October 23, 2025 Town Board Work Session Denounces Critics
https://riverheadny.portal.civicclerk.com/event/143/media from 23:00
Response from Kathleen McGraw
October 24, 2025
To the Town Board:
I just watched your work session of October 23rd, and I take personal
offense at supervisor Hubbard's comments about the public response to the
Board’s action taking the 127 East Main resolution off the floor at the October
21st Town Board meeting. Without naming me, but clearly identifying me, as I had
just written an opinion piece in the local press, Mr. Hubbard stated that it’s
such a disservice when somebody writes to one of the local media outlets and
they say things that are not true. He went on to say all it does is confuse
people and one should be truthful in what you say.
Nothing I wrote in my opinion piece was untrue. The point of my piece was that you, the Town
Board did a disservice to the people of Riverhead by taking that resolution off
the floor with no notice whatsoever to the public. The resolution itself was not even available at
the meeting for those present to look at it. My opinion piece was aimed solely at your
refusal to even try to comply with the NY Open Meetings Law. It had nothing to do with the merits of the
Town Square project.
At the work session, Mr. Howard disingenuously tried to argue that the
resolution did not authorize the demolition at 127 East Main. Sure a demolition permit has to be issued,
but that is a ministerial act that could not be done without passing Resolution
894. At the Town Board meeting, you
even announced the demolition date to be October 30th.
You cannot tell me this controversial resolution could not have been
made a part of the agenda, at a minimum, a day before the Town Board meeting.
You all talked at the meeting about how this prepossession agreement was all
known and worked out in the master development agreement. Nothing new to see
here. Then why wasn’t the resolution on the agenda?
The Open Meetings law states, as I am sure Mr. Howard knows:
- Agency records available to the public pursuant to article six of
this chapter, as well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation, policy
or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject of discussion by a
public body during an open meeting shall be made available, upon request
therefor, to the extent practicable at least twenty-four hours prior to the
meeting during which the records will be discussed.
I am confident this resolution could have been made available 24 hours
before the meeting. And if it couldn't have been, it should have been postponed
to the next meeting.
You passed the resolution behind our backs. Process matters. The open
Meetings Law matters and you owe it to the public to comply with that law. You
didn't like my saying that publicly but I had the right to say it and my opinion
piece was not misleading nor was anything in it untrue.
Kathleen McGraw
Northville
******************
Response from Denise Civiletti
Oct 26, 2025
"Here we go with the gaslighting again"
click here
https://riverheadlocal.com/2025/10/26/here-we-go-with-the-gaslighting-again/
*************
Response from John McAuliff
November 2, 2025
Dear Supervisor and Board Members,
At your work session on October 23 you devoted ten minutes to criticism of my
intervention at the last board meeting and subsequent media coverage (without mentioning names), dismissed
as “confusion and misstated facts”. I would normally prefer to address
you directly and request equal time. However, we will be in a car driving
back from Virginia when you are in session on November 6th. I will try to
connect but the internet signal will be unreliable and background noise
distracting.
One party governments live in bubbles of unchallenged assumptions and are
uncomfortable when a different perspective intrudes. We are seeing that
at a national level with graver consequences for our democracy. The destruction of the historic East Wing of
the White House without any respect for procedure or public notice, was
scandalous. The demolition of the eighty
year old Sigal building at 127 East Main Street is not as significant. It was forewarned by board action, but still not
very well known in the community. However, some
of the same psychological dynamic of self-righteousness may be present in
Riverhead, influenced by the national malaise.
As a very accomplished attorney, Mr. Howard finds a narrow legal justification
for what took place when the resolution was taken off the floor. He is
correct that it was not a demolition permit, but the “prepossession agreement” was
a necessary step to get to a demolition permit, so in effect the same
thing. He is also correct that there are references to leasing in the
agreement with the Master Developer. However, content in a dense legal
document is not at the forefront of public awareness. I never said it was
not legal, but did question whether it was appropriate to handle in this way.
Given that the authority and need was
so well known to the attorney’s office and the board, the implementing language
would more naturally have simply been incorporated with the other resolutions
published on the agenda. Taking a resolution off the floor means that
there is no advance notice to the public and should be reserved for emergencies
and fixing inconsequential errors. If you simply forgot, waiting 16 days to
the coming board meeting would have had no material consequence but would have
shown greater respect.
