Town Board Attacks Critics

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. Petroelli 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.