1)In 2017 over one thousand environmentally
sensitive acres were added to a proposed sale of 600 acres to Luminati
Corporation, owned by the late Daniel Preston, absent significant public discussion
by the 100% partisan but divided Town Board.The new contract also included two massive runways that had not
previously been a part of the deal.There
was no increase to the $40,000,000 sale price. After Mr. Preston’s resume and financial
backing were exposed as fictitious, he abandoned Riverhead, leaving behind
debts and unfulfilled commitments.
2) The Ghermezian
family operating through corporate entities of Triple Five suddenly appeared, taking
advantage of the special deal given to Mr.Preston in a contract approved at the final meeting of that Board.Although purporting to follow Preston’s
development plan and make use of his reputed scientific expertise, Triple Five marginalized
him as a 25% non-voting partner in CAT and to avoid further embarrassment paid
his debt to the town. The original corporate structure for the development
group was replaced without a new letter of intent.
3)The next Board’s 3-2 partisan majority decided
that CAT was Qualified and Eligible to purchase EPCAL without public financial
disclosure because Triple Five is privately owned by the Ghermezian family, the
75% partner. (2018-2019)
4)The majority depended on the vote of a Board
member who had met privately in New York with representatives of the Ghermezian
family.Our appeal to the Town Ethics
Committee to require her recusal based on conflict of interest failed on the
grounds that a Riverhead Board member was not constrained by State hearing
ethics guidelines
5)The partisan majority refused to consider the
history of the Ghermezian family in alleged corruption in Las Vegas, its hard
ball politics in a Miami mall project and massive political donations in New
Jersey to obtain permission under Governor Christie to build the American Dream
mall west of the Hudson River.
6)The successor even more partisan 4-1 Board
(2020-2021) and the Riverhead Chamber of Commerce gave credulity to two Israeli
companies introduced by the Ghermezians that would solve their financial and
technological development problems.These companies also were discredited and have completely disappeared
from further discussions.
7)The previous one sided and current single
party Town Board (2022-2023) would not address seriously the financial crisis
facing the Ghermezians because of the debacle and deep indebtedness of the
American Dream mall.Board members have accepted
uncritically over the past six years CAT’s rationalization of the separation of
Triple Five linked corporations controlled by the family and thus of any negative
financial impact on EPCAL’s future development.They ignored the alleged criminality of a family company’s sale of counterfeit
chemically dangerous sanitizers during covid.
8)Rather than exercise its authority to
terminate a contract disparaged by the supervisor herself, in an effort to
circumvent DEC permit regulations the current Town Board concocted a leasing
scheme to turn over its authority to the Riverhead Industrial Development
Agency.The inherent problems in that
arrangement are outlined in opinion pieces by EPCAL Watch Board members Angela
De Vito and Andrew Leven cited below(Full disclosure:both are
candidates in the November town election.)
9)After six years of promoting its intention to
create high paying aerospace and technology jobs, "the Silicon Valley of the
East Coast", the Ghermezians’ representatives revealed in a presentation
to the RIDA that the real development plan (as also seen on an earlier
"unauthorized" design) is an air cargo distribution hub with
10,000,000 square feet of warehousing along the two runways left by
Grumman.
10)The Town Board’s tolerance of the
Ghermezians’ diversions and misrepresentations through CAT has prevented any
ability to act on behalf of the taxpayers and seek other projects and
developers for EPCAL and to encourage more creative and positive thinking about
use of an irreplaceable natural resource.
11) The most recent RIDA Board meeting revealed
that its governance committee met in January and in March of 2023 to review the
CAT application for RIDA benefits.This
was done behind closed doors and without the full RIDA board involved in its
discussions.
156 Youngs Avenue
Riverhead, New York 11901
631.369.8237
13 March 2023
Riverhead
Town Industrial Development Agency
200
Howell Avenue
Riverhead,
New York 11901
Dear
Chairman Farley and Members of the RIDA Board,
The redevelopment of EPCAL stands to be
the most transformative project for the Town of Riverhead and possibly for the
East End region. On occasion, when faced with complex issues or
trailblazing policies, our Town officials have provided a platform for dialog
with residents, to provide information, answer questions and receive valuable
input. The success of past efforts to engage constituents is the reason
EPCAL Watch is reaching out to you as members of the Riverhead Industrial
Development Agency.
