Monday, November 18, 2019

How Much Land is Developable


Question of developable land at EPCAL remains unanswered: lawyer
By
 -
 Mar 18, 2019, 11:08 am
https://i0.wp.com/riverheadlocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019_0318_epcal_map_dec_redlined_large.jpg?resize=640%2C375&quality=100&ssl=1A subdivision sketch prepared by the town was marked up by DEC staff in 2012 to show areas that could be developed. Courtesy photo: Town of Riverhead
The portion of 1,643 acres being sold by the town to a Triple Five Group affiliate that’s actually developable won’t be known until long after the deal has closed, Riverhead Town’s special counsel told the town board last week.
Riverhead Town’s decision to sell that much vacant land at the Calverton Enterprise Park for $40 million triggered controversy from the moment it was announced in March 2017.
Until that point, the town was attempting to market less than half that amount of land and had entertained at least two offers for roughly the same amount.
The decision two years ago to pursue a sale of nearly all the town’s remaining vacant acreage to Luminati Aerospace for the same price was defended by former supervisor Sean Walter with the argument that state environmental regulations would not allow for the development of more than 600.
To support his contention, Walter produced a copy of the subdivision map prepared by the town’s engineering consultants that DEC staff had “red-lined” in 2012 to indicate areas they considered developable. Conveying the undevelopable acreage to the buyer would relieve the town of responsibility for the remaining vacant land, Walter said at the time. He said the cost of “mowing the grass” on the vacant land could be as much as $100,000 a year.
The town’s special counsel Frank Isler, who has been working on the deal since the town board unanimously authorized the letter of intent with Luminati Aerospace on April 4, 2017, told board members Thursday the State Department of Environmental Conservation has never given the town any sort of official determination of what areas of the former Grumman site can be developed.
And Isler told board members the town shouldn’t expect the DEC to formally weigh in on that question in the future.
“When can we expect to get a definitive answer from the DEC on how many acres of land is developable?” Councilman Tim Hubbard asked Isler at the board’s Thursday work session.
“You will not get a decision in this process at all from the DEC on that question,” Isler told him.
“The DEC is only going to look at [the state Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act] permit for the subdivision,” Isler explained, “nothing to do with the development of the property at all.”
The town board, sitting as the board of the Riverhead Community Development Agency, which holds title to the EPCAL site, has amended a prior 50-lot subdivision application it filed with the Riverhead planning board in 2014. The new application seeks to divide the land into just eight lots, three of which would be transferred to Calverton Aviation and Technology pursuant to its purchase agreement with the CDA.
“After we sell the property the applicant will have to come in with a site plan application and will have to show the DEC they’re not proposing to build in sensitive areas regarding habitat,” Isler said.
“They’re going to have to get approval or blessing from the DEC, more likely than not, they’ll have to get a taking permit from the DEC,” he said, referring to a new permit requirement under ‘incidental take’ regulations adopted by the DEC in 2010 aimed at enhancing protection of endangered and threatened species.
Isler said he attended a meeting at the DEC “a year or so ago” with the prospective purchaser.
The DEC told the purchasers development is going to depend on where they want to place their development, Isler said.
“We [the town] had placed it where they knew there was going to be impact, so we had to come up with a plan to preserve areas for habitat,” Isler said. “They have a blank slate right now,” he said.
“So that will drive how much development and where the development will be. Whatever they do in terms of development there and wherever it goes, they’re going to have to go through SEQRA on whatever application they submit,” Isler said, referring to the process of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
“You won’t know where or how much is being developed until we’re no longer owning the property,” Isler told town board members.
The closing is not contingent on any future approvals, Isler noted.
Purchaser Calverton Aviation and Technology — successor to Luminati Aerospace in the deal — is currently in a second, 90-day “due diligence” period allowed by the contract of sale.
CAT has until May 20 to give the town notice it will proceed with the purchase. If it notifies the town it intends to proceed, the town has one year from the date of notice to file the amended subdivision map. To be able to do so, the town needs approvals of the subdivision from the Riverhead planning board and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, as well as a permit from the DEC under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act (because a portion of the site is within the WSRR boundary.)
Supervisor Laura Jens-Smith said the town has been been working on the subdivision map revision since before CAT signed the purchase agreement in November. Town planners have been doing a “consistency analysis,” comparing the revised map with the original 50-lot map to determine whether the previous SEQRA environmental analysis is sufficient to cover the new application.
The revised maps were to be submitted to the Riverhead planning board Thursday, Isler said. The application is on the planning board’s March 21 agenda for discussion, he said.
The town will file an application with the Suffolk County health department next month as soon as it concludes SEQRA review, planning administrator Jefferson Murphree told the board.
Meanwhile the town has been moving forward with upgrade and expansion plans for the Calverton sewage treatment plant. The town board has scheduled a March 19 hearing on more than $3 million of additional borrowing required to fund the cost of the upgrade, which has gone up since the town first authorized more than $7 million in bonds 10 years ago to cover a portion of the cost. It has obtained state and county grants to underwrite the project.
The length of time it will take to obtain the required health department approval is unknown and out of the town’s control, officials said.
If the health department grants the town an exemption because of the large size of the eight proposed lots, the application will be expedited, Isler said.
“If we have to go through a full review it’s anybody’s guess,” he cautioned. “It will likely be five months or more. The DEC permit will take five or six months,” Isler said.
Jens-Smith asked if the approvals could be wrapped up by the fall.
“If the stars line up,” Isler answered.
There is a scandal buried in the previous Republican Town Board's gift of 1,000 additional acres for the same price to Luminati, then to CAT. The Republican majority of the current Board has perpetuated the scandal.

The contract must be voided based on its history and its content. At a minimum, it must be divested of the 1,000 acres.

If the Ghermezians hid from the Board the adjudicated real estate fraud of their principal representative, they clearly did not have the integrity to be qualified and eligible. They should be required to explain what they knew and when they knew it before the deal goes forward.

Luminati and Triple Five were a match made in heaven.

Wake up Riverhead before we become a subsidiary of the Ghermezians.

