. The town square is too important, too important to suffer from this blighted vacant building affecting the ability of a project that the federal government and the state government and our town government believes can and will happen in downtown. We want to attract visitors. We want to attract business. But a vacant blighted building is not going to help that happen on that town square. It hasn't happened since the day they purchased it. What we want for the town is for it to be an economic engine. We want it to be a place for culture. That's what the Jazz Loft is about. That's what the East End Arts is about. That's what the Suffolk Theater is about. We want it to be a place of activation for families to come down to. A vacant blighted building is not that, and it has never been that. The owner in this case will be compensated for fair market value. It's not taken. They will be compensated and that money will come from our fund balance. It will not come from the taxpayers and it will be reimbursed back into the fund balance once the property is sold. And I want to state for the record that I would not support any hotel going in that location or any apartment building going in that location. What I want for this is to be an activation for the town, something that takes everybody from the aquarium, pulls you right through to our downtown, and revitalizes all of the businesses in downtown. Because as that vacant, blighted building sits there, it does nothing to help the business owners in downtown, which in turn do not help our tax base. This is all about our taxpayers. This is all about helping all the taxpayers of Riverhead. And I do support voting yes on this for all of those reasons. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor, for letting me speak. Absolutely. Karen? I'm abstaining. Rothwell? So actually, I want to say I agree with every single point that Councilwoman Merrifield has made, but I have to tell you that it has been a difficult road because I think when WHEN I CAME IN A LITTLE OVER FIVE YEARS AGO, I MET WITH MR. OXMAN IN MY OFFICE AND HE BROUGHT IN PLANS FOR THE SCIENCE CENTER. AND IT WAS VERY EXCITING FOR WHAT WAS PROPOSED AT THE TIME. AND IT WAS GOING TO ENHANCE THE TOWN SQUARE AS BOOK ENDS ON THE PROJECT. AND IT WAS A GREAT LEVEL OF EXCITEMENT. BUT IT KIND OF STOPPED THERE. AND THERE'S JUST BEEN NO MOVEMENT YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DOWNSIZED AND DOWNSIZED AND DOWNSIZED. We sat here a year ago, we had these same similar discussions about how we're going to go forward, what are we going to do. And we gave them the benefit of doubt and they were going to be open by the summertime. There's going to be great things happening in an entire year, no movement, no selection. The Science Center, as Councilwoman Merrifield said, is up at Tantangamal. That's where it's located and our decisions here today don't affect their current operations and how they've agreed to formulate their business plan. I'm quite shocked that during the entire public hearing, Mr. Oxman, you sat and you didn't even speak a word. And sometimes silence speaks volumes. And you have shared no thoughts or comments about any type of hurdles that you may have overcome, plans that why they couldn't happen, why nothing has moved forward. it almost seems like you're waiting for a bailout. The property that we're discussing has been on the market multiple times. It has been up for sale. I think that there is a place for the Science Center at some point downtown, and I hope that maybe they can utilize these funds to kind of help financially get them back on track. And, you know, maybe they're right across the street. Maybe they're next door. I want them downtown. I think it would be exciting to have you downtown and to re-energize downtown and be part of the process. But I did make a vow when I came into office that we were going to revitalize downtown Main Street and we were going to make it a better place. And every other business that's down there and that waits for that sudden injection and waits for when the true development will come deserves us to take action. And I think that we have sat on this long enough. I intend to keep my promises. I have worked downtown over 30 years ago and walked the streets, and I've seen the dismay. And I think that by taking this action, it's a difficult action, but it does set us up to potentially promote the property, sell the property, so we have something that matches the downtown and truly revitalizes it. But it is a vacant, dilapidated building, and it can't remain that way anymore. And so we have to move forward, and for that reason, I vote yes. Halpin. So I said during the public hearing that I believe eminent domain is, you know, the taking of property for municipal purposes to benefit those beyond belief or beyond the scope of what is there. And it's a legal tool that should only be used as an absolute last resort. And my opinion is, is that we're not at that absolute last resort. But as I said during that public hearing, this is disappointing from both sides. I do understand the frustration on my fellow board members and the town that are seeking for the Science Center to have already been activated and working. And I also see the tool being used at a point where I'm not ready to do that. So with that, I vote no. CHAIRMAN BRYANT LISER. That resolution is adopted. Resolution number 554. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT. authorizes the supervisor to execute an agreement with Sousa Soccer Training for instruction, training, and professional officials for Town of Riverhead Police Athletic League Soccer Program grades K-6 for the 2026 calendar year, so moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Halpin. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 556. Authorizes town clerk to publish in post notice of public hearing to consider a local law to amend Chapter 105, boards, commission, and councils. Article 2, appeals board of Chapter 105-9 or section filing fees. Is that section? Section. Section 105-9, filing piece. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Huffman? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 557. Authorizes the town clerk to publish in post-notice of a public hearing to consider a local law to amend Chapter 219, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Section 219-26, fees for the permits and appeals. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Huffman. Yes sir. That resolution is adopted. Resolution 558. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post notice of public hearing to consider a local law to amend chapter 295 wetlands section 295-6 application for permit and section 295-10 enforcement penalties for offenses so moved seconded vote please Lasky yes yes yes yes yes yes sir resolutions adopted resolution 559 adopts a local or amending chapter 231 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled fire prevention so moved second vote please Lasky yes yes yes yes yes yes yes sir Resolutions adopted. Resolution 560. Adopts a local law amending chapter 301 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled Zoning and Land Development Part 3 Supplementary Regulations. So moved. Seconded. Polk please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Alpin? Yes sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution number 561. Adopts a local law to amend Chapter 293 of the Riverhead Town Code titled Waterways and Water-Related Activities, Article 9, Shellfish and Flimfish. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Hathwell? Yes. Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 562. Pay his bills. Seconded. Vote please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Hathwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 563. Gratifies authorization for supervisor to sign second addendum to consultant professional services agreement with Joan Modern. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Hathwell? Thank you, Joan. I know you're supposed to be enjoying retirement, but appreciate you stepping up. Thank you. Yes. And Halbert? Yes. A resolution is adopted. Resolution 564. Ratifies the authorization of the supervisor to execute stipulation with CSEA Local 1000 AFSCME AFL-CIO Riverhead Unit of the Suffolk Local Number 852. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waske? Yes. Murrayfield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 565. Authorizes the town clerk to publish and post New York State DEC notice of complete application and declares type 2 action. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waske? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Halpin? Yes, sir. Resolution is adopted. That concludes the resolutions. So this time we will make space for open comments. If you have a comment, again, we will be held to the three-minute time period. We ask that you state your name and what Hamlet, and then again.
Warren McKnight, Riverhead. Warren McKnight, Riverhead. Thank you. Okay. I've been comparing the five East End towns and what they do to help people. And I noticed for the last 59 years South Hole Town has this organization called CAST, a nonprofit one. And remarkably, whatever money they raise, they get actually three times the amount from various forms of the government to contributing to them. I was hoping that we have some sort of this thing in Riverhead, if we could do that, because this organization is designed to help people in the area in need. So I want everyone, if they can, to form a committee to get something like this started in our town. I think it's, you know, 59 years, South Pole, you go out to Greenport, it's the friendliest place in the world. I was invited down by Mr. Castaldi when Don McLean came. I was playing. A Riverhead policeman came up to me and says, I'm panhandling. I have to move. Meantime, all the people are, okay, they're giving me money. All right. So the money, what do I use the money for? If I get enough expenses, I go to a nursing home. I give it to somebody here and there. But the whole thing, it sends a wrong message. This whole no tolerance zone. You should have that with a care and concern and cast says that if you get a cast in Riverhead I would really you know, it really be a plus for the town. Thank you Thank you, mr.