We understand
your tentative approval process includes a public hearing on a proposed
inducement resolution should one be offered. The importance of the unique
and unprecedented task you have been given cannot be overstated; the input and
concerns of the community should not be marginalized and left to the end of
your process when you hold the public hearing. Therefore, we are proposing a
forum like the ones the Town has held on the transfer of EPCAL from the CDA to
the IDA, the water forum, and the cannabis forum.
Given the tremendous success of those fora,
EPCAL Watch Coalition respectfully requests that RIDA organize and sponsor a
similar interactive public forum as soon as possible to collect and exchange
information, and to promote awareness, understanding and transparency of the
process. Most importantly, the public will have an opportunity to
understand your approach to discharging this incredibly important
responsibility on behalf of the people of the Town of Riverhead. We ask that you give this
request serious consideration and would appreciate a response in the next week
or two either accepting or rejecting our proposal.
Regards,
Rex Farr, Coordinator
cc: Board of Directors, Riverhead Town Community
Development Agency
Community Development Administrator Dawn
Thomas
Tracy Stark RIDA Executive Director
Riverhead Town Clerk
*******************************
EPCAL WATCH COALITION
156 Youngs Avenueriverhead,
new York 11901631.369.8237
22 March 2023
Michael Caplice, LI Regional Director
NYS OSC
State Office Building, Suites 4A-8A
250 Veterans’ Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11788
RE:Riverhead IDA Taking
on an Impossible Task
Dear Mr. Caplice:
In September
2022, the Riverhead IDA (RIDA) accepted a joint application from the Riverhead
Community Development Agency (the Town) and the potential purchaser of land at
EPCAL--the land had been gifted by the US Navy to the Town in the late 90’s for
economic development.The would-be
purchaser is Calverton Aviation Technology (CAT), one of the hundreds of LLCs
created by the Ghermezian family; the sale involves 1600+ acres--
600 developable acres with 2 runways, and 1000 environmentally protected acres--all
for the sum of $40 million.
Quick recap
because this is complicated.I will try
to keep it simple.The sales contract,
signed in 2018, required the Town to file an 8-lot subdivision of the EPCAL
land.When, by May 2020, they had not
been able to do so, even though the contract allowed them to terminate the
ill-fated deal with the Ghermezians, the Town chose not to, and instead they
kept trying to get the DEC permit that was needed for the subdivision.
So why couldn’t
the Town get the DEC permit it needed?Primarily because CAT’s development plan was too vague and hypothetical
to be able to tell if it was consistent with the SEQRA studies that had been
done for the EPCAL land, and there was no requisite comprehensive habitat
protection plan for the environmentally protected acreage CAT was trying to buy.No permit meant no subdivision which meant no
sale. Stalemate!
Instead of
demanding a definitive development plan from CAT so the permit could be
obtained, the Town came up with the bright idea to shift the headache to the
RIDA--this they did by filing a joint application with CAT to the RIDA in March
2022.
The scheme is
supposed to work like this.If the RIDA
decides to give the requested tax breaks to CAT, the Town will transfer title
to the EPCAL land to the RIDA, and the RIDA will then
lease the land to CAT for its development project.Bingo, when that happens the Town gets its 40
million dollars--no need for that pesky subdivision approval.CAT will start building on the leased land
and somewhere down the line--we don’t know when--CAT will get the subdivision
approved and will then receive title to the property from the RIDA.
Sounds perfect,
doesn’t it?But will it work?It shouldn’t if the RIDA follows its normal
procedures.The RIDA, as everyone knows,
is in the business of granting tax relief to the developers who can show they
will bring projects to the Town that will advance job opportunity, health,
prosperity and economic welfare for the residents.The developer normally comes to the RIDA with
all its ducks in a row--an approved site plan, all needed zoning variances and
approvals, all required permits and a completed SEQRA review of the
project.The RIDA then looks at the
estimated capital costs and the projected number of jobs and completes a cost
benefit analysis to determine if the project warrants the tax exemptions the
developer is seeking.