EPCALwatch@gmail.com


Town attorney outlines next steps in EPCAL sale to Calverton Aviation & Technology
by Tim Gannon |
03/15/2019 6:00 AM
·          

·          

·         Email
Calverton Aviation & Technology faces a May 20 deadline to decide if it will moving forward with the purchase of 1,643 acres of land from Riverhead Town for $40 million. After that, many of the next steps are up to the town, according to Frank Isler, the attorney representing the town on the Enterprise Park at Calverton sale.
Mr. Isler gave an update at Thursday’s Town Board work session on the steps needed for the EPCAL development.
After May 20, the town has one year from to get approval of an eight-lot subdivision of EPCAL, with three of those lots being sold to CAT.
The approval must be received from all the agencies involved, which would be the town Planning Board, town board, county health department and state Department of Environmental Conservation.
The DEC approval is only for permission to build in a section of the state’s Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, which limits development near the Peconic River, Mr. Isler said.
Mr. Isler said work on that subdivision has already begun, as papers are being filed with the Planning Board and the amended map will be introduced to the Planning Board at its work session next Thursday, at 3 p.m.
“We’ve been working on this since they signed the contract,” Supervisor Laura Jens-Smith said.
Mr. Isler said the Planning Board plans to vote to schedule a public hearing on the subdivision on its April 4 meeting, and that hearing would take place at the May 2 meeting.
If this all sounds familiar, it’s because the town and the Planning Board already went through subdivision hearing process several years ago when the officials were proposing a 50-lot subdivision, which was prior to CAT being involved.
That subdivision was never approved.
“We feel this should go fairly expeditiously because this is a lesser development plan,” Mr. Isler said of the eight-lot plan.
He said he hopes the Planning Board, on April 4, will also make a finding under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which will enable the application to go before the county health department as well.
The proposed upgrade and expansion of the Calverton Sewer District and of the Riverhead Water District to the EPCAL land also is needed, and these items will be before the Town Board.
CAT is currently in its second 90-day “due diligence period” on the property. The first once expired Feb. 20 and they requested another one, as permitted under the agreement with the town. In turn, CAT has made two $500,000 down payments on the property, which are being kept in escrow.
“When can we get a definitive answer from the DEC as to how many acres will be developable?” Councilman Tim Hubbard asked.
When the property was proposed for sale to a company called Suffolk County Industrial Development LLC, then-Supervisor Sean Walter said many times that the DEC would only allow about 600 acres of the EPCAL site to be developed.
But when he proposed to sell the land to Luminati Aerospace — which is currently a 20 percent owner of CAT, with Triple Five Group owning the rest — he proposed selling the whole 1,643 acres of undeveloped land that the town still owned.
Ms. Jens-Smith says the town has received no guidance from the state as to how many acres CAT can develop at EPCAL.
“You will not get a decision in this process from the DEC,” Mr. Isler said.
The DEC approval in this application is only to the WSRRA act, Mr. Isler said.
“That’s all they’re looking at,” he said. “It will have nothing to do with development of the property.”
After the property is sold, the applicant will need to go before the town for site plan approval and they will mostly likely have to show the DEC that they are not building in environmentally sensitive areas.
It’s possible they will need a “incidental take permit” from the DEC to allow development in areas where endangered or threatened species are located.
They also will likely need a SEQRA study, although some of it may have already been studied by the town’s SEQRA study, he said.
“You won’t know where or how much is being developed until we are no longer own the property,” Mr. Isler said.
Deputy Town Attorney Anne Marie Prudenti said any site plan approval will involve an analysis of whether the development plans are consistent with the town’s Reuse and Revitalization Plan for EPCAL.
“Even if all the other agencies find that it is consistent, it’s going to be this Town Board that has final say,” she said.

There is a scandal buried in the previous Republican Town Board's gift of 1,000 additional acres for the same price to Luminati, then to CAT. The Republican majority of the current Board has perpetuated the scandal.

The contract must be voided based on its history and its content. At a minimum, it must be divested of the 1,000 acres that were included under false pretenses as being undevelopable.

If the Ghermezians hid from the Board the adjudicated real estate fraud of their principal representative, they clearly did not have the integrity to be qualified and eligible. They should be required to explain what they knew and when they knew it before the deal goes forward.

Luminati and Triple Five were a match made in heaven.

Wake up Riverhead before we become a subsidiary of the Ghermezians.

EPCALwatch@gmail.com

How the 1000 Acres Were Added


Mr. Romano also wanted to know if there is a sale to Luminati if they would be purchasing the fifty-lot subdivision that the town’s been working on plus or just the subdivision. Supervisor Walter replied that the only developable property was the six hundred acres. He continued by saying the remaining property between the wetlands, the tiger salamanders, the pine barren and the rest of the property is not developable and the DEC is requiring a covenant on it. He said Luminati is just buying the six hundred acres and the two runways. Mr. Romano also wanted to know if the sale was successful what was the sale price and what is the town planning to do with the money. Supervisor Walter said the sale price was forty million dollars and the money, he hoped, will be going into a debt service account to pay the landfill debt. Laura Jens Smith wanted to know since Luminati is an existing tenant how that would affect the commission of Cushman and Wakefield. Supervisor Walter replied that they would receive the full commission. Ms. Smith also wanted to know about any extensions. Supervisor Walter said Luminati is putting down a half million dollars with a letter of intent. The town then has thirty days to negotiate a contract and then a total of ninety days for due diligence. If Luminati does continue with the contract they have to pay another half a million dollars. Since there are no extensions if Luminati should ask for an extension they would then have to pay another half a million dollars for that extension. Supervisor Walter also said Luminati would pay the two percent CPF Fund and the town will probably have to pay New York State transfer tax.
04.04.2017


Phil Barbato: “This is on those two resolutions however. Phil Barbato. I live at 211
Manor Lane, Jamesport. You’ve been deliberating mostly behind closed doors weeks now on the
intended deal to sell almost all of the remaining
EPCAL acreage to Luminati Aerospace.”
05.17.2017
Supervisor Walter: “Phil there’s nothing behind closed doors. In fact everything that has
to be in the public the public knows just about every aspect of this deal except the financing
which they’re going to know shortly. There’s nothing behind closed doors, everything is out in
the open.”
Phil Barbato: “Well perhaps you can answer the seven questions.’’
Supervisor Walter: “Good, let’s see if I can answer them.”
Phil Barbato: “On the surface selling all that land, an average of seventeen thousand
dollars per acre doesn’t sound like such a great deal for the town. My first question is exactly
what land is being sold and who is it being sold to?”
Supervisor Walter: “The land will be sold to I believe it’s going to be Luminati
Aerospace. I may not have the corporation name exactly. There’s not even six hundred acres
developable. The Town Board controls a hundred percent of the development and here’s where
the interesting part is for anybody that’s developing land. We did an Impact Statement and
we’ve always thrown that number, six hundred acres out there. It’s honestly not a real number.
When you get down to brass tacks it’s probably more like four hundred and fifty acres of land.
Irrespective of that we’ve drawn the line in the sand that there are six hundred acres developable.
We have studied and this is where people are really going off the deep end with. Do you know
what six hundred acres developable means out in Calverton? Do you know how big that is? I’m
going to tell you. You don’t know because you probably haven’t read the impact statement, ten
million square feet. The original Hauppauge Industrial Park was just about ten million square
feet. Do you know how many employees? You didn’t read the impact statement, I get it, ten
thousand employees. So anybody that thinks that anybody in Calverton or Wading River wants
to see ten thousand employees in ten million square feet is off their rocker. It’s never going to
happen. But we studied it, it’s never going to happen because if you had read the impact
statement you would know once you get above five thousand employees you would have to,
which is why housing component works for the traffic study, you would have to increase the size
of Middle Country Road to four lanes without the turning lanes and William Floyd Parkway to
six lanes. Folks, it ain’t never going to happen. You are never seeing ten million square feet, you
are never seeing ten thousand employees. We can just get off this six hundred acres but we have
to study something so we studied six hundred acres. I think I probably answered your question.”
Phil Barbato: “Are you saying that the way it’s zoned today that you could get ten
million square feet of develop?”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, read the impact statement. That’s what the impact statement
studied. That’s why you guys are all stuck on this six hundred acres and it’s a great Grumman
give away. I would never want to see them develop this six hundred which is why it’s more like
four hundred and fifty acres. And by the way, that’s why housing has to work there because any
environmental, you know what, any environmental groups don’t support housing at EPCAL do
you know what that’s the equivalent of? You need to have renewable energy. I don’t want a