Good afternoon, John Radigan Riverhead. I'd like to circle back to Scott's point If we could now, I know all of you have to vote, have your vote on Scott's point on the merits of his application. I appreciate that as as a retired electrician. You know, you have to make sure eyes are dotted, T's are crossed and only judge it on that merit. As a voter listening to Eric Scott come here and say, I don't care about these people. That's directed at the voters. that's me who elect all of you so I'm asking all of you to consider his comments when you're making your vote on him thank you
back in 25 before your time here supervisor they were pushing for a no parking on smugglers path a previous supervisor Tim Hubbard said have your neighbors write letters 70% of my neighbors wrote letters the others didn't because there were second homeowners they were just they're never there they have their whatever with their bail recently signs went up I'm sorry miss waski asked me to come to her Beach Committee meeting I came to two of them unfortunately one was cancelled on my way in the second one I came to i thought things went well i know there was a little difficulty with one of the neighbors on another block but not one of my neighbors recommended was ever asked about having no parking on this block and now we have signs on the block that say permit parking only i'm hoping i was looking for the resolutions when this would come by somehow it missed me because i'd follow up you know through town as some might know jim knows i've been coming for years to these meetings i can't come as much as i used to uh i'd like to get a resolute i'm hoping to get a resolution to have that those two signs picked up and taken away did anyone on my block say come to the town and say there should be no parking on this street the town decided to do it or the beach committee decided to do it on their own i do live near the beach i walk to the beach i've never bought a parking permit because i i walk there i'm not on the beach it's a 500 yard walk but i walk to the beach my neighbors are upset for us to have a party if we're going to have a party during the week even even on a saturday when probably the patrol would be going by they want us to come to downtown riverhead i'm sorry right here into the this building to get permits to put in your window for your guests and then they want you to come back the following after year that and bring them back that's an hour round trip for everybody our my block doesn't want want to do that. I don't want to do that. If you have more, all of a sudden, if you're doing it more and more, and you're having more people or whatever, it's a lot of time to come down here and do that. So, I don't know where to go. I'm looking at you, Mr. Mosky, about the... But it wasn't the beach committee that moved anything. Who was it then? I don't have that answer for you. I can tell you one thing. I went to the highway department, and they said it was a beach committee that came through the resolution from the beach committee. I talked Mike Zielinski. This happened about two years ago. I remember. Oh, you mean prior to you coming in, the sign. I mean, we didn't know about it. I caught wind about it. We did this code change years ago. Oh, okay. So I'm here asking the signs be taken away. Mike Zielinski, after speaking with him, said I'll take them away if there's a resolution to take them away because he put them there because there was a resolution to put the signs there. All right Yeah, so the idea was to prevent Each parking people who are people who don't live on the street from parking there Just to get to the beach when there's overflow. This was also done for Reeves Beach I think it was just Reeves and Iron Pier So there were specified streets that said you can't park there unless you're resident. I know the whole situation. We do get people that come up and park there and walk down to the beach, but it's usually one or two. Last year, I saw only one car that did it. The year before that, maybe two cars. They're quiet. They're clean. They don't bother us. They park up where nobody really parks, and they're quiet. They're clean. I don't want to have to come to Town Hall and waste an hour of my day, two hours of my day, to come get parking tickets. Eric, we would have had to have had a public hearing we did have a public hearing yes there was a public hearing so in order to in order to change it we need to do a code amendment and have another public hearing I mean I would functionally yes it can be done but I don't make those I would request that I'm sorry I would put in a request then now to the sewer to put it on for work session and we can take a look at it and discuss it put on the work session i'll be right down here with you i hope that i'm advised a little couple of days ahead of time so i can set my schedule keep an eye on the work session thank you very much thank you that's going to go
