Say NO to IDA
Subsidies for Private Hotel Development
We urge the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency (RIDA) to rigorously evaluate and completely reject the request by Joe Petrocelli for tax subsidies to his five story thirty four million dollar luxury tourist hotel that will dominate half of the new Riverhead Town Square.
Developer
Joe Petrocelli is requesting tax subsidies through the Riverhead IDA for a
proposed $34 million, five-story luxury hotel that will occupy half of the
public Riverhead Town Square.
Tax
abatements granted by the IDA directly reduce the local tax base for the
developer. When large commercial developers receive tax relief, the financial
burden shifts onto local homeowners, working families, and local school
districts—including the Riverhead Central School District.
The
Solution
We, the
undersigned residents and taxpayers of Riverhead, urge the Riverhead IDA to
completely DENY the application for tax subsidies for this commercial hotel
project.
Market
Viability: A $34 million luxury hotel in a prime downtown location is a
commercial enterprise that should stand on its own financial merits. Public tax
dollars should not subsidize private profit margins.
Impact
on School & Town Services: Tax breaks starve our public schools and
municipal infrastructure of critical revenue. Taxpayers should not subsidize
private development while managing their own household budgets and rising
living costs.
Existing
Public Support: The development already benefits from state grant funding and
an annual $150,000 town commitment to maintain the adjacent Town Square.
Additional tax relief is unnecessary.
2.
Accountability, Due Diligence & Governance (Ethos)
Need
for Independent Financial Vetting: Before considering any financial relief,
the IDA must conduct thorough, independent due diligence. The board must
examine the occupancy rates, room revenues, and profitability of the
developer’s existing local properties (the Hyatt Place and Preston House).
Consistent
Precedent: The IDA has previously shown the courage to protect public
interest over special interests—such as denying tax concessions in the EPCAL
deal. The board should maintain that standard of public stewardship here.
3.
Protecting Local Businesses & Community Character (Pathos)
Support
Local Main Street: Downtown Riverhead thrives because of established local
businesses like the Suffolk Theater, Maximus Gym, Robert James Salon, and
Goldberg’s Famous Bagels. Converting convenient parking and open public land
for private hotel development directly hurts the existing business community.
Public
Land for Public Good: The Town Square was created to serve all Riverhead
residents as a vibrant waterfront gather spot, not to serve as discounted real
estate for luxury tourism.
Sign
the Petition
By
signing, you join Riverhead residents in demanding that the IDA protect
local taxpayers, support existing Main Street businesses, and reject
unnecessary corporate tax subsidies.
Reject developer blackmail. There is too much profit to be made. Joe won't walk away if you have the courage to say no.
Protect the tax revenue of the Riverhead schools.
Do serious independent due diligence. What is Mr. Petrocelli's assured funding in addition to the benefit from State grants and $150,000 annual town payment to maintain the Square ? What is the occupancy level, room rate and profit from his existing hotels, the Hyatt and Preston House?
Be mindful of the cost to the Suffolk Theater, Maximus Gym, Robert James Salon and Goldberg Bagels of lost convenient parking.
Serve the community not special interests as with your denial of the Ghermezians' deal for EPCAL
More background
The Greenport alternative
https://tinyurl.com/newtownsquare
Aug. 26 is the 106th anniversary of the Constitution’s 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. The struggle to obtain that fundamental freedom took 72 years. It is hard enough to imagine a country where it was against the law for women to vote; even harder to imagine the arguments used to justify it and the people who voiced them.
We seldom think of what it took: countless articles and speeches; marches and civil disobedience; suffering of vicious verbal attacks, mob violence and official brutality. The first vigils outside the gates of the White House, with banners known as “Silent Sentinels,” led to harsh imprisonment and force feeding, the same barbarity inflicted by the British on hunger strikers in Northern Ireland and by the U.S. on prisoners in Guantanamo.
A few films and TV documentaries have captured the human drama. The League of Women Voters recently showed a video of the premiere of Andrea Ramsey’s “Suffrage Cantata” at the Westhampton Library and provided a very useful full transcript. A different powerful performance can be seen on youtube at youtu.be/cG9Q6-UnYb4.
The play “Failure is Impossible” was first performed Aug. 26, 1995, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the 19th amendment and can be read at archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/script.html It would add to Riverhead’s celebration of the 250th anniversary of independence if a local theater group staged it.
Opposition to the current mass deportation of immigrants is the current expression of the spirit for justice of the suffragists. Their unfinished business can be seen in Riverhead today in the disproportionately small number of women on appointed town boards and committees.