05.17.2017 216
the factories are building whatever Luminati wants to build once they built them I would rather
have the three hundred employees live at EPCAL and not have to come out into Calverton and
Wading River too much. In fact, I bet a lot of people prefer they stay more in EPCAL. So to live,
work, play is exactly what every environmentalist, every study, every environmental study talks
about what we’ve designed and so everybody should just back off the six hundred acres because
the reality is the Town Board controls the zoning. The Town Board could always limit the
amount in the future; they could limit housing, they could increase things but you’re never going
to see it because it’s just not in the scheme of reality. We studied it.”
Phil Barbato: “But it is allowed.”
Supervisor Walter: “Did you hear what I said?”
Phil Barbato: “You said it’s allowed, it’s just never going to happen. You said it’s never
going to happen.”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, you would have to increase all construct, if you read the
impact statement which you clearly haven’t, all construction stops if you got to five thousand car
trip hours. So you could get to five thousand car trip hours and develop two hundred acres and
you’re done. DOT, we’ve said the DOT nothing else will happen until all those road
improvements are made which I don’t know I don’t see us moving William Floyd to six lanes.”
Phil Barbato: “All I’m looking at is what’s allowed on the books (inaudible).”
Supervisor Walter: “This is the point, I wish you and everybody else was looking at it.
You’re not looking at it.”
Phil Barbato: “The second part of my question is what is being sold and how is it zoned
today?”
Supervisor Walter: “It is zoned, if you look at our, it’s in the zoning schedule. The
zoning is on the books, look it up, you can look it up.”
Phil Barbato: “(inaudible) planned development. All twenty-three hundred acres is
planned development.”
Supervisor Walter: “Yes, Sir.”
Phil Barbato: “And all of those acres could be used.”
Supervisor Walter: “No, Sir.”
Phil Barbato: “For development.”
Supervisor Walter: “No, Sir.”
Phil Barbato: “Why not?”
05.17.2017 217
Supervisor Walter: “Not even close.”
Phil Barbato: “Why not?”
Supervisor Walter: “I don’t even think you’re hearing what I’m saying. You can only
develop.”
Phil Barbato: “I’m hearing what your saying but.”
Supervisor Walter: “But you’re not listening. Let me go back, I’m going to do it one
more time and then we’re going to move on. You can only develop six hundred. After you
figure out what you want to develop six hundred which you never could because you can’t have
that kind of density without the roads.”
Phil Barbato: “Why can’t you develop the whole thing if it’s all zoned for planned
development?”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, I just told you why.
Councilman Hubbard: “The DEC has shut down certain acreage up here it’s been
deemed not to be developed, that’s why.”
(inaudible)
Supervisor Walter: “I don’t understand why you don’t understand what I’m saying. Phil,
six hundred, that’s it, that’s the number. Ten million square feet
Phil Barbato: “If you can only develop six hundred why are you selling the rest?”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, let me talk to you about this because Councilman Hubbard
mentioned something. So when you look at the tiger salamander ponds on the property and we
have a map, I can bring it in here, you can look it up on line, the tiger salamander ponds, I think
they go out a thousand or fifteen hundred feet, it’s not for development. When you take into
consideration the thirty-five percent pine barrens that you can’t develop. When you take into
consider all the wetlands you can’t develop you really don’t have a lot of property. Those
concentric circles of all the areas that overlap in so many places, you’re hard pressed to find even
six hundred acres, hard pressed. I’d be stunned if you could ever develop six hundred acres.”
Phil Barbato: “So my follow up question, it’s actually one of my seven questions here is
why are you selling the rest of it if you can’t develop it and what.”
Supervisor Walter: “Let me answer the question.”
Phil Barbato: “And why are they interested in buying it. Why hasn’t the town
considered (inaudible).”
05.17.2017 218
Supervisor Walter: ‘You asked a question, let me answer it. You asked why are we going
to sell it? So, here’s the genius behind this and we’ll see how it comes out in the contract. Here’s
the genius behind this. When he buys the whole parcel, we’re going to put both parcels in the
sewer district so even though they’re not developable in theory they’re all going to be taxed in
the sewer district which is going to provide tremendous relief to the folks in the sewer district.”
Phil Barbato: “You’ll be in court the next day.”
Supervisor Walter: “It’s going to be part of the contract. Why will we be in court?”
Phil Barbato: “You’re taxing them for land that’s not developable.”
Supervisor Walter: “We’re putting the property in the sewer district. Now the reason he
wants to buy all the property and the real genius behind this, just mowing the grass is going to
cost the town almost a hundred thousand dollars a year and the environmental plan that we put in
play would require us to mow the grass to the tune of almost a hundred thousand dollars a year.
That doesn’t take care of all the other things the DEC wants done, that’s just mowing the grass.
So, when we turn the property over to him, whenever we do, you’re right he’s going to come
back on the sewer district but we’re going to put a lot of the property in the sewer district, we’re
going to get sewer taxes and we’re not going to pay a hundred thousand dollars a year to mow
the grass, he’s going to have to pay that. Oh, and by the way it goes all into the school taxes.
Taxes alone for vacant land just the way it sits, one point six million dollars, huge increase for
the tax rolls just for the vacant land. The school district should be very happy because they get
seventy percent of it.”
Phil Barbato: “They’re not going to seek and they’re not going to be granted any tax
exemptions?”
Supervisor Walter: “You can’t get tax abatements on, I shouldn’t say that because there
are some caveats but this IDA is not going to give them tax abatements on vacant land. The only
way he gets a tax abatements on vacant land there’s some very specific criteria and they’re not
going to meet them. So just the vacant land is one point six million. A million bucks is going to
the school district.”
Phil Barbato: “Is that something you put in the contract?
Supervisor Walter: “No, no, you can’t get it. The only way you can get the tax
abatements on vacant land is if you build some sort of mega complex in there and you roll it all
into pilot payment but just pure vacant land, no tax abatements, you can’t get them, it’s not legal.
So that’s a million dollars to the school district folks, that’s some tax relief.”
Phil Barbato: “That’s it, no tax relief is granted.”
Supervisor Walter: “You can’t get, Phil, you can’t get them, it’s not legal.”
05.17.2017 219
Phil Barbato: “Why hasn’t the town considered retaining ownership of those
undevelopable acres?”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, how does this apply to the resolution? There are two
resolutions about hiring attorneys, how does this apply?”
Phil Barbato: “You can make a beautiful park that you can use for the education of our
children and for the future of our town (inaudible).”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil is there anything else on the resolutions?”
Phil Barbato: “Yes.”
Supervisor Walter: “What else on the resolutions?”
Phil Barbato: “Ok, what is the status the long term lease between the town and the car
storage company, I think it was AIA? The lease is estimated to be fifty thousand dollars a year.
Does that transfer with the ownership?
Supervisor Walter: “No, the lease is up and we didn’t renew it. Phil, we’re taking
comments on the resolutions, please tie it to a resolution.”
Phil Barbato: “I would ask that these questions be presented to the two attorneys that
you’re hiring this week and that they incorporate this in their deliberations.”
Supervisor Walter: “Tie it to the resolutions please. You can come up afterwards.”
Phil Barbato: “I guess I’m getting a little close to the things that you don’t want to talk
about but I really want to get these on the record. How are the existing covenants and
restrictions on any and all parcels to become part of the contract? What are those covenants and
restrictions? Are there any pine barrens credits that go with this transfer of land, they’re worth
fifty thousand dollars an acre?”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, none of those questions have to do with the lawyers. Please
ask questions that pertain to the lawyers.”
Phil Barbato: “I would ask the lawyers to look into that wouldn’t you?”
Supervisor Walter: “After we adopt resolutions you can come back and discuss this for
five minutes. Do you have anything else on the resolutions?”
Phil Barbato: “Yes of course.”
Supervisor Walter: “On the resolutions? You haven’t make one.”
05.17.2017 220
Phil Barbato: “I’m asking you if you have asked these attorneys to ask these questions.
(Inaudible).”
Supervisor Walter: “Phil, questions on the resolutions please.”
Phil Barbato: “You really don’t want me to talk.”
Supervisor Walter: “I’m going to invite you back up, you’ll be last. Anyone else on
resolutions?”
John McAuliff: “John McAuliff from Jean Court in Rolling Woods. You’ve answered
part of it by saying there would be a later comment.”
Supervisor Walter: “Yes, do you have questions?”
John McAuliff: “Yes, I have one specific question. Looking at the letter of agreement and
wondering the implications on your contract responsibilities, in the letter of agreement, for the first
seven articles it’s only a reference to Luminati and then in the eighth article in the confidentiality
section, there’s a reference to Luminati and buyer. Maybe that’s just a technical meaning but?”
Supervisor Walter: “How does that tie into the resolutions?”
John McAuliff: “Well the questions is what, who are these lawyers negotiating with?”
Supervisor Walter: “Luminati.”
John McAuliff: “Well, who is the “and buyer”?”
Supervisor Walter: “Luminati is the buyer.”
John McAuliff: “Why is this language there, “and buyer”?
Supervisor Walter: “Sir, I’m going to invite you to come back up after the meeting but
we’re going to take up resolutions. Anything else on resolutions?”
John McAuliff: “No, I’ll be happy.”