The problem in
this case is that CAT has no approved site plan, no zoning approvals, no
required permits and no completed SEQRA review.In fact, the project they described in their presentation to the RIDA is
completely different from the state-of-the-art innovative aeronautics and
technology center with supportive industries that they have been touting since
2018.Just this past September though,
CAT came clean and told the RIDA the project is for nearly 10 million square
feet of warehouses and a cargo airport using both runways.A cargo airport, however, is not permitted
under current zoning and has never been studied for its environmental impact
under SEQRA.In fact, the Town’s latest
environmental study, which the RIDA says it’s bound by, specifically states
that the property would not be used for cargo or freight!Add to that the further complication of how
CAT gets water and sewer permits for land that has not been subdivided.And for sure, it can’t start building without
an approved site plan which it also does not have.Nor has a comprehensive habitat protection plan
been approved.
These
deficiencies are just the tip of the iceberg to demonstrate what an impossible
task the RIDA has undertaken.The RIDA
is not equipped to assess nor should it be considering this “project” in this
its larval stage.It is patently
premature to be considering tax abatements at this time.The Town, not the RIDA, is responsible for
overseeing development of the land at EPCAL that was gifted to Riverhead for
economic development.In fact, the
section of the Town’s zoning code dealing specifically with the land at EPCAL
(Sections 301-339) says the development of lands there “shall
require the submission of a site plan application…subject to Town Board site
plan approval.”
Clearly, given
the posture of this deal, the RIDA should bow out at this time and deny tax
inducements for this project.If and
when a site plan has been approved, all necessary permits and variances
obtained, and a SEQRA study completed for a cargo airport, then CAT can come
back to the RIDA.But for now, this
project is not ready for consideration for tax abatements by the RIDA.
On Behalf of the EPCAL Watch Coalition,
Rex Farr
EPCAL Watch Coalition Coordinator
****************************
Riverhead has a leadership problem
Rendering of CAT's phase 1A development by CAT's architect BLD Architecture.
Riverhead has a fundamental problem that affects all of its residents: Those who are supposed to protect the public routinely don’t. With real consequences.
To see how that harms the many, one need look no further than how close our town is to badly damaging the value of most people’s biggest asset; their homes. We are at the precipice of having a jet cargo airport at EPCAL with the largest runway in the Northeast. Without being told what it will look like, how it will operate, or who will own it. And this is being done to us by our own government.
If this goes through, at least 50 existing homes could be rendered virtually uninhabitable. The market value of hundreds (and likely thousands) more will see their market value reduced. And virtually everyone living in Riverhead is at risk in various ways and to varying degrees of being negatively impacted.
For property owners, the possibilities are stark. While many factors affect noise levels, there are some commonly accepted ideas about planes. Going five miles out in any direction from EPCAL, homeowners can expect to endure jet cargo planes at 1,500 feet of altitude or less, at noise levels ranging from running a vacuum cleaner in the next room to living 50 feet away from the Long Island Expressway. This will be worse at night, because that is when noise is often heard even more clearly.
Some of the thousands of residents who live close to EPCAL (and under the most likely flightpaths) won’t mind. Others will mind a lot. But all of them will be damaged, because (as noted by the US Air Force) at noise levels lower than what we can reasonably expect from cargo jets at 1,500 feet, one out of five people are “highly annoyed” and for some, the noise will actually interfere with the ability to speak to each other. Meaning – among other things – that when a resident wants to sell their home the pool of potential buyers will likely be reduced by at least a fifth and, while they are trying to sell it, the owners may actually find it hard to talk to each other on their own property.
That could explain why the FAA says noise levels lower than those that will likely be experienced in thousands of local homes are “generally incompatible with residential land uses.” Otherwise stated, EPCAL could render many homes in Riverhead incompatible with being a home.
Faced with this quality-of-life cliff, one would expect our government to be actively and vigorously looking out for our interests. Yet the opposite seems to be happening.
Despite being possibly weeks, or even days, away from approval, the approving authorities will not tell us:
Whether EPCAL will or will not be a jet cargo airport. On that score, at some points in the process the answer has been “no.” Then “maybe.” Now, apparently, “yes.”
Who will own it?
What else will be built there? One million feet of additional warehousing? Or is 10 million? We have seen both figures.
What will this look like regarding traffic, site infrastructure (roads, wells, septic, toxic waste clean-up), and environmental issues (multiple endangered species live on the EPCAL site)?
Will the developer actually raise the money to actually build, or instead simply tie up our town’s use of the site for more years.
Despite all of this, the town has actually joined the developer’s application. To make matters worse, the town has manipulated the approval process to circumvent basic requirements that exist to protect us.