John McAuliff
08.26.2026 News
United Riverhead Terminal to receive over $6M in assessment reductions for seven tax years
John McAuliff of Roanoke Landing criticized the lack of transparency in the United Terminal lawsuit at last Tuesday’s Town Board meeting, saying the settlement number should have been presented to the public “from the get-go.”
“I found it a little bizarre that we can’t get the numbers of how much was involved in the legal settlement that we’re all going to have to pay for, and exactly what it covers,” Mr. McAuliff said. “That ought to have been in the first piece of paper, not hidden behind some kind of legal process that is not explained.”
The Riverhead Town Board misappropriated at least $207,000 of
taxpayers’ funds for its share of a law suit that was inherently partisan.It joined with seven other Republican
controlled political entities to attempt to reverse in Federal court a New Y
ork State law that ended odd year elections of local governments.Republican Party committees are lead
plaintiffs without paying anything toward the $1.656 million to date in legal
fees and costs
On June 10th, as reported by Denise Civiletti in the
Riverhead Local, Riverhead and the other towns simultaneously withdrew from the
case.Withdrawal was never discussed
publicly by the Town Board.We await an
explanation from the Town Attorney about whether his action was legally,
politically or morally motivated.
Both parties surround their positions with noble rhetoric
about democracy and participation but have an obviouspolitical self-interest. Democrats who control the State
government believe accurately that they do better when more people vote in even
year elections. Republicans prefer that fewer of the right people vote, a persistent
goal of the Trump Administration.
One can be on
either side of the election date issue but recognize the institutionalized
corruption of misuse of public funds.Riverhead
should insist that the presumably Republican law firm (Brewer, Attorneys &
Counselors) should fully reimburse the town.Or we should bill the Republican town committee for the $207,000.At least registered Democrats and
Independents ought to get a rebate on our taxes.
John McAuliff
Riverhead Watch
For short video on same topic by County Legislator Greg Doroski , click herehttps://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JVfP9aiXT/
BusinessPeconic River Hotel parking fight raises questions for Riverhead Town SquareByAna Borruto
Roanoke Landing resident John McAuliff, who urged the Town Board to reconsider the hotel, responded to Ms. Waski’s comments on the low attendance.
“The reason they’re not here, frankly, is because they think it’s useless,” Mr. McAuliff said. “They’ll write you letters, they’ll sign petitions, but they don’t think you’re at all prepared to listen to an alternative viewpoint about the hotel.”
Riverhead’s legal victory over the Ghermezians on the EPCAL contract is very welcome. Now that the town has regained control, the challenge for Supervisor Halpin is how to bring the greatest long-term benefit to the whole community. As a participant in EPCAL Watch, I offer these thoughts.
The supervisor should create a transparent and democratic process that supports wide participation in determining the future use of a unique community resource with multi-generational impact. He should invite the advice of economic and social planners in universities, professional associations and the private sector who might want to publicly contribute perspectives on how to best use EPCAL, and establish an open process for citizens of Riverhead to make their own suggestions and describe their dreams. We can learn from each other right away through online exchanges, which can lay the ground for a two-day in person forum with plenary brainstorming discussions and breakout groups to perfect shared interests.
It would be a mistake to assume that the best use is simply to recreate the manufacturing jobs of Grumman Aviation. We must not wait for the next ski tower or drone scheme to arrive; no more Petrocelli-style projects launched behind the scenes and presented as a fait accompli. Personally, I hope that any aviation use is forever off the table.
The one thousand non-developable acres need to be permanently sequestered and protected for environmental reasons. Ideas I’ve heard so far for the 600 developable acres include: returning them to descendants of the farmers from whom the Navy took them; a regional cultural/performance center; a sports hub; a permanent race track; a wind farm; mixed-use agriculture integrated with solar farms; a Shinnecock casino; expansion of manufacturing enterprises already in the Industrial core; a plant to build modular housing; data centers; parkland with hiking paths and campgrounds; use of the rail spur for a distribution center. No doubt many more, as good or better, are out there. The best may come from mutual stimulation and discussion.
The advisory group that worked with Mr. Hubbard and department heads should publish the parameters and procedures they developed for EPCAL proposals. Letters to the editor like this one about the best way to move forward can start the ball rolling.
A three-to-two majority of the Riverhead Town Board has renewed the effort to grab the Long Island Science Center’s property on East Main Street. After I pushed for clarification at the meeting, it was acknowledged that a hearing must be held and a new resolution adopted before exercising eminent domain and spending more money in court.