John McAuliff spoke about the sale of property to Luminati. Mr. McAuliff said in the beginning Luminati assured everyone that they had no intention of putting housing on the property since that was not the purpose of the purchase. However, Mr. McAuliff added that the Supervisor said it is now an inherent part of the intention of Luminati to have housing on the property. Supervisor Walter said that information was incorrect adding that the zoning permits housing and the zoning was done pursuant to the SEQRA analysis which was done pursuant to all the different smart growth, live, work, play environments of the zoning. Mr. McAuliff said there is a lot of concern regarding housing on this property. Mr. McAuliff now stated that he is surprised of the lack of reference to e-mail correspondence being sent to the town regarding this matter. The Supervisor told Mr. McAuliff that correspondence does not go electronically to the Town Clerk and must be submitted by someone. Supervisor Walter asked Mr. McAuliff if he understood that there is no proposal to build housing at EPCAL. Mr. McAuliff said he understood that but people are very concerned because housing is not specifically prohibited in the letter of agreement. He concluded by saying ninetyfive percent are in favor of barring Luminati from having housing on the property being sold to them.
05.17.2017

Craig Dahlgren a resident of Calverton spoke about the land at EPCAL that was being sold to Luminati. He continued by saying Luminati is now being sold all of the developable and undevelopable land at EPCAL. Mr. Dahlgren added that approximately fifteen hundred acres of the land being sold is now wasted land since Luminati cannot develop it and the residents cannot use it since it will be posted property. Supervisor Walter responded by saying the cost of maintaining the undevelopable land is approximately a hundred to a hundred-fifty thousand dollars a year and that he’s has been trying to find environmental groups to give the fifteen hundred acres to but they want the town to pay them to take the land because of the cost of maintaining the property. Supervisor Walter added that the New York State DEC will not take the property and the Peconic Land Trust was interested in taking the property only if the town would continue to maintain the cost of the property
06.06.2017
https://www.townofriverheadny.gov/docview.aspx?doctype=minute&docid=20358


********************

Private correspondence

On May 3, 2019, 10:18 AM EDT jmcauliff@ffrd.org wrote:


It is gnawing at me that I can't find any record of an actual decision to increase the property being sold from 600 to 1,600 acres.  It is described one way in the Board minutes of April 4, 2017, and another in those of May 15th.  Did I miss something in the minutes of the intervening meetings?

Obviously, the contract is describing the expanded land.

One of our group thought the lots listed in the March 27 letter of intent were of the 1,600 acres.  If that is the case, Sean badly misled on April 4th.