Land-use issues are complex, and those raised by EPCAL perhaps even more so. For that reason, let me plainly state that I do not here impugn the motives of any individual public official – elected or appointed – connected with the EPCAL approval process. This is not a criticism about individual people.
But at some point actions (and inactions) have consequences, and results matter. EPCAL is a symptom of a deeper malaise experienced by many communities. Including ours. Which is that we are at a point where we cannot trust our leaders to lead. At least, not behind closed doors. Where decisions like EPCAL that directly impact us are being made.
There is another way. A fusion slate of three registered Democrats and two Republicans has been put together by the Democratic Party for the November elections. I am one of the Republicans. I joined the ticket because it is not about being red or blue. It is about reclaiming Riverhead using common sense drawn from both sides, and not the ideology of one party or the other. With a simple goal: to protect those who live here by stopping.
EPCAL and stopping uncontrolled overdevelopment throughout the town — as well as addressing the wide range of other issues that will determine whether we will retain our unique strengths as a community.
Andrew Leven is a former career federal prosecutor. He lives in Riverhead.
Editor’s note: Leven is a candidate for Riverhead Town Board, running for a council seat on the Democratic line.
Instead of cutting through the tangled web they and their predecessors got us into at EPCAL with the Ghermezians and the late Daniel Preston, the Town Board, in a cowardly move, washed their hands of the mess and dumped it into the lap of the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency (IDA). By doing so, they put the IDA in an impossible situation; the IDA needs to extricate itself by saying no to tax inducements — that will put the ball back where it belongs: in the hands of the Town Board. Then the board can and must exercise its right to walk away from this ill-fated deal.
A quick recap because this long dragged-out debacle is complicated. Way back in 2018, the town signed a contract to sell to Calverton Aviation and Technology (CAT) land at EPCAL : 600+ developable acres with two exceptional runways, and 1,000 environmentally protected acres, all for the embarrassingly low sum of $40 million. That contract required the town to file an eight-lot property subdivision and secure a NYSDEC Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act (WSRR) permit.
By May 2020, the town had yet to get the subdivision approved and even though the contract allowed the town to terminate the deal, the Town Board chose not to, and instead kept trying to get the permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation that it needed for approval of the proposed subdivision. Bad idea. They should have walked fast and far away from this deal.
So why couldn’t the town get the WSRR permit it needed? The NYS DEC deemed the application incomplete. Objections from DEC included:
Deficiencies in the town’s Comprehensive Habitat Protection Plan;
Deficiencies in the town’s SEQRA consistency analysis;
And the town’s failure to get SWCA to consent to the Riverhead Water District supplying water to the site.
No permit meant no subdivision — which meant no sale. STALEMATE!
The town then came up with the bright idea to shift the headache to the IDA. In March 2022 the town (CDA) and CAT filed a joint application for IDA benefits.
The scheme is supposed to work like this. If the IDA decides to go ahead with the requested tax breaks, the town transfers its land at EPCAL to the IDA. The IDA then leases come of the land to CAT for its development project and the rest back to the town. BINGO! When that happens the town gets its $40 million —no need for that pesky subdivision approval. CAT will start building on the leased land and somewhere down the line — we do not know when — CAT will get the subdivision approval and will then receive title to the property from the IDA.
Sounds perfect, doesn’t it? But will it work? Absolutely not if the IDA follows its normal procedures. The IDA, as we all know, is in the business of granting tax relief to developers who can show they have the ability to bring projects to Riverhead that advance job opportunity, health, prosperity and economic welfare for the residents. The developer usually comes to the IDA with all its ducks in a row — an approved site plan, all needed zoning variances and approvals, all required permits, and a completed SEQRA review of the project. The IDA then looks at the estimated capital costs of the project, the developer’s ability to finance the project and the projected number of jobs for both construction and operations. The IDA does a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the project’s benefits to the residents of Riverhead warrant the tax exemptions sought by the developer.
The problem with this particular application is that CAT has no approved site plan, no zoning approvals, no required permits and no completed SEQRA review. In fact the project described by CAT during their presentation to the IDA in 2022 is completely different from the state-of-the-art innovative aeronautics and technology center with supportive industries touted since 2017. Just this past September, CAT came clean and told the IDA its project is for a combination of 10 million square feet of “distribution centers” (not your traditional warehouses) and “flex” buildings as well as an “air cargo hub” using both runways.