However, board members Ken Rothwell, Joann Waski and Denise Merrifield and planning director Dawn Thomas did not answer my question about whether they already have a replacement project in mind. Given the scathing criticism of the current building’s condition, its demolition may be contemplated.
Is this another instance of the inside dealing that brought us Joe Petrocelli’s domineering hotel/condo project on the east side of the Square?
As I attended the bittersweet Forward Frame farewell reception at East End Arts on Saturday, the sun streamed through the west-facing windows of the 1840s Davis-Corwin House, past the early stages of Petrocelli’s construction. That natural light will never be seen again after his massive five-story building is erected.
Is it a hopeless dream to think of the construction halted to allow a green lawn from Main Street to the amphitheater and the river, like Mitchell Park in Greenport? If the board majority is determined to destroy the Science Center building, Petrocelli’s hotel should go there. It will not overshadow as much The Suffolk theater or hide the 19th century arts council buildings, which should frame the east side of Town Square.
People of Riverhead who want to save the Town Square park from a boxy hotel face a serious challenge. Our new supervisor has apparently concluded it can’t be done. Jerry Halpin cites the legal cost of breaking contracts with Joe Petrocelli and opposition from incumbent board members. This echoes how the Republican majority frustrated former supervisor Laura Jens-Smith’s desire to cancel the disastrous EPCAL contract with the Ghermezians.
Petrocelli’s demolition of the building that housed Craft’d allows him to begin pile driving for his hotel/condo. But it also reveals an opportunity to create more green space between The Suffolk theater and the river. Imagine that Riverhead truly opens the intended vista instead of allowing another intrusive five-story building.
Envision how The Suffolk theater can avoid being overshadowed. Picture how the historic buildings of East End Arts can frame the east side of the park rather than be obscured between the hotel and Heatherwood. Will a lawn leading down to the new amphitheater surpass the feel of Greenport’s Mitchell Park and carousel?
Acceding to a hotel for profit was a political decision to benefit the private interest of a campaign donor. Enough pressure from the community can restore the land to public benefit. Supervisor Halpin needs to hear that one reason we voted for him was to undo the damage of his predecessor. Incumbent Town Board members must recognize that selling off half the Town Square park never had public support.
Civic minded attorneys: Can you help find a way out of Petrocelli’s contracts? Everyone: Walk by the space, then write the supervisor and Town Board at Townclerk@townofriverheadny.gov
We went to Craft’D Tavern for its final high-energy night. It was full with a very diverse clientele.
Sean Kenna created a vital, authentic and successful small business loved and enjoyed by the Riverhead community. It was destroyed by a Town Board that preferred to reward its biggest donor, Joe Petrocelli, so he could make more money from a five-story luxury hotel for tourists plus condominiums. The looming commercial choice they made for the Town Square park can be seen at tinyurl.com/RiverheadTS.
Petrocelli will rush to employ his wrecking ball next month, demolishing Craft’D and the historic inlaid floor in the Swezey’s office on the second floor. However, construction won’t start until the new year. Supervisor Tim Hubbard told the last Town Board meeting that even if the majority changes in the Nov. 4 election, nothing can be done to save the Town Square park.
Hopefully Jerry Halpin, Kevin Shea and Mark Woolley can prove him, Bob Kern and Ken Rothwell wrong and bring back an expanded Craft’D in a building that balances and complements the Long Island Science Center on the opposite side of the park.
Mr. Hubbard has been less than transparent in this process, claiming in one board meeting that he was trying to find Sean a similar downtown space at the same price. When challenged with Sean’s statement that the alternative would cost three times as much, Hubbard denied at a subsequent board meeting that he had said anything about cost.
Still unresolved is whether the transfer of land that was obtained with town funds for use as a public park can be sold for the profit of a private developer without authorization by the state Legislature.
Dear Supervisor, Members of the Board and Town Clerk,
I see that you are moving ahead with the Petrocelli hotel at
Tuesday’s Board meeting. Needless to say I plan to speak against the
resolution approving a special permit and site plan.
In order to avoid the confusion at the hearing, I am
attaching three photos that I wish to show during my remarks. Please
confirm that will be possible. I am requesting “equal time” for the many
slides shown by hotel proponents during the hearing because I was not afforded
the same opportunity. I need these slides to illustrate the dramatic cost
of letting Pertocelli take over half of the town square.
Current rendering (Suffolk Theater at top)
ChatGPT version with hotel (approximate proportions)
ChatGPT version with no hotel
Please clarify how this resolution relates to the
closing. Will that require a later resolution with the sale price and
other financial arrangements?