Mr. Romano also wanted to know if there is a sale to Luminati if they would be purchasing the fifty-lot subdivision that the town�s been working on plus or just the subdivision. Supervisor Walter replied that the only developable property was the six hundred acres. He continued by saying the remaining property between the wetlands, the tiger salamanders, the pine barren and the rest of the property is not developable and the DEC is requiring a covenant on it. He said Luminati is just buying the six hundred acres and the two runways.
Is there any record prior to March 27 of the Board agreeing to sell 1,600 acres at the same price as 600?  Did Jodi and Tim vote for it?

John


I don’t have and can’t find the LOI so I am relying on the info John sent me that it is dated March 27, 2017 and that the following is a quote from the LOI. As I understand it, the Letter of Intent of March 27, 2017 is the first iteration of what the Town is selling Luminati. It states,

Fee simple interest in the property known as Enterprise Park at Calverton consisting  of the Developable Lots, Drainage Reserve Areas, Open Spaces/Habitat Protection Areas, Roadways, and Runway Lots as shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Property"). It is the current intention of Luminati that Buyer will purchase the Property as a single lot or a minor subdivision into two lots if required because Berman Boulevard bisects the Property. Excluded from the Property are the areas labeled Lots 21, 42, 45, 46, 48, and 49 on Exhibit A and Berman Boulevard.

I assume exhibit A was the 50 lot subdivision. So according to this LOI the sale was to be all the land on that map except lots 21, 42, 45, 46, 48 and 49. Those excluded lots were a total of 445.5 acres which means the LOI was for the sale of 1661.7 acres right from the gitgo.

Thereafter as John points out Sean made many arguably misleading statements. He repeatedly says Luminati is buying the developable property which is 600 acres.  What he fails to say is they are actually buying a lot more of the property which was designated undevelopable on the subdivide map. Clearly Sean intentionally muddied the waters as to the number of acres being sold but one must return to the LOI in which the sale is 1661.  

I believe Sean’s BS in subsequent meetings is responsible for everyone thinking the sale went from 600 to 1600 acres but the LOI John quoted to me was for 1661 acres.  


Kathy  5/4/19



Hi John,

This is a perfect example of why verbatim minutes are absolutely essential. How can we know that this summary of who said what is accurate? 

You can ask the town clerk for the video DVD or audio CD of this meeting.

I can only refer to my own notes and the story I wrote about the April 4, 2017 meeting: https://riverheadlocal.com/2017/04/05/town-moves-forward-negotiation-luminati/ In that story I wrote, "Riverhead Town will sign a letter of intent to sell nearly all of its remaining acreage inside the Calverton Enterprise Park to Luminati Aerospace and begin the negotiation of a formal contract of sale."

Tim Gannon's report is nearly identical to mine. He wrote: "The Riverhead Town Board on Tuesday unanimously authorized the signing of a letter of intent to sell most of the remaining town-owned land at the Enterprise Park at Calverton, including both runways, to Luminati Aerospace LLC for $40 million."

Neither of us reported that Sean said Luminati was buying only 600 acres, as indicated in the "minutes."

In fact, it was my understanding from the week prior to the April 4 meeting that the town and Luminati had a deal to sell almost all of the town's remaining land. 

On March 27, 2017, then-candidate Laura Jens-Smith held a press conference at which she said there were rumors the town was going to sell all the land to Luminati. I had not previously heard that. I contacted Sean Walter and Preston's PR guy after Laura's press conference.  I was granted an interview with Preston the next day, March 28. During that interview, Preston told me he needed "the whole airport."

I published this story about that interview on March 29.  In it, I said the letter of intent was for nearly all the town's remaining acreage and I initially quoted that number as 2,100 acres (provided by the town). I amended that later, with an editor's note, for consistency in the hope of minimizing lingering confusion around this issue.

The letter of intent itself does not quote a number of acres. It has the town's 50-lot subdivision map attached to it and it said in the letter of intent that five town-owned lots on that map were excluded from the proposed sale. Those five lots add up to 157 acres, according to the map key. There were other areas excluded from the sale, such as the Navy-owned lot, Grumman Blvd. etc. In any event, the LOI contemplated the sale of at least the 1644 acres spelled out in the purchase agreement.

The vote to approve the letter of intent (taken at the CDA meeting of April 4, 2017) was indeed unanimous. (Giglio and Hubbard voted yes.)

Interesting note: the CDA minutes look like they are verbatim. Without a recording to compare it to, we can't tell for sure. Here's the link: https://www.townofriverheadny.gov/docview.aspx?doctype=minute&docid=20572 

Jodi had some questions about the bike path.

The answer to your question, when did 600 morph into 1,600 acres? I'd say the best answer is: "When Daniel Preston told Sean Walter he needed the whole airport," as he said to me on March 28, 2017.

Sean seems to have been so taken by Daniel Preston that he was willing to give him whatever he asked for, do whatever Preston needed. That's based on my observations of Sean's actual behavior. 

I only know that Cushman and Wakefield was marketing roughly 600 acres — 45 of the 50 lots delineated on the subdivision map. That's what Suffolk Industrial and Lincoln Equities were bidding on in the fall of 2016, before, apparently, Preston decided he needed "the whole airport" for his grand plans. By that time, his Fortune 250 investor had long since ended its LOI with Preston and much of his "dream team had already departed," as I later learned. I do not know for sure whether Sean knew those circumstances in late 2016 and early 2017. 

I hope this helps clarify this issue for you.

Again, I cannot stress enough the need for verbatim minutes. I believe the "minutes" of the April 4 meeting illustrate this SO very clearly. Only the actual recording will disclose whether Sean actually said what the "minutes" indicate he said. But Tim and I both reported otherwise. Something's not right. If I were a betting person, I'd bet the "minutes" aren't accurate on that point.

Cheers,

Denise  5/3/19

Denisee Civiletti, Esq.
Editor & Publisher
224 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
631-740-9099 (O)
631-603-7359 (M)
@RiverheadLOCAL
#LocalNewsMatters

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Civics Letter on EPCAL Subdivision and SEQRA



October 15, 2019

Town Board of the Town of Riverhead
200 Howell Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901

Re:         EPCAL Subdivision and SEQRA

Dear Supervisor Jens-Smith and Members of the Town Board:

The Greater Calverton Civic Association (“GCCA”) joined by our neighboring Civics, are writing to urge the Town Board to reconsider its contract of sale, subdivision and any other agreements related to the EPCAL property.  We are opposed to the subdivision and sale at this time because of the gross misrepresentations and lack of information that is known or required to make an informed decision and balance the economic, social and environmental considerations that are required to fund, approve or undertake any action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).  We are writing to bring to light the inconsistencies that are associated with the preliminary plat and how we feel the Town is unresponsive to our collective concerns and therefore not representing our interests as a community.