took her from reverend only my second time airtime i had uh I consider coming back and apologizing for raising my voice, but after hearing Mary Fields and Mr. Rothwell's free vote comments, I realize I should have raised my voice sooner and I should have raised my voice louder. That being what it may, Mr. Rothwell, you just said a few moments ago, silence speaks volumes. I have come to you here in person I have written to you I have posted a reply online to ms. wasky asking to know the reason why you don't feel discussion about OLA's proposed legislation is worthy, which is the only assumption I can make is that you don't feel it's appropriate to even discuss it. So I have a minute and 55 seconds left. I would like to know why you don't think it's appropriate. What's the policy reason or the legal reason that you don't want to put this on a work session agenda? You're pulling the board? You can't pull the board. If you have a specific question, you can ask one person. I don't know if anyone wants to answer that. I'll ask Mr. Rothwell. We've had these discussions before and we've answered them. I believe they've met with the supervisor. I don't know what discussions have prevailed from that but to the best of my knowledge that we have the appropriate laws in place already to protect everyone and all residents of all citizens I'm comfortable with that and I very very extremely proud of our men and women and blue police officers are the finest around they do a great job Very comfortable where we are So it's so I just just want to make sure I understand so that when I reply to not in the debate with you We were no, I'm not I'm not looking to baby. I'm going to understand where you're coming from that you don't feel that this justifies an open conversation. This is the most conversation that we've had. This is the most feedback we've gotten from anybody on the board as to why this is not appropriate.
I think you made, I mean, if you made your comment, I don't think anybody else is speaking for it. So thank you, Mr. Tooker. Silence, please, volumes. John McAuliffe from Rolling Woods also on the OLA question a slightly different perspective or aspect of it. This morning ICE was in Riverhead. They were on Osborn Avenue. Apparently one person was arrested or detained. I don't know whether the police have any knowledge of that arrest, any information they can provide. But reportedly ICE, this is reports from OLA, ICE was also in Riverhead last week. I think that the members of the board need to consider seriously the refusal to have a work session discussion with the representatives of OLA and the drafter of the legislation to evaluate whether in fact Mr. Rothwell is correct that everything is hunky dory or whether that's part of a general political line which is don't get bothered by the way we're handling these immigrant people because they're not legally here. I think that a, the thing that's concerning me is the refusal of the board to address this is interpreted by ICE to mean that this is a friendly atmosphere, that they can operate with greater leeway than they could in South Hold or Southampton or Easthampton. And so I think you need to think about that too, that you may be inadvertently be creating an atmosphere which encourages this kind of depredation of human rights within Riverhead. Again, U.S. politics affects this. There's going to, we don't know what will happen between now and the midterms, but there certainly is a lot of fear that ICE is going to be a vehicle for affecting the results of the midterm elections. So I think it's very important that the board should take responsibility and at least give courtesy to the authors of this proposed legislation that was adopted already by East Hampton. Thanks very much. David M. I believe we have one more in our room. Nobody online? So if you would like to speak, if you can make your way over. If not, we will conclude after the speaker. David M. Okay. I just want to let everybody know one thing I've observed, and I have observed it over the years. The railroad station and all the buses down there, years ago when Phil Cardinelli was a supervisor, I said, get some benches down there. And there were benches down there for people. This week I drove from the library going down to town hall. There was a woman lying on a sidewalk face down, and I thought she was hurt. So I went back to see if I could call the police for an ambulance. And she was face up, she was sleeping. And she had bags around here. Maybe the town can, there's a lot of stone benches at Grumman. Maybe we can get them or get the other benches down there for people. And also, maybe we could open up the bathroom there so people after a long bus trip could, you know, relieve themselves. So the problem is we don't own that property. Yeah. And so the MTA does, so we have no authority. We can't put things there or, you know, open up the bathroom. That would be breaking an entry. Yeah, would anybody from the town board write some letters to them? I've worked with them. All they're looking for is someone to occupy the building, to lease it. They are not going, you know, who's going to maintain the bathroom. Oh, I think an organization like CAST could, which I