I gather that you decided that you can proceed this far
without action by the IDA. I remain concerned that the language of the
Master Developer agreement makes a favorable decision by the IDA a foregone
conclusion. What will happen if the IDA acts independently and
rejects Petrocelli’s old school corporate blackmail? King rooms in his
Hyatt hotel run $600 daily during the high season. Presumably the price
will be higher in the more fashionable Peconic hotel and he hardly needs the
extra benefit to his profit line of tax forgiveness subsidized by taxpayers and
the school system.
There are some operational questions that I hope you can
answer at this meeting:
1. When and why did the
Town agree to substitution of extra luxury hotel rooms for
condominiums? Why did you give preference to eighteen transient
seasonal hotel rooms over provision of twelve long term upper end housing
units with parking?
2. Are you still giving
parking places for out of town hotel guests priority over local clients
for the Suffolk Theater, Maximus Gym, Robert James Salon and Goldbergs who
will face long walks with limited lighting.
3. How do you practically
avoid traffic disrupting U turns on East Main Street by hotel guests
coming from the east and north?
My larger conceptual questions remain:
1) Have you asked Mr.
Petrocelli to construct a model so that you can fairly evaluate the impact
of a five story hotel on the historic Suffolk Theater and East End Arts
Council buildings?
2) Have you honestly
considered whether removing the hotel from the Town Square better honors
“furtherance of the goal to create a public gathering space with
pedestrian connectivity and open vistas from Main Street to the Peconic
River”?
3) Are you uncomfortable
that no bid contracts and insider dealing create the appearance of a
Riverhead version of the corruption in Washington associated with the
destruction of the East Wing of the White House, the construction of a new
ball room and the reflecting pool debacle?
I have little hope that the carry-on members who dominate
the Board will change their minds about this out of control project. But
I do encourage the Supervisor to recall his skepticism about the hotel when he
was a candidate. Voters in November may consider attitudes about
diminution of the Town Square relevant to their choice.
John McAuliff
Riverhead Watch
Rolling Woods
The evolving and growing
hotel
April 2022
August 2025
August 2026
the Master Developer Agreement for the Town Square, which
propose the construction of a five (5)-story 69,738 sq. ft. gross floor area 94-room hotel, which includes retail
spaces, a restaurant, cafe, hotel common spaces and amenities, as well as nine (9) parking stalls on
the lowest level,
********************************************
Message to an IDA member
August 2, 2026
There is nothing on the IDA website or the Town posting of
meetings about an IDA session on August 3 or an agenda. Aren’t both required
for an official meeting of a public agency?
I did review the video record and all I can find is that on
December 16, 2025 when the IDA accepted a resolution to approve the
Petrocelli application In the words of the chair, “It’s simply accepting
the application; and the resolution clearly states that we are not making any
determinations or approvals at this point in time. Simply that we are
going to engage in reviewing the application.” Another member
said that there had been agreement, presumably, in private discussion, to bring
them in “as soon as practicable so they can review the most recent plan…to hear
the latest … so maybe we’ll try to do that at the next meeting.”
However, in the only three subsequent meetings (January,
February and March of 2026) there is no reference to the Petrocelli
application. Is it fair to conclude that no action has taken place of any
kind?
Given the seriousness of the issues involved, I assume the
IDA will take up the Petrocelli application with rigorous due diligence and
will consider:
1) Procedural
problems: no bid contract, inside deal, limited transparency, lack
of public consultation about use of half of the town square for a hotel
2) Long term irreversible
impact on the architecture and character of downtown
3) Alienation of public
parkland for private profit
4)The cost of the project ($35.1 million) and of tax forgiveness (sales and use tax, mortgage recording tax and real property tax exemptions with a Payment in Lieu of Taxes)
5) The effect on the school
budget
6) Impact on community
housing stock of turning 12 condominiums into 18 transient hotel rooms
7) Damage to existing
businesses of denying convenient parking to their established clientele in
order to satisfy hotel requirements
8) Financial viability and
funding of the project with or without IDA subsidy
I look forward to learning on Monday or at a subsequent
meeting how IDA plans to proceed.
**************************
Facebook post from Doug Young of Wading River
This proposal raises serious questions about transparency, fairness, and whether Riverhead is following its own rules — and residents deserve straight answers.
No competitive process. For a project of this scale, the Town should have issued a Request for Proposals. A competitive RFP protects taxpayers and helps ensure the best possible outcome for the community. Bypassing that process isn't a technicality — it's a choice.