Since the Planning Board’s Public Hearing of January 5, 2017, the CDA and Town Board have entered into an Agreement of Sale with a private entity (i.e. Calverton Aviation and Technology aka CAT), which “requires” amendment of the 50-Lot subdivision Map produced as part of the GEIS to a proposed 8 Lot Major Subdivision Map.  As part of this action CDA proposes to sell proposed Lots 6, 7 and 8 totaling 1,643.8 acres of land; this includes habitat of approximately 1,000 acres that was intended as protected public lands as part of the original SEQRA assessment[1]. The initial GEIS was done in a generic way with many specifics left unknown.

Notwithstanding all the unresolved environmental issues related to the initial 50-lot subdivision, this 8 lot subdivision is now being undertaken without any rational projection for a scope of development on the resulting lots so that the magnitude of individual impacts as well as cumulative impacts is not made part of the review.  This means that mitigation measures and alternatives cannot be properly assessed before committing to the current subdivision layout and subsequent sale.   This is known as segmentation.

Segmentation:
Regulations under the SEQRA recognize that “actions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps” (6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.3(g)). Therefore, “considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR.” 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.3(g)(1) SEQRA generally prohibits “segmentation,” which is defined as “the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance.”

The reason for this rule is that if a proposal is broken into enough pieces, each piece may not seem significant, although the impact from the sum of the pieces might be significant. Moreover, determination of an initial application may be “practically determinative” of later decision making. Accordingly, “environmental review of the entire project is required before ‘any significant authorization is granted for a specific proposal.[2]

According to the NYSDEC SEQRA Handbook, reviewing the "whole action" is an important principal in SEQR; interrelated or phased decisions should not be made without consideration of their consequences for the whole action, even if several agencies are involved in such decisions. Each agency should consider the environmental impacts of the entire action before approving, funding or undertaking any specific element of the action (see subdivision 617.3(g) regarding "Actions").  When trying to determine if segmentation is occurring, agencies should consider the following factors. If the answer to one or more of these questions is yes, an agency should be concerned that segmentation is taking place.

•Purpose: Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment?
• Time: Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or about the same time?
• Location: Is there a common geographic location involved?
• Impacts: Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a common impact that may, if the activities are reviewed as one project, result in a potentially significant adverse impact, even if the impacts of single activities are not necessarily significant by themselves.
• Ownership: Are the different segments under the same or common ownership or control?
• Common Plan: Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan? Will the initial phase direct the development of subsequent phases or will it preclude or limit the consideration of alternatives in subsequent phases?
• Utility: Can any of the interrelated phases of various projects be considered functionally dependent on each other?
• Inducement: Does the approval of one phase or segment commit the agency to approve other phases?

The most recent instances of segmentation that have been determined by GCCA in the SEQRA Consistency Review[3] prepared by Jeffrey L. Seeman, CGCS/CEP/REM dated April 1, 2019 on behalf of the Town are italicized in his comments below:

·         Development at the EPCAL Property cannot collectively demand more than 1,990,000 gpd (1,382 gpm) of potable water until additional well capacity is permitted and developed.

·         Due to the environmental constraints on Lot # 8, development may be difficult and one solution might be a transfer or assignment of development rights to Lot # 6.  However this not an issue that must be resolved as part of this subdivision review process and would be subject to review, if necessary, at the time specific development plans are submitted in the future.

·         The Lead Agency’s Findings Statement stated, for Lot # 47 – “Western Area to be preserved and managed in accordance with a Habitat Protection Plan (to be approved by the NYSDEC) (276.3 acres),” However it is noted that the previously submitted HPP is not required for the 8-Lot Major Subdivision because there is no proposed development for the 8-Lot plan.  Until a development scenario is submitted and evaluated, the need for a HPP can be determined. 

·         In its SEQRA Findings Statement, to avoid complications, the Planning Board should acknowledge that there is currently no proposed development plan (or site plan) and thus no yield can be determined or development transfer required during the subdivision review process. 

·         There are two additional parcels, shown on the Subdivision Map as Navy “Parcel A” and Navy “Parcel B,” which are still owned by the U.S. Navy and comprise approximately 200 acres.  These parcels are in the process of being remediated by the U.S. Navy.  Upon completion of the remediation, and in accordance with the U.S. Navy’s finding of suitability to transfer (FOST), outlining the environmental suitability of a parcel for transfer to non-federal agencies or to the public, the parcels will be transferred to the Town of Riverhead Community Development Agency (CDA).  These parcels will then be preserved as open space and would be managed in accordance with the Habitat Protection Plan. (Note: The Habitat Protection Plan (HPP) is at this time, not required for this subdivision map because there is no proposed development submitted with the revised map).
 
·         The Calverton Sewer District and Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades should include an evaluation of adding industrial wastewater to the plant. It is recommended the Planning Board request additional information regarding industrial wastewater pre-treatment requirements, proposed wastewater discharge standards, industrial wastewater pre-treatment monitoring program(s) and method of enforcement. General protocols to address what occurs if pre-treated industrial wastewater fails to meet the required standards, and actions taken by responsible parties (the Calverton Sewer District and/or the industrial user) should be identified during the subdivision review process.

·         It is recommended the revised subdivision map include the location of the groundwater divide for the wastewater recharge area comprised of 35.1 acres and identified as Lot # 4. The location of the groundwater divide and the directional flow of groundwater together with a reference as to the source of the information should be depicted on the 8-Lot Major Subdivision Map. The Riverhead Water District maintains and operates drinking water wells in the vicinity north of Fresh Pond Avenue (north of Lot # 4). It is recommended the Planning Board seek additional information regarding any water supply well head protection program(s) prepared for the EPCAL site, to avoid potential adverse impacts from the wastewater recharge area.    

·         The Town has gone to bid on the upgrade of the sewer plant and will award during month of April and that the Town’s engineers, H2M shall have map and plan also completed in April.

·         The revised 8-Lot Major Subdivision creates large acre vacant lots without directing where future development will occur within the subdivided parcels.  Therefore the Planning Board’s Findings Statement may be based on the nature of potential environmental impacts that were fully identified and studied in the completed SEQRA process.  Under the amended 8-Lot Major Subdivision Map, site specific study will occur when the owner of the large acre lots determines how it wishes to proceed with development.

Cumulative impacts must be assessed when actions are proposed to or will foreseeably take place simultaneously or sequentially in a way that their combined impacts may be significant. Considering the cumulative effects of related actions insures against stratagems to avoid the required environmental review by breaking up a proposed development into component parts which, individually, may not have sufficient environmental significance.  All of the italicized components cited above have the potential for cumulative impacts, yet they are purposely segmented out of the review. It appears that the review of these critical issues is being kicked down the road to some future time.  This is unacceptable. 