just mentioned before. I'll tell you that you mentioned CAST. I worked with somebody three years ago with CAST to bring CAST to Riverhead, and it didn't happen. So I'm just letting you know that. Let's try again. Start it up, Warren. Well, okay. I need your help then. If you want to help me, you know where to contact me. Okay. Please. We need the help because I don't like to see people lying down there. It's an improvement. We had a great gentleman here who invoked a blessing. And what they did, Anna, is remarkable and wonderful. And when we stop caring about our other people and we say we can't do something, there's something wrong because, you know, I am taught when I go to the various houses of worship to care about people. and maybe that's why people don't want to go to church anymore and their attendance is low because it affects them. This is why they don't have to care about people. So I want us all to care about people and maybe we should all go down there and look. What they have to do is sitting here and there. They have to sit on the benches. How about the parking lot across the street? We own that? Do we? I don't know about put benches in the parking lot but we'll look into it. Thank you so much. Something has to be done. Thanks, Warren. No one online? Oh, one more comment. Dawn Zabrowski, River Road, Calverton. Before I read for you my most recent correspondence with the Anti-Bias Task Force, I would like to model for you the evidently unfamiliar concept of full disclosure. For the record, I am not married to Denise Merrifield. I have no ulterior motive for this or any appearance before you. Speaking of Ms. Merrifield, allow me to share with you correspondence that Ms. Merrifield, as the so-called liaison for the town to the Anti-Bias Task Force, probably should have. April 12, 2026. Dear Ms. Stokely, In close, please find my detailed September 2, 2025 complaint submitted to three town officials at the Highway Department, two at Town Hall, the town supervisor, and four councilpersons, as well as every member of the Labor Management. Committee. My complaint has been largely disregarded and exactly none of the terms I so clearly specified therein have been met. However, it occurred to me recently that perhaps the Anti-Bias Task Force might take an interest in the hostile, misogynist, sexually charged verbal abuse directed at me by a Highway Department employee on more than one occasion with the implicit support of management at the Highway Department as well as Town Hall. If you find the exhortation to multiple sodomies, including anal rape directed by a male municipal employee at a female resident and property owner as offensive and unacceptable as myself and my husband do, you would be unique in terms of other municipal bodies purportedly serving Riverhead. Am I boring you, Mr. Howard? I'm taking notes. Oh, good. Yes, you should. You will forgive me for being skeptical as to my having any more standing with your body than I have had with all other municipal entities with which I have had the misfortune of corresponding regarding these incidents. Given my treatment, I shudder to think how these highway department employees would treat a person of color, especially a woman, or someone recently arrived whose English might not be as understandable as mine. I would like to add that each town official who received my complaint was asked in writing to please direct appropriately in the event that I had misdirected said complaint. Apparently this directive was taken to mean ignore this complaint. Ironically, I was to find the agenda of the October 7th town board meeting slated for a debate over whether or not to give priority to correspondence from residents as opposed to non-residents. The agenda listed numerous correspondence recently received from both residents and non-residents to the exclusion of my name and correspondence, despite my correspondence having been mailed by this time to the entirety of the town board in addition to the original highway department and town hall personnel who ignored it in the first place. So much for giving priority to the correspondence of residents, Mr. Wooten. Bye as much. At any rate, thanks kindly for your attention to this matter, however scant. At the risk of repeating myself, what remains to be done remains to be seen. Sincerely yours, Dawn Zabrowski. See you next Tuesday.
I promise I'll be brief. go ahead bianco i just want to thank mr wooten for checking into the correspondence issue that we had and for fixing whatever i know it was probably i was texting ron after he went i know but i and i know how seriously you take it he sent it to the wrong email address that's okay and it was probably my fault anyway but i want to thank you for doing that thank you you're welcome i believe uh we don't have anyone online i think we're completed in the room and so with that i I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn our meeting today. Oh, do we have to? Do we have to? Motion. And a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. So moved. We open up CDA.
Thank you.