Public resources, private benefit. This project receives public subsidies and depends on the Town's public parking garage to support its operations. Infrastructure built with taxpayer dollars should serve the public broadly, not function as a built-in advantage for a single private development — one that already holds the dominant market position for hotels in this area.
Ethics questions that deserve answers.
New York State campaign finance records show that Petrocelli-related entities contributed approximately $11,600 to Riverhead Town Board members, former officials, and the Riverhead Republican Committee between 2005 and 2025.
Under Riverhead's own Code of Ethics, when an elected official receives more than $1,000 in campaign contributions from a person or entity with business before the Town, disclosure — and in some cases recusal — is required before participating in any related official action.
The public record shows:
Former Councilwoman Jodi Giglio exceeded the $1,000 threshold across multiple campaign cycles
Tim Hubbard received $1,750 from Petrocelli-related entities in a single campaign
Kenneth Rothwell received $1,000 from HP East End Riverhead LLC during the 2024 election cycle
Whether any of these circumstances triggered a disclosure or recusal obligation is a question for the Town Ethics Board. But residents deserve to know whether those requirements were met — and whether any required disclosures appear anywhere on the public record.
You can review the campaign finance data yourself (Made by B. Carroll):
One more thing. I was also disappointed that the lone Democrat on the Town Board did not vote against this proposal/resolution. Ethics and accountability aren't partisan issues. When public money is on the table, when the competitive process was skipped, and when the ethics code may have been implicated, every member of the board has a responsibility to ask hard questions — regardless of party.
Transparency isn't optional. It's the baseline expectation for public office.
For those who've suggested I run: the answer is no. There are people with direct municipal administration experience who would be far better suited. What I can do is keep asking questions and making the public record easier to read.
It matters who you vote for. Vote.
***********************************
More pictures and analysis
The Greenport alternative
https://tinyurl.com/newtownsquare
Full
Submission for June 10 hearing on Peconic Hotel
by John McAuliff
It will not surprise you that I urge the Town Board to reject
Mr. Petrocelli’s special permit and site plan applications.My skepticism has only increased as we arrive
at this penultimate stage.I have come
to think of this hotel as Riverhead’s version of the Trump ballroom, too big,
too flashy and an insult to our heritage. The destruction of Craft’d is
not as consequential as the demolition of the East Wing, but the arrogant
spirit is analogous.
There are two reasons I urge you to stop this runaway train:
1)The
process that brings us to tonight has been badly flawed
2)The hotel
will have a terrible impact on the Town Square and downtown Riverhead
First, I have detailed in my submission to the Master
Developer Qualified and Eligible hearing and the eminent domain hearing for
Craft’d, the four year process in which the board and the director of
development decided without real public discussion the key question of whether
the people of Riverhead, instead of “open vistas from Main Street to the
Peconic River”, wanted another five story box separating Main Street from
the Peconic River.Suffice to say, a
hotel was not part of, in fact contrary to, the extensive civic discussions of
the Pattern Book and the Comprehensive Plan.
Although not legally required, it is significant that at no
stage was a public competitive bid process utilized.Instead insiders talked to insiders.By the time decisions were made, the hotel
was presented as a fait accompli justified by the advice of a hired
consultant.The closed system of one
party small town politics made a significant campaign donor the only game in
town.Tonight we will be told that the
agenda is narrow and implementational.The public may raise deeper questions, but there is little reason to
believe they will be heard or affect the decision.
The expressed goal in resolution 399 adopted on August 4,
2020, was “creation of a public gathering space with pedestrian connectivity
and open vistas from Main Street to the Peconic River, together with
encouragement and pursuit of private financing, public and private
partnership(s), federal, state and local funding, subsidies and capital grants
to design and construct commercial and retail uses compatible with public space
all consistent with the urban renewal policies and goals recited above”.
There was no hint of a hotel in the resolution or of
reselling part of the land until after Mr. Petrocelli proposed informally his
two building hotel and condo project fifteen months later, October 18,
2021. It is clear from the original town announcement seven months
earlier, March 22, 2021, and even from the first description by the director of
development six months after Petrocelli’s proposal, April 14, 2022, that the
Sigal Craft’d building would be modified but not replaced. The town square was
initially conceived as a singular concept to provide open vistas with several
public and potentially private functions within it. The argument
that was later introduced of hotel rooms being the most remunerative private
space made the assumption that the goal was financial gain, even if that were
at the cost of public utility. If that choice was debated
privately, the public was not informed.
