Riverhead Town adopts rules for environmental review

A new chapter of the Riverhead Town Code spelling out procedures for environmental review of land use proposals was adopted into law today by the Riverhead Town Board.

Councilwoman Jodi Giglio cast the lone dissenting vote. Though she offered no comment to explain her dissent when voting, she expressed concerns with the proposed code in a discussion at today’s meeting initiated by constituents prior to the board taking up resolutions on its agenda.

The new code is an outgrowth of the tri-board meetings convened by the town supervisor earlier where officials sat down together to discuss ways to improve communication between the boards and clarify responsibilities in the review of applications.

The code spells out which types of actions are deemed “type I” actions and requires that a long-form environmental assessment form be prepared for those actions. The list of type I actions is expansive, which drew criticism from speakers at a July 3 public hearing.

Riverhead architect Martin Sendlewski said at the hearing he believed the new provision was “a real overreach by the town.”

A designation as a type I action means it might subsequently be subject to a “positive declaration” of significance — triggering the requirement of an environmental impact statement.

Real estate broker Larry Oxman and developer/broker Richard Israel both objected to the expansiveness of the list of type I actions — for example, parking facilities where the total number of parking spaces, both existing and proposed, is 50 spaces or greater.

“A doctor’s office could be required to do an EIS, at the cost of $100,000 or $150,000. He may be required to do a traffic study on Route 25 which would benefit the town,” Israel said. ”But again, we created that zone which allowed him to build that 7,500-square-foot building. We should have considered all these impacts when we created these zones. Now you’re all of a sudden getting a second bite or even a third bite at the apple, when a person has bought something believing he could do a certain thing.”

The town’s environmental planner Jeff Seaman said a designation as a type I action doesn’t mean it will be receive a positive designation. It means a long-form EAF will be required and coordinated review will be required, Seaman said.

A significant goal of the new rule was to improve coordination among the various involved agencies, he said. Ultimately the applicant will know early in the process what will be required and will get answers more quickly, according to the planner.

Seaman said the planning board is very supportive of the changes. “They wrestle with these issues in every application.”

New State Environmental Review Act regulations go into effect in January. It’s the first major revision of SEQRA regulations in 20 years.

The new rules will make public scoping sessions mandatory and will ban so-called “voluntary” environmental impact statements. The “voluntary” EIS can be a tool to take a project that would ordinarily be a type I project with a positive declaration — meaning it would have significant environmental impacts requiring study and mitigation — out of the normal course of review. There is no scoping hearing, no scoping statement — defining what impacts should be studied and mitigated — and a faster pace of review for the EIS submitted by an applicant at the very beginning of a review process. Critics of this tool say it is used to circumvent a full environmental review.

But the parking space “trigger” for Type I designation under the state rules, as revised, would be 500 spaces in Riverhead.

“It’s really restrictive,” Sendlewski said during the hearing. “It’s much more restrictive than SEQRA.”

Giglio said she does agree with “certain things” in the new code, such as the construction of new, or expansion of, commercial solar energy production systems being deemed type I. “But there are other things in here that concern me — terribly.”

Giglio also asked today how the new code would affect EPCAL, “where we did a SEQRA analysis of the entire property and got approval fromt he state for a 90-day approval and something more than 50 spaces would be a type I action where ordinarily it would not be for the EPCAL property.”

Giglio was referring to state legislation passed at the request of the town in June 2013 creating a special revitalization district within the Calverton Enterprise Park and providing for a streamlined approval process guaranteeing 90-day approvals for projects that substantially comply with the adopted development plan for the site, for which the town completed a generic environmental impact statement.

Seaman said the new town code would not change application of the state law in any way. Any proposal that did not fit the parameters of the state law — i.e. did not substantially conform to the adopted development plan — would be subject to additional SEQRA review in any case.

Giglio said she also has concerns about the provision of the code that states the town board may from time to time designate critical environmental areas. Town attorney Robert Kozakiewicz said the town board is already empowered by state law to designate those areas after public hearing. The new code doesn’t change that at all, he said.

Supervisor Laura Jens-Smith said Southold and Southampton have had similar codes in place for quite some time and have used them successfully.

Councilman James Wooten said people equate type I with a positive declaration but that’s not necessarily the case. It requires the long form environmental assessment form, he said.

“It really is to provide us with the information up front that we need to assess the application,” Seaman said.

If an EIS is required there will be a mandated scoping project, eliminating back-and-forth and guess work, he said.

The new state rules that go into effect in January will do that anyway, Giglio responded.

The new town code chapter will take effect upon filing with the N.Y. Secretary of State.