A prepossession leasing agreement that
allows for demolition of the leased property seems odd on its face. What would happen if for some other reason (like
failure to obtain funding), the purchase could not go through? Post-lease would the building have been
restored?
Some people will suspect an ulterior
motive. Throughout a four year process,
the board and the director of development have decided without real public
discussion the decisive question of whether the people of Riverhead, instead of “open vistas from Main Street to the Peconic
River”, want
another five story building separating Main Street from the Peconic River,
taking about a third of town owned land, and overwhelming what's left of the
town square, the Suffolk Theater, the amphitheater and the East End Arts
Council. (Below is the history of limited consultation I
submitted for the Qualified and Eligible hearing.)
There was surprise and public unhappiness at the forced closure of CRAFT'D by
eminent domain. Moving to demolition of the eighty year old Sigal Building was
the next step. Announcing your intention with a published resolution could have
attracted opposition by bringing home reality. Taking the resolution off
the floor created suspicion the Board was trying to "slip one by", to
avoid controversy in the run-up to the election.
It was only due to the Supervisor's helpful explanation that anyone in the room
or watching on-line had any idea what the resolution was about. Had I not
spoken out, its significance for advancing the hotel project would have been
ignored.
I don't know whether there is any parliamentary procedure or open government state
regulation that controls when and how a resolution can be taken off the
floor. But I can say that a copy of the resolution, presumably prepared
in advance, was not attached to the agenda distributed at the entrance or on
line, offered to those present, or even placed on the separating barrier.
When was it written and by whom? Was
that legal or appropriate, sloppy or disingenuous?
By bringing a stealth resolution to
the attention of a wider public, I may have thrown sand in your gears, but it
was the essence of good citizenship both for process and content. The Supervisor may see speaking truth to
power as a “disservice…to say things that are not true…and all it does is
confuse people.” There are national
analogies in how discomfort expressed at administration actions is attacked as ‘fake
news’.
My perspective on the parkland
question is more debatable and I don’t doubt that Mr. Howard is well grounded
in his legal interpretation.
It appears that the board deliberately
did not describe the town square as park land.
But the language Mr. Howard cites from Resolution 399 of “public
gathering space with pedestrian connectivity with vistas from Main Street to
the Peconic River” sure sounds like parkland. Mr. Rothwell articulated the motive
to call them municipal properties so the alienation of land from public to
private use would not face procedural obstacles under state law. But a town square is inherently a kind of
park and not the same thing as a town hall.
The fact that there was a building
and potential commercial ventures within the space does not change that. Many parks contain structures and
private-public partnerships.
This nomenclature issue captures the
nub of the question. Is the town square
in essence a community resource or is it an attribute for a private profit-making
enterprise or can it be both? When the
town purchased the land on East Main Street, the reason given for using local
and state funding, including from the Old Drinking Water Protection Program
12-D and an $800,000 grant through Long Island Regional Economic Development was
for the public good.
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 building would be modified but not replaced. (see highlighted
text below) 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. An underlying intent of park-like usage seems
to apply when the land was purchased with public funds, even if not formally
declared.
This language is from the “Handbook on
the Alienation and Conversion of Municipal Parkland, Revised September 1, 2017,
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation htttps://parks.ny.gov/documents/publications/alienationhandbook2017.pdf
“In order to convey
parkland away, or to use parkland for another purpose, a municipality must
receive prior authorization from the State in the form of legislation
enacted by the New York State Legislature and approved by the Governor. ...
Implied dedication is
shown by actions or declarations by a local government that are unmistakable in
their purpose and decisive in their character as to intent to dedicate land for
use as parkland. Examples include a municipality publicly announcing its
intention to purchase the land specifically for use as a park, “master
planning” for recreational purposes, budgeting for park purposes,
“mapping” land as parkland, accepting State or Federal park grant funds, or
constructing recreational facilities….
State or Federal funding provided for acquisition or development–at any
time in the park’s history may have created a legal obligation to obtain an
alienation bill, provide substitute parkland or obtain approval from the State
Comptroller and Attorney General.
This is the warning provided:
Obtaining a parkland alienation bill can be complex and time consuming. A
municipality should begin work on an alienation proposal as early as possible,
long before the State legislative session starts. ...
A municipality that chooses to forgo the alienation legislation process,
may find itself defending an expensive, avoidable lawsuit. ...
