Board members at odds over supporting preservation of West Main Street property

Town Board members squabbled Thursday over whether to lend support to a county initiative to preserve as open space four parcels along the Peconic River on West Main Street.

The Suffolk County Legislature is considering having the site, an abandoned duck farm, appraised — the first step in the acquisition process. The parcels, totaling 16.73 acres, would be purchased using drinking water quality protection funds raised through the county’s quarter-percent sales tax program.

The site is owned by former Save Main Road organizer and — albeit briefly — Riverhead Industrial Development Agency board member Larry Simms, formerly of South Jamesport. He bought the site about 10 years ago and in 2017 sought variances from the Riverhead Zoning Board of Appeals to establish uses not permitted within the Riverfront Corridor zoning use district: office space, restaurant, non-river related retail, and storage/warehouse. The site is located within the state-designated Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act zone, which imposes significant land use restrictions and subjects it to regulation by the State Department of Environmental Conservation.

In objecting to the expenditure of public funds to purchase the parcels, Councilwoman Jodi Giglio argued that existing land use restrictions leave the property owner with few development options.

“I think de facto it’s already preserved,” Giglio said.

If the county were to purchase the property, it would do so on the condition that the town improve and maintain the site as a passive recreation park facility. The town and county have partnered in that manner on other open space acquisitions, most recently a site in Jamesport, where a development proposal spurred local residents there to form the Save Main Road group.

The county asked the town to provide a concept plan for the West Main Street site. Supervisor Laura Jens-Smith had the town engineering department prepare the concept plan, which was presented to the town board at Thursday’s work session. It calls for a parking area, a half-mile elevated boardwalk, two bird-watching stations and a pre-fabricated restroom and would require the town to clear large portions of the site of existing invasive species growing there —Japanese knotweed and phragmites.

The total estimated cost of all improvements, including removal of invasives would range from just under $1.1 million to about $1.6 million. Jens-Smith said the town would have no legal obligation to undertake the improvements and there would be no deadline for anything the town decides to do on the site. She argued that the town should include in the concept plan everything it could foresee eventually undertaking there, because anything omitted from the plan could never be built.

Giglio argued that the town can’t maintain recreation facilities it already has and should not be taking on new obligations. She pointed to the recreation trail at the Calverton Enterprise Park — a project she spearheaded — which she said, the town is having trouble maintaining.

“We should enhance what we already have instead of creating new parks,” Giglio said. “The buildings and grounds crew is already overburdened.” Giglio expressed annoyance that Jens-Smith had the engineering department spend time developing a concept plan — which included drone video footage — before bringing the idea to the board for discussion.

Jens-Smith defended her approach and Giglio criticized her for “getting very defensive.”

As the discussion continued, Jens-Smith, Giglio and Councilwoman Catherine Kent tussled over interrupting one another.

Besides arguing over process and whether it is appropriate to add more parkland that will need maintenance, Giglio said the county has other properties of higher priority on its list of parcels to be preserved as open space.

“How did this come up to the front of the line?” Giglio asked.

“The county came to us — ask the county,” the supervisor answered.

“I have asked county legislators,” Giglio said. “There is a priority list from the town and this is not on it.”

Town records show that the parcels in question were on a list of parcels prioritized by the town and recommended to the county for open space preservation by a resolution of the town board in 1998.

County Legislator Al Krupski acknowledged that the county has a master list and the parcels in question are not on it. It’s is quite incomplete and there’s a lot of parcels not on it that should be preserved — and have been preserved,” Krupski said.

“It’s nice to have a list, but land preservation is voluntary,” Krupski said.

“When do you preserve a piece of land?” the legislator asked.

“When you can.”

Having a buyer who’s potentially willing to sell is key, Krupski said. If we get the appraisals done — the county has two independent appraisals done and sets a price based on that, he said.

“We can do the appraisal and he could turn it down,” Krupski said.

Kent accused Giglio of “turning this into some kind of silly political thing.”

“It is a political thing,” Giglio shot back. Giglio opposed Simms’ appointment to the IDA board in April. Simms was appointed in a split vote, with Jens-Smith, Hubbard and Kent in support and Giglio and Wooten against.

“We’re all on the same team here,” Kent told her. “Why would we turn something like this down?”

Giglio said if the county has money for open space purchases in Riverhead, there were other properties along the river that would make more sense to preserve — parcels closer to the central part of town.

“Why would we want to build a park on Forge Road and 25?”

Deputy Supervisor Tim Hubbard joined the supervisor and Kent in supporting the county acquisition plan and providing the county with the concept plan developed by the town engineering department.

Wooten said he likes the concept plan. “But I think this particular acquisition is probably not in the best interests of the Town of Riverhead,” he said.

Giglio resisted. “If we’re going to ask the county to spend money on an appraisal, wouldn’t it behoove us to give them a list of properties we’d like to see purchased for preservation?”

Correction: This article has been amended to correct a quote attributed to Legis. Al Krupski that indicated he was not aware whether the parcels sought to be preserved were on the county’s master list for preservation.