Second, the character of the hotel has evolved.In 2022 it was to be four stories, compatible
with the pattern book.Then it became
five stories with 76 hotel rooms and twelve condominiums on the top floor. At least condominiums brought the benefit of
upper range housing for long term downtown residents. Instead they have added 18
rooms for additional transient visitors.
The hotel takes as much space as the Town Square, it will
occupy 18,480 square feet vs 19,939 sq ft for the town square. Its
five modern stories overwhelm and dominate the three story art deco Suffolk
Theater.It hides the historic 19th
century buildings of the East End Arts Council and blocks sunlight to its
galleries.The amphitheater will not be
visible from Main Street.
“Parking for
guests/patrons will be provided at designated offsite location(s) in accordance
with the Master Developer Agreement. These spaces will be located behind the
Suffolk Theater and eventually be carried over to the First Street Parking
Garage once the garage is completed”
Presumably those are reserved spaces. Will they be
located right behind the theater or at the far end of the lot, the north and
west sections? Who has priority for convenience, the patrons of the
Suffolk, Maximus Gym, Robert James Salon and Goldberg’s deli or transient hotel
visitors?
Hotel guests coming directly from the LIE will line up at
the hotel entrance on the south side of Main Street, hopefully without needing
to double park.Folks coming from the
east via routes 105 and 25, or coming south on Roanoke who are required to turn
east before Main Street, will be driving west and have to make a U turn across
traffic to access the hotel.
The premise that a luxury hotel with a fancy restaurant will
lead many families to stay in town after a visit to the aquarium is
dubious.The Science Center that the Board is also
determined to destroy for private profit provides a far better motive to walk
down Main Street.An East End Arts
Council whose historic buildings are not hidden between Summerwind and the
hotel is also a bigger aesthetic draw.Local
restaurants are hoping that hotel clients will become their customers, but Mr.
Petrocelli is not likely to welcome that loss of business from in house facilities.
And there is also a legal question.Mr. Russo tonight referred several times to
the hotel adjoining the “town park”.He
is correct with the clear implication that the property where the hotel is
being built was taken from the same town park.That should require special procedures under New York State law about
the alienation of public park land to private owners.
Finally, there is a different path still available if you
have the vision and courage to take it.I asked to show slides just as did proponents for the hotel but was
denied equal opportunity.So the best I
can do is show this expensive color print.(attached below for the record)
My point is that as a rank amateur I was able to create with
ChatGPT attractive alternatives for a Town Square without a hotel that is far
more resident friendly.I suspect that
if you polled the people of Riverhead, many would prefer that option, which
corresponds better to the original goal, “open vistas from Main Street to the
Peconic River”
Submitted by John McAuliff, Roanoke Landing, Riverhead
Riverhead Watchjmcauliff@gmail.com
For
additional reference
“Underlying Problems of the Town Square Hotel”
Responses to October 23, 2025 Town Board Work Session
Denunciation of Critics
“Submissions to the Q & E for Joseph Petrocelli”https://saveepcal.blogspot.com/2025/08/submissions-on-q-e-for-petrocelli.html
Appendix of
three pictures with annotation
This is as close as I could come to the existing features on
ChatGPT.Proportions are wrong and the
buildings are notional but it provides a good sense of community space..
This is a more imaginative version produced by ChatGPT
This is the current Petrocelli plan.Note that the three story art deco Suffolk
Theater is completely overshadowed by the massive modern five story hotel box and
the historic buildings of the East End Arts Council are hidden.The amphitheater will not be visible from
Main Street.
Study the pictures and decide which best illustrates
the kind of Town Square most appropriate as a permanent defining fixture of
Riverhead.Tell the Town Board how you
feel.The Supervisor announced the hearing
record will remain open until June 20th, but to be safe send your
e-mail submission by Friday, June 19th.
Produced by ChatGPT.Images are conceptual, including of the
Science Center, the Arts Council and the Suffolk Theater. Proportions are wrong, but this approach offers
a community oriented alternative to using public land for private profit.Tell the Board and the Master Developer the
kind of Town Square you want before it’s too late. Townclerk@townofriverheadny.gov
Riverhead Watch jmcauliff@gmail.com
Other concepts
The current Board/Petrocelli design
Suffolk Theater and Town Square overwhelmed!
East End Arts Council historic buildings hidden!
For more
visuals and the Greenport alternative, click here https://tinyurl.com/newtownsquare
Sign the petition with QRL code or here https://www.change.org/rejecthotelsubsidy