This is from the OFFICE OF THE NEW
YORK STATE COMPTROLLER, 2014-MS-5 Parkland Alienation https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/local-government/audits/2017-11/lgsa-audit-swr-2015-Parkland-global.pdf
“Municipally owned parkland and open space are nonrenewable resources
which should be carefully preserved in all communities. In New York State,
parkland cannot be sold, leased, exchanged or used for non-park purposes
without authorization from the Legislature. Municipalities must seek the
Legislature’s approval to alienate public parkland based on the core legal
basis called the “public trust doctrine.” Otherwise, it would be tempting for
municipalities to view parkland as a fiscal resource that can be sold or
leased to raise money or used for other government uses to avoid paying for
private land….
* Parkland can either be dedicated for park purposes through a formal
action or through implied dedication (based on how the land is used, i.e.,
a playground, or land mapped as a park for planning purposes).”
The hotel/condo is not simply a
replacement for the Sigal building. It
actually takes public land away from the rest of the town square park: 5,280 additional
square feet
- A 14 by 200 foot portion of the presently undeveloped town square green space
adjacent to and west of the building
- A 14 by 20 foot portion of the presently undeveloped town square green space
- A 10 by 220 foot portion of the
property at 133 East Main East End Arts Council campus
It is correct that a two story building obstructs a view of the
river. However, it is obvious that a
five story building has a greater impact on the overall vista looking from the
Suffolk Theater or other places on Main Street.
My original purpose was to maintain a lesser obstruction by CRAFT’D and
the historical Sigal building, even if the façade had been modernized. The western brick wall of the building, like
the eastern brick wall of the Science Center building could have been opened
and adapted to town square purposes.
However, by demolishing the Sigal building you have created another
option which goes closer to the fundamental and repeated goal of the town
square, “open vistas from Main Street to the Peconic River”. Now you can leave the space free of any
construction to provide a wider clear view of the river and a green carpet
leading to the amphitheater with the opportunity for larger audiences seated on
the grass. That will also amplify the
visibility of the attractive historic East End Arts Council buildings rather
than shutting them in between two five story buildings.
How can you square “open vistas” with the construction of a new 76 room
hotel plus 12 condos? All you have to do
is look at the architect’s rendering below to visualize how far from the
original goal you have gone without any authorization from the people of
Riverhead.
Sincerely,
John McAuliff
Coordinator, Riverhead Watch
The Suffolk
Theater is in the center about two stories lower than the proposed hotel on the
right. The planned science center is to
the left with the diminished town square in between. The East End Arts Council is hidden between
the hotel and the new Summerwind Square apartments.
==================================
Excerpt from my submission for the Qualified and Eligible
hearing. Note that Q & E was
approved before the deadline for submissions. full text https://tinyurl.com/submissionsTS
As debatable as the hotel itself is,
the way it came about is at least as disturbing. A March 22, 2021 press release, "Riverhead
Seeks Public Participation in Town Square Design Process", announced,
"The buildings located at 117 and 121 East Main Street will be demolished,
while 127 East Main Street would remain in place, although it will be
extensively renovated." However "at or near the time of
[its]completion of the demolition of the structures located at 117 and 121
[October 18, 2021], Petrocelli Development...expressed interest and desire to
develop and present a plan for the public space, reuse and redevelopment of
127."
After meetings with the Community Development Agency and the Town Board,
"in early February of 2022, Petrocelli Development presented a more formal
plan to the Town Board and Community Development Agency". Where and
when was that presentation made? Are there minutes or any other
documentation or recording?
None of these meetings appear to have
been reported in the media and no request for proposals was issued to seek
alternative concepts and budgets. Instead two months later on April 14,
2022, Petrocelli made a warmly received presentation to a Board work
session. Five days later, the resolution quoted above was presented to
the Town Board and unanimously adopted to designate Petrocelli as the Master
Developer. At that point he was proposing a four story hotel and
additional buildings to the west abutting the Science Center and a four story
condominium on the waterfront.
After three years of additional behind the scenes discussions, the Board
adopted on July 1, 2025, a resolution to hold a qualified and eligible hearing
on July 22d, only three weeks later in the middle of summer. The Master
Developer Agreement with Petrocelli was 36 pages plus 94 pages of detailed
planning documents and agreements covering the hotel construction as well as
the Town Square Gathering/Upper Deck, Town Square Playground/Lower Deck, and
the East End Arts/Ampitheater Projects. The hotel had grown to five
stories with condominiums but the two additional buildings to the west were not
mentioned.