With the sale of parcel dependent on the subdivision, it is understandable that the Town would seek to defer controversy until the lands are no longer public; however, that does not work for us- the public.  As for the Qualified & Eligible (Q&E) process and pending sale to CAT, we understand that the State statute does not define what makes an applicant qualified and eligible- this is left to the local Urban Renewal Agency, namely the Town of Riverhead.  The Rules and Procedures state that the CDA shall ascertain whether the applicant is qualified and eligible pursuant to Section 507(2) (c) of Article 15 of NYSGML in accordance with the following criteria: the experience of the individual, firm or corporation with development, construction, management and financing of similar projects in size and scope to the proposed project and the Demonstrated ability to finance the acquisition and development of a specific proposed project.

It is inconceivable to us that the Town does not have knowledge of the specific development plans that CAT wishes to undertake as part of the totality of the action.  Yet somehow the Town and Developer have decided that 8 lots are preferable, another 1,000 acres is included into the sale and the specifics regarding protected habitat areas are not indicated on the amended subdivision map, as required in the SEQRA Findings.  How could any of this be determined without knowledge of a development scheme? We now know that a development concept created by CAT was recently provided to the NYSDEC depicting over 10 million square feet of floor area along with use of the runways[4].  The SEQRA documentation cited above repeatedly insists that there is no known development plan. Even if none was provided to the Town, at no time does the Town make any attempt to consider the recently enacted zoning, apply setbacks, building envelopes or parking requirements, contemplate a rational development scenario on the buildable lots or answer important infrastructure questions that are a pre-requisite to any subdivision, let alone one of this magnitude and environmental significance.  If a development concept can be articulated to get preliminary feedback from NYSDEC, how is it that the Town cannot either utilize that plan or insist that CAT create a conceptual development scenario to assess related impacts to the build out of the subdivision?  Are we really being asked to believe that someone would pay $40 million dollars without any sense of what the development yield would be?

It is the contention of the GCCA and our neighboring Civics that the Planning Board has not properly undertaken the requisite environmental review of the amended 8 lot subdivision because the impacts of the potential development (build out) that can take place once the plat is filed have not been considered as part of the total action. In addition, we don’t think that the Planning Board should be the Lead Agency on this amendment because this is segmenting the review into discrete parts.  Contrary to the 50 lot subdivision plan, where the theoretical development was considered in a very speculative/generic way as something that would happen over multiple decades on lots owned by various people, the contract of sale to a single entity (CAT) has created a situation where they are more of a master developer who will be submitting a coordinated development plan to the Town Board for special permits. 

We can only conclude that in the haste to sell off this property, the Town is engaged in segmentation, which is a violation under SEQRA.  In addition, the Town has not considered the full extent of the proposed action in terms of whether the buyer is actually able to finance and construct the “project”, since the Board by its own admission in the review documents does not have any information or projections as to what the actual development program is.  So again we question the conclusion that CAT and its subsidiaries or associates are qualified and eligible, when there is no basis for determining what the actual development program is in terms of its scope and magnitude, how much it will cost to finance and whether they are capable.

Other questions that the GCCA has related to this action:

·         How does the amount of square footage proposed in the concept plan to NYSDEC or as equated to the overall 1,137,000 gpd of flow apply to the sale of the property and the current real estate value vs. the contracted sale price?  How does the difference in these numbers affect the residents and taxpayers of the Town?  How does the inclusion of an additional 1,000 +/- acres of parcel area into the development scheme affect the overall yield? If it increases the yield potential, why aren’t we being compensated for it?

·         Related to the above, how is the Town able to include the 1,000 +/- acres into the sale without the public’s knowledge or consent? What is the rationale for doing so? Where is the SEQRA assessment of this component?

·         As described in Mr. Seeman’s consistency review, if lot 8 is constrained with a limited building envelope, how do you assign any yield potential to lot 6? If you are creating a buildable lot, this must be assessed at the time of subdivision- not some later point.

·         What are the growth inducing impacts of extending the sewer district and the potential to create additional burdens on the Calverton community and Riverhead School District due to the amount of construction and projected employment?  How can the Town assure the Calverton Civic that you have assessed the potential for additional pressures for “supporting services” or additional multi-family development to serve the workforce of EPCAL? How will this growth inducement not displace our community character and farmland throughout the Town? What specific protections have you put in place to ensure that these impacts are mitigated?

·         Was the revised Map & Plan completed? What is the financial burden on the sewer district?  What is the outreach for adopting the map and plan- is it being done by permissive referendum? What are the specific impacts of the extension of this infrastructure? This alone is a subject for the Supplemental SEQRA review, especially in light of the potential for growth inducement.  When will this be done?

·         How did an additional 367.4 +/- acres of the overall site change from a designated ‘preserved area’ to instead comprise ‘lawn/landscaping’ as part of the development plan? Restricting the amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation to 15% does not change the fact that the habitat area will be re-graded/developed and the species present will be displaced.  Where is the additional SEQRA assessment for this? How was the decision to change the preserved area made in the absence of a conceptual development plan?

·         How does the contamination of the NAVY parcels affect the groundwater and what level of clean up is taking place, what is the status and when will it be completed?  Does the developer share any burden for the clean up if the contaminants present have migrated onto parcels that the Town currently owns? Are there monitoring wells currently on any of the parcels designated for development? If yes, who is assessing the data? If no, why not?

·         What is the plan to address the wastewater in terms of the groundwater divide?  What additional information and alternatives has the Planning Board sought since the April 1, 2019 recommendation was made?

·         What is the overall scope and plan for the well capacity and potable water demand? How does this affect nearby wetlands, the water table, the provision of water supply to area residents and the likelihood for salt water intrusion?  At what point in the build out (equate sq. footage/building area to projected demand based on likely uses) will the current capacity be reached?


It is clear to us that most of the questions regarding the significant environmental impacts remain unanswered since the initial subdivision, the April 1, 2019 ‘consistency review’ that just took place for the preliminary plat does not take the requisite ‘hard look’, does not uphold the Findings Statement and defers review of many serious issues to a later date.  Today we are no closer to any real information related to the development plan, although we know there is one.

Ignoring these important questions leads us to believe that both segmentation of the totality of the action and willful ignorance toward cumulative impacts is being demonstrated.  Before the Planning Board and Town Board can approve, fund or undertake this action (the final 8 lot subdivision and closing on the sale) pursuant to SEQRA, these questions and significant impacts must be addressed as these actions are now being directly undertaken to facilitate a development proposal by CAT.  We want to be able to understand the impacts of your actions and therefore deserve the benefit of a specific and non-generic assessment before you commit to the final parcel configuration for a development plan and sale of public property.  We are therefore notifying the Town, State, and County agencies that we insist that a Supplemental SEQRA assessment be done to assess the cumulative and specific impacts of development PRIOR TO any final plat approval in order to avoid the very serious issue of segmentation.

