A proposed five-story mixed use building with 116 apartments and ground-floor restaurant and retail uses on East Main Street and McDermott Avenue won approval of the Riverhead Town Board Tuesday night.
In a split 3-1 vote, the board approved a pair of resolutions that simultaneously dispensed with extended environmental review and approved a site plan and special permit for the “Riverview Lofts” project proposed by Georgica Green Ventures LLC of Jericho.
The actions green-light the construction of the five-story building with 12,623 square feet of first-floor commercial space, 55 on-site parking spaces and four-stories consisting of 116 workforce rental apartments: 31 studio, 37 one-bedroom and 28 two-bedroom units.
Councilman Tim Hubbard, without comment, cast the lone vote against both measures. Councilwoman Jodi Giglio, an owner of Summerwind Square — the first mixed-use apartment building built in the downtown district under a 2004 zoning amendment that allows five-story building — said she abstained on the recommendation of the town’s board of ethics.
“I sought an ethics board opinion on whether or not I could vote on this application, because I did want to vote on this application,” Giglio said before announcing her abstention. The ethics board recommended she abstain from the vote, she said.
Supervisor Sean Walter, Councilman John Dunleavy and Councilman James Wooten supported both measures.
“I was thinking about this when I was reading the SEQRA but just to move in another direction they’re going to have to do other stuff, so I vote yes,” Dunleavy said before voting on the first of the two resolutions, which determined the Riverview Lofts plan would have no significant adverse environmental impacts issued a negative declaration pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Before voting on the second resolution, which granted a special permit and site plan approval to Riverview Lofts, Dunleavy said, “With all the requirements we put in here, if they get these all done, it’ll be wonderful, so I vote yes.”
Neither Walter nor Wooten offered any comment before voting yes on both resolutions.
Wooten said in an interview after the meeting he supports the project “because flourishing downtown areas have walkability and people living there.”
He acknowledged that parking is an issue downtown and described it as “chicken or the egg. It will be dealt with,” he said. “It’s the right thing for the future, the right thing for downtown.”
Hubbard said in an interview his biggest concerns about the project are parking impacts and the 30-year tax abatement Georgica Green is seeking from the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency.
The site is within the Riverhead Parking District and is not required by code to provide any on-site parking. Properties within the parking district are assessed a special district tax that funds the provision and maintenance of public parking areas.
Hubbard, who has advocated imposing a requirement for a payment in lieu of parking on new residential uses within the parking district, said he spoke to Georgica Green managing partner David Gallo about making a voluntary payment to the parking district and Gallo “indicated he would be willing to contribute.” The special permit resolution did not mandate such a payment.
“The possibility of 30 years of IDA benefits is another large concern,” Hubbard said. “I can’t justify that. I can’t tell the taxpayers this is good for 30 years. It’s way too long,” he said.
Gallo told the IDA during a public hearing that his public funding agencies “require” tax abatements to match the 30-year term the funding.
“He hasn’t provided any information to us validating this,” Hubbard said. “I didn’t see that I don’t know if IDA sees it, but we didn’t.
The supervisor said even with the abatements, which decline over the 30-year period, the new development will generate more tax revenues than the existing structures on the two parcels Georgica Green is purchasing.
But the new development will aslo produce new demands for services, which come at a cost. Among these are a potential increase in school-age children. The impact statement prepared by the applicant estimates 14 school-age children will live in the building, which is expected to house 212 residents. The estimate was made using “multipliers established by the Center for Urban Policy Research of Rutgers University” in June 2006.
In written comments on the draft impact statement submitted to the town clerk, South Jamesport resident Larry Simms called that estimate “ludicrous.” Simms complained that the document was not posted on the town’s website until a few days before last week’s meeting, which did not allow enough time for public review and comment.
“It would be prudent to allow the school district more time to research and weigh in on this estimate,” Simms wrote.
Riverhead Central School District is an “involved agency” for purposes of SEQRA review and was provided a copy of the application, environmental assessment form and environmental impact statement. According to Georgica Green planning consultant Chick Voohris, the school district responded that it does not, as a matter of policy, comment on proposed development projects.
Prior to the board’s vote on the project, former councilwoman Barbara Blass took the podium to question whether the projected tax impacts recited in the DEIS were accurate and asked why the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency did not comment on the application. She also questioned the project’s impacts on the municipal sewer department, its proposed method of handling stormwater runoff, the variances it will need and certain construction methods proposed.
Blass, who served on the Riverhead Town Planning Board from 1983 to 2001 and as its chairperson for the last seven years of her tenure, had submitted two multi-page letters to the board containing comments on Georgica Green’s environmental impact statement.
The “negative declaration” adopted by the town board last week essentially concludes the environmental review of the project.
“I would have expected at the very least a positive declaration under SEQRA,” Blass said.
A positive declaration typically results in the town preparing a scoping statement, which defines the parameters of the environmental review — often including a public “scoping session” — prior to the preparation of a draft impact statement. It also often results in a public hearing on the draft impact statement itself. The scoping session and the hearing on the DEIS are both held at the discretion of the lead agency.
Public comments, including involved agency comments, are then answered by the applicant and incorporated into a Final Environmental Impact Statement document. The lead agency then formally accepts the FEIS and may hold a public hearing. Following that, it adopts a findings statement, declaring that all SEQR requirements for making decisions on an action have been met and identifies the considerations that have been weighed in making a decision to approve or disapprove an action. Then the lead agency acts on the application.
According to the “SEQRA Handbook” published by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the lead agency may determine, “on the basis of the draft EIS and public comment period, that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment” and prepare and file a negative declaration in lieu of a final EIS.
“In most cases, however, proceeding to a final EIS will create a more coherent, defensible record,” the handbook states.
A positive declaration results in a multi-step review process that can be protracted: the preparation and adoption of a scoping statement, which defines the parameters of the environmental review and may include a public “scoping session”; the preparation of a draft impact statement; an optional public hearing on the DEIS; the compilation of comments on the DEIS; the preparation of a final environmental impact statement; and the adoption of a findings statement. Then the lead agency acts on the application.
According to the “SEQRA Handbook” published by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the lead agency may determine, “on the basis of the draft EIS and public comment period, that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment” and prepare and file a negative declaration in lieu of a final EIS.
“In most cases, however, proceeding to a final EIS will create a more coherent, defensible record,” the handbook states.
The Riverhead Town Board on May 2 determined the proposed project to be a “type I” action requiring “coordinated review” by involved agencies under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requested lead agency status for the purpose of that review. The board circulated the application and full environmental assessment form to involved agencies.
Georgica Green’s planning consultant, Nelson Pope & Voorhis, pre-submitted a “voluntary” environmental impact statement in June.
The town board on June 20 declared itself lead agency for review of the application and authorized circulation of the draft voluntary environmental impact statement to involved agencies, commencing a 30-day comment period.
The board held a public hearing on the site plan and special permit applications on Aug. 1.
The applicant plans to raze the existing structures on the site and begin construction this fall.
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.