Well, hello! A cargo airport is not permitted under current zoning and has never been studied under SEQRA for its environmental impacts. In fact, the Town’s latest environmental study, which the IDA says it is bound by, specifically states that the property would not be used for cargo or freight.
Add to that the further complication of how CAT will ever get water and sewer permits for land that has not been subdivided. How can CAT start construction without an approved site plan — and a comprehensive habitat protection plan that has yet to be approved.
This just scrapes the tip of the iceberg in an effort to show what an impossible task the IDA has undertaken. The IDA is not equipped to assess, nor should it be considering, this “project” in this its larval stage. It is simply premature to be considering tax abatements at this time.
Our town, not the IDA, is responsible for overseeing development of the EPCAL lands that were gifted to us for economic development. In fact, the section of the town’s zoning code dealing specifically with the land at EPCAL (Sections 301-339) says the development of lands there
“… shall require the submission of a site plan application… subject to the Town Board site plan approval.”
Clearly, the IDA should bow out and say no to tax inducements for this project, which it cannot consider anyway because it is not defined or approved. To do otherwise flies in the face of IDA practices and procedures; it puts the IDA at risk of an audit by the Office of the State Comptroller.
The town’s elected and past Republican Town Board officials are responsible for this horrible deal with CAT. For these reasons, the IDA should just say no. And when the IDA does so, the town, under the terms of its agreement with CAT, has the right to walk away free and clear — and that’s exactly what must be done. The people of Riverhead do not want a cargo airport supporting mammoth distribution centers at EPCAL.
Angela DeVito is the Democratic candidate for Town Supervisor. She lives in South Jamesport.
156 Youngs Avenueriverhead,
new York 11901631.369.8237
April 14, 2023
Riverhead Industrial Development Agency
542 East Main Street, Suite 1
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE:Joint CDA/CAT LLC RIDA Application
Dear Chairman Farley, Members of the
Board and Ms. Tracy Stark-James,
The Riverhead Industrial Development
Agency (RIDA) has begun its due diligence on whether to grant an authorizing
resolution that will enable Calverton Aviation and Technology (CAT) to construct
an air cargo distribution hub and mega warehouses at EPCAL.However, we are deeply concerned that RIDA
has already compromised its professional standards and ability to evaluate
objectively the town's controversial deal with CAT.
As reported in the Riverhead Local on
April 8, 2023,
The Riverhead Industrial Development
Agency told its independent auditors, Jones, Little & Co. CPAs, that the
Calverton Aviation & Technology project “has ananticipated closing
date of October 2023,” according to the audited financial statements
prepared by the auditors and filed with the Riverhead Town Clerk on March 31.
In your own audit letter’s bureaucratic
language
Management has analyzed the results of
the Agency for the year ended December 31, 2022, which was a decrease in net
position. As such, Management has prepared a going concern evaluation
subsequent to year ended December 31, 2022. Included in the evaluation are
deposits of $150,000 received in February 2023 from a project [CAT] that has an
anticipated closing date of October 2023; $41,000 for a project closing;
and $20,200 for normal course of business fees (i.e., annual compliance fees,
late charges). Management has indicated that the Agency is also in discussions
for another potential project closing by the year ending December 31, 2023.
Based upon a prudent budget for the year ending December 31, 2023, and a period
thereafter, we believe the Agency will continue as a going concern.
Your projected closing date is just
before an election that could turn on citizens' views about whether they
believe this deal is good for the town as well as about the impact of an air cargo distribution
hub and mega warehouses on their own quality of life and property values.
In addition to foreshadowing that a
decision has already been made so that the evaluation process you are
undertaking is only for show, the audit letter reveals a serious conflict of
interest.
It appears that RIDA is projecting
receipt of up to $662,500 in fees from this very controversial deal to finance
its own budget.In fact, the audit
letter implies that RIDA will not be able to remain in operation without the
income generated by approval.
How can RIDA make an objective judgement
about this complicated and unprecedented application if influenced by its need
to survive financially?
We hope there are explanations for the
language in your audit letter that can be provided in the public forum about
how RIDA intends to evaluate the proposal from the Riverhead CDA and the
Ghermezian family, as I was assured will occur by Ms. Stark in two phone
conversations.
In order to address disquiet among
citizens of Riverhead and to meet its obligations under NY State open
government laws, rules and regulations to engage the public to the
greatest degree feasible in this deliberative process, can you
schedule and announce the date of the forum in the near future?