We believe that the proper entity to review the impacts associated with the conceptual development plan in a cumulative way is the Town Board as you were the Lead Agency in this matter all along and should not defer to other Involved Agencies to carry out your responsibilities under SEQRA. Although we are past the timeframe to challenge the 8 lot preliminary plat decision, we are notifying you of these issues so you can resolve them now.  It is unfair that our communities would have to bring a legal challenge and you would spend our taxpayer dollars to fight against us rather than doing the necessary review at this time.






The Calverton community and our neighboring communities of Riverhead require answers to these questions and an inclusive process.  Please be advised that we plan to hold every elected and public official accountable. We will use every means and remedy available to us to challenge unlawful decisions in order to determine our destiny and the fate of these parcels as our communities are directly affected by what happens here. The United States Government gave the Grumman property to our Town to use as we (the people) see fit for economic development- not to create something that potentially overburdens our community and causes significant environmental impacts.  We want to understand what we are truly getting in exchange for the sale of this property and how it will affect us before it is too late.  You are elected to represent our interests and your fiduciary responsibility in this is to the taxpayer and communities of Riverhead, not the developer. 

Thank you in advance for your serious attention,

Members of the Greater Calverton Civic Association

Signed by:


________________________
Toqui S. Terchun, President

JOINED IN SIGNATURE BY:

________________________
Rex Farr, Past Calverton Civic President


cc:           Town of Riverhead Planning Board
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Planning Commission c/o Sarah Lansdale
Suffolk County Legislator Al Krupski
New York State 2nd District Assemblyman Anthony H. Palumbo
New York State Senator Kenneth P. Lavalle
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation c/o Carrie Meek Gallagher
NYS Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commission c/o John Pavacic





[1]  See:Notice of Completion  and Notice of Public hearing for the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the  comprehensive plan for the development (reuse & revitalization plan), including amendment to theTown of Riverhead Comprehensive Plan, 
amendment to zoning code  and map, and subdivision of EPCAL property at Calverton” (dated 8/7/2014)
[2] Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984), app. dis’d 66 N.Y.2d 896, 498 N.Y.S.2d 791 (1985) [citing Matter of Programming Systems v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 61 N.Y.2d 738, 739, 472 N.Y.S.2d 912]. In Sun Company, Inc. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, 209 A.D.2d 34, 625 N.Y.S.2d 371 (4th Dep’t 1995), app. dis’d 86 N.Y.2d 776, 631 N.Y.S.2d 603 (1995), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that the SEQRA review of the Carousel Landing Project could not be segmented from environmental review of the redevelopment plans for the entire Onondaga Lakefront Area.

[4] https://riverheadlocal.com/2019/06/30/riverheads-stewardship-of-the-epcal-site-spins-further-out-of-control/

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

The Non-final but Somehow Binding EPCAL Contract Vote December 2017

Minutes of the Community Development Agency held by the Town Board of the Town of Riverhead at Town Hall, Howell Avenue, Riverhead, New York on December 19, 2017


Member Dunleavy:  “I’ve been here twelve years. EPCAL has been in negotiations for more than twelve years. We did the sports park, Congressman (inaudible) said we have ten million dollars from them but nobody wanted it so we put it out for more, we didn’t get anything. Now we put out again and we got aviation back here again, high paying jobs. I voted no for these extensions, but the Town Board voted yes for the extensions, so we gave them an extension.  This here is not saying yes to this contract all this is giving them a hearing.  Now the Supervisor-elect and the Councilwoman have met with our attorneys.  They went over this with our attorneys. So this isn’t new to them. They have discussed it with our attorneys, so they know what this is all about. The Q&E is where they ask the questions of what they’re going to do with this property and what they’re going to, how much money they’re going to have to spend and how long it’s going to take for them to do it. So, it’s nothing new. I mean we all had to sign an affidavit that we weren’t going to tell anybody until the Q&E comes up and then the public can know about it and I’ve been telling the public, I was on the radio telling the public that you have questions come to the Q&E on the sixteenth or call one of your councilpersons or the Supervisor and give them the question or e-mail them a question and let them answer questions that you want. I do not want a hearing this year because I’m not going to vote on this. Have the Q&E next year so everybody can answer their questions and ask their questions and have to get the answers. They’re the ones who have to accept them. They can get rid of this after the Q&E. They can leave the meeting open for another month or two, give them good questions have them investigate the questions and then if they don’t like the answers they know but in the process you have to have a Q&E, you have to have it.  So, anybody from the public that thinks that the new Supervisor or the Councilwoman doesn’t know anything about this they’re wrong. I know, I spoke to the attorneys right after they did and he told me they were there and he went over the contract with them but they can’t tell anybody because they had to sign that they couldn’t speak about this. I know we get these people who come up here, this is why EPCAL has never been sold. Actually, the federal government said to us, you don’t have to sell the property, just get some industry here to bring the taxes back to you.  So, selling the property is a bonus for us and the forty million if we get it and we don’t know because we’re not going to approve it. These council people and the new councilwoman and the new Supervisor are the ones who are going to approve this, we’re not going to approve it.  All we’re doing is setting a hearing up so they can answer they’re questions. They know what the contract says, they give good questions. So, I don’t know why we’re having this discussion. This I why EPCAL never sold and why if somebody wants to buy it now why didn’t they come when it was up for sale? Why does everybody wait until after it’s finished and then come.  That’s why there are public hearings. Public hearings are for you to come in and speak but nobody comes and then after the public hearing it’s, why did you do that, I didn’t want that.  Well then why didn’t you come to the public hearing?  We’re not doing anything with this.  All we’re doing is giving it a hearing date, that’s all we’re doing. Where you should be speaking is at the public hearing and that’s all I got to say and I have to vote yes for the public hearing to give the new Supervisor, the Councilwoman and the rest of the Board an opportunity to ask questions and to approve it or disapprove it.  They can get rid of this contract in thirty days. This is not a sealed thing. Anybody who thinks it is is wrong. I’m not afraid to say that. I’m not a politician, I’m just a regular guy but I’ve been here for twelve years and I see what’s happened in twelve years and this is what happens in twelve years. That’s why EPCSL has never been sold, nothing has been developed there so let’s go with this Q&E. If you have questions call the councilwoman up, call these council people up or e-mail or give the Supervisor a call.  That’s who you have to get involved with for the 16th for this hearing.  I vote yes.”