Mr. Petrocelli and Ms. Thomas
can be commended for a substantial professional presentation. Legally it
was not required to invite other proposals although that would have been a more
transparent process. Unfortunately they and the Town Board made no
serious effort to find out whether or not the people of Riverhead actually
wanted to sell town owned land and use part of the Square for a third
Petrocelli hotel.
At my request, the Assistant
Town Attorney and Development Director provided a compilation of videos related
to the development of the Town Square. I did not watch every minute and
could have missed important spots.
There is no trace of discussion of a
hotel in the Pattern Book published January 12, 2021. In fact, the second
largest threat to downtown Riverhead was reported from a survey to be "new
buildings are too massive". Almost twice as many people said
"no more housing is needed" than favored "more for sale town
houses and condominiums". The only reference to hotels in the new
Comprehensive Plan was to promote the discredited agrotourism resort.
Mentions of the Town Square were largely to the opening of space and vistas
between Main Street and the River and included nothing about a hotel as part of
the Square.
I found no significant discussion of a hotel in the Town Square until after Mr.
Petrocelli proposed it. His four story version becomes part of the
UDA Activization contract. However, in the work on Activization, there is
no record of community discussions as took place for the Pattern Book.
On April 14, 2022, Dawn Thomas's presentation to
the Comprehensive Plan Update Community Meeting describes the origin of the
Town Square idea in the Pattern Book, the $800,000 grant for planning and
property acquisition and the bonded purchase of property. She states clearly that Craft'd will
remain at 127 East Main. She speaks of the unsolicited proposal from
Petrocelli that resulted in his presentation to the Town Board
"today". She provides an overview, and mentions public-private
partnership, but says absolutely nothing about a hotel.
During that meeting, there is a later slide reference to reuse of buildings on
Route 58 for "Hotels and micro apartments (least favored)".
Later a slide is shown of "Draft Goals Statement for the Comprehensive
Plan Update". The seventh and last goal is "provide for
more hotel, affordable housing, townhouses and parking solutions".
When a member of the public asked for clarification of the hotel bullet
point, Mr. Murphee said we are looking at a boutique hotel for the Town Square
area. One participant wanted the bullet point to specify "more
hotels in downtown". There was no additional discussion of a hotel
in the Town Square.
After meeting with Mr. Petrocelli, the Board bought his hotel idea and there
was obvious engagement of planners and architects. There were work
sessions and Board resolutions. I found no public documentation about
when and why the hotel grew from four stories to five. Was there ever a
broad community discussion that I overlooked about whether or not to add a
hotel to the Town Square, similar to the well attended session that discussed
the amphitheater and playground area?
Mr. Petrocelli has contributed
substantially to the reconstruction of downtown Riverhead, most notably the
aquarium and his two adjacent hotels. His projects have received
tax benefits, although presumably they are profitable. The Master
Developer agreement stipulates he will apply to the IDA for "a PILOT
payment, escalation and term acceptable to Master Developer in its sole but
reasonable, discretion" with the threat that failure to get the PILOT
agreement, "will have a material adverse impact on the economics of the
transactions."
There is a tone of inside dealing in
the process. The primary actors have such familiarity and respect for
each other that they made unwarranted assumptions without adequate public
consultation.
***********************************
On-line recording of the Referenced Board meeting
https://riverheadny.portal.civicclerk.com/event/21/media
28:30
Mr Rothwell moves to take off the floor an unannounced resolution, a
prepossession and lease agreement. Supervisor Hubbard
and the Town Attorney explain it is to enable Mr. Petrocelli to proceed with
demolition of the 127 building. In response to my questions, they affirm the
land will still belong to the town and insist it does not fall under public park
requirements. At 34:20 Hubbard says demolition is planned for October
30 weather permitting.
55:44 I begin my public comments with the hope that the
election in one year will provide more public access to candidates and dialog
between them. Until about 1:00 I appeal to the Supervisor to delay the
demolition until after the election when the people of Riverhead can express
an opinion by their votes about local government and what they want to happen
about the demolition and construction of a hotel. His and Ms. Waski's reaction
is negative and hostile.