From the beginning, we have had serious
doubt about the legality, propriety and viability of the unprecedented burden
thrust upon RIDA by the Town Board to avoid its own responsibility to terminate
an unfulfilled, one-sided and ill drafted contract.As a result of the latest revelations, we are
asking State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, State Attorney General Letitia James
and the Open Government Committee of the Department of State to examine how
elected and appointed officials of Riverhead are carrying out their responsibility
for governance and protection of the public interest regarding EPCAL.
Sincerely,
Reginald Farr
Coordinator
EPCAL Watch Coalition
cc:Riverhead Town
Supervisor
Members of
the Board/CDA of Riverhead
Thomas
DiNapoli, New York State Controller
Letitia
James, New York State Attorney General
Shoshanah
Bewlay, Executive Director, NYS Committee on Open Government
EPCAL WATCH COALITION
156 Youngs Avenueriverhead,
new York 11901631.369.8237
May 31, 2023
Yvette Aguiar,
Riverhead Supervisor
Members of the Town
Board
Dear Supervisor Aguiar
and Town Board Members,
When the Navy
gave the land at EPCAL to the Town of Riverhead, the Town became responsible
for its development. This property is the largest industrial subdividable tract
in the Northeast and it has been identified by the State of New York in a
Special Act as being a uniquely important urban development area. There are a
lot of eyes on EPCAL.
CAT’s
September 20, 2022 presentation to the IDA depicted a cargo airport and massive
distribution center with the potential to generate a volume of air and truck
traffic never before experienced in Calverton. The project was crystal clear,
the public was paying attention, and we all now know that the Town has a
seriously flawed SEQRA (State
Environmental Quality Review Act) record on this matter.
The Town as
Lead Agency should not let the IDA move forward with an inducement resolution
before it corrects the deficient record.A Lead Agency can reopen SEQRA at any time if there is new information,
a change in regulatory circumstances, or significant modification to a project
even after Findings have been adopted. The current CAT proposal checks all the
boxes for when a Supplemental EIS is warranted.
As it now
stands, the existing SEQRA study is based on an environmental assessment form
(FEAF) which was signed by Sean Walter for a 50-lot subdivision in 2013.A Final Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (FSGEIS) was completed and adopted on March 15, 2016, by the
Town Board.The Findings Statement was
adopted on July 19, 2016.The IDA was not
an Involved Agency in that SEQRA review; the IDA was never even mentioned in
the FSGEIS.
Thereafter,
because the contract with CAT required an 8-lot subdivision, not the 50-lot
subdivision that was studied in the FSGEIS, a Consistency Analysis was done
April 1, 2019, by Jeffrey Seeman which was adopted by the Planning Board on May
16, 2019.The analysis was updated on
March 25, 2020, and then again on October 12, 2020 but neither was formally
adopted by any Board nor accepted by the DEC.
All these
documents together constitute the work the Town has done on the project that is
now pending before the IDA for consideration of an inducement resolution.For a plethora of reasons, this SEQRA record
remains patently inadequate.
First,
although the IDA is now currently faced with a discretionary decision, they
were not part of the SEQRA process as an Involved Agency.The socio-economic section of the EIS only
examined impacts at full taxable rates; thus, the projected property tax
revenues in the study represented a benefit the community expected.
Second, the
use of the runways for cargo planes was never studied in the SEQRA
process.Clearly, from CAT’s marketing
report and plan presented to the IDA, CAT intends to move and extend the
taxiways, and use both runways for cargo planes.Yet, such use was specifically cited in the
October 2020 Consistency Analysis Update (p. 15) as a use that would not be
happening according to CAT’s counsel and representatives.In fact, that update says that, while
aviation use is permitted on the property, such use is subject to restrictions
in the PD Zoning District.Further, the
10,000 foot runway which is for accessory use of the tenants/owners in the PIP,
is subject to Airpark Rules passed by the Town on April 19, 2007 controlling
the operation and use of that runway.The increase in aviation activity as a result of the reactivation of the
7000 foot runway was never studied in SEQRA, and relocation of the runways will
directly impact areas identified as prime habitat protection areas including
grasslands and woodlands.
Third, the
traffic analysis in the completed SEQRA was not modeled using logistics,
distribution warehouse figures because, as stated in the October 2020
Consistency Analysis, CAT had represented the property would not be used for
cargo or freight operations; rather, the runways and buildings were to be used
for aviation technology companies for new and innovative aerospace design of
aircraft, electric and solar related avionics. Clearly there was no study
whatsoever done of the kind of cargo/freight operation described and pictured
in CAT’s presentation to the IDA. The intense truck traffic generated by nearly
9 million sq. ft. of cross-docking distribution buildings was never evaluated.
Further, there is no consideration of the cumulative impacts from the multiple
logistics warehouse projects currently pending in Calverton outside of EPCAL.
And finally,
the Town is now aware that the Navy has discovered additional contamination on
parts of the property being sold to CAT.An investigation is commencing into the nature and extent of the
contamination which will determine remediation protocols.This critical piece of information, along
with all the other deficiencies noted above, dictates the need for the Town—the
entity ultimately responsible for the disposition and use of this property—to
reopen SEQRA.
There is now
a site-specific development plan which is not supported by the SFGEIS.CAT must demonstrate that the project is
within the thresholds and complies with the conditions set forth in the adopted
Findings Statements.
The Town
Board as Lead Agency must take this opportunity to reopen SEQRA and get it
right before it allows the IDA to move forward on the Town’s joint application
with CAT.Failure to do so leaves this
Town vulnerable to legal challenges and would be a gross dereliction of your fiduciary
responsibility to the community.
Thank you for
your consideration and action on these concerns.
Sincerely,
Reginald
Farr
Coordinator
cc:James Farley, Chair, Riverhead Industrial
Development Agency, and Board Members
Tracy
Stark-James, Executive Director, Riverhead Industrial Development Agency
Dawn
Thomas, Executive Director, Riverhead Community Development Agency
Erik Howard, Riverhead Town Attorney
EPCAL WATCH COALITION
156 Youngs Avenueriverhead,
new York 11901631.369.8237
June
15, 2023
James
Farley, Chairman
Tracy
Stark-James, Executive Director
Dear
Mr. Farley, Ms. Stark-James and members of the Riverhead IDA,
On
March 13, EPCAL Watch sent a letter to the IDA that included this request:
“The importance of the unique and
unprecedented task you have been given cannot be overstated; the input and
concerns of the community should not be marginalized and left to the end of
your process when you hold the public hearing. Therefore, we are proposing a
forum like the ones the Town has held on the transfer of EPCAL from the CDA to
the IDA, the water forum, and the cannabis forum.
Given the tremendous success of those
fora, EPCAL Watch Coalition respectfully requests that RIDA organize and
sponsor a similar interactive public forum as soon as possible to collect and
exchange information, and to promote awareness, understanding and transparency
of the process. Most importantly, the public will have an opportunity to
understand your approach to discharging this incredibly important
responsibility on behalf of the people of the Town of Riverhead.”
One
month later on April 14, we wrote to you again, containing this reminder:
In order to address disquiet among
citizens of Riverhead and to meet its obligations under NY State open
government laws, rules and regulations to engage the public to the
greatest degree feasible in this deliberative process, can you
schedule and announce the date of the forum in the near future?
We
never received a written response to either letter.
Despite
two verbal assurances from Ms. Stark that our requested forum would take place,
we were told informally in conjunction with your last
public meeting on June 5 that the IDA is not likely to host a public
informational meeting about your process with an open dialogue format.The presentation by CAT at the Hotel Indigo
was obviously not what had been proposed and what we thought had been agreed to
and was not an acceptable nor an effective substitute.
In an effort to respond to our request, Vice
Chairwoman Pipczynski indicated informally on June 5 that she would explore
with the Board and its counsel the possibility of putting some “meat on the
bones” of the “Tentative Approval Process” posted on the IDA’s website.There was also a brief discussion of the
possibility of EPCAL Watch submitting questions to
the Board in writing.
Please send written acknowledgement of this
letter and the representations contained herein and advise as to your official
disposition of our ongoing request for a public forum on the IDA evaluation
process of the CAT/CDA joint application.
EPCAL Watch remains fully engaged in the
proceedings and transactions of the IDA on the CAT/CDA joint application and we
expect transparency to the fullest extent of the law.
An essential minimum is that the IDA should add
to the agenda of its monthly public meetings a substantive update about what
has transpired during the previous month regarding EPCAL, so the public is
cognizant in real time of the process leading up to your recommendations.
