No further environmental review for proposed four-story apartment building on Main Street

A proposed apartment building on East Main Street cleared an important hurdle this week when the Riverhead Town Board gave the application a green light to move forward without an environmental impact statement.

The developer proposes to build a four-story, 36-unit market rate apartment building on a 15,706-square-foot site at 331 East Main Street.

The town board, which has jurisdiction over site plan applications in the downtown urban renewal zone, as well as jurisdiction over all special permit applications, held a public hearing on the site plan and special permit applications on Oct. 16.

On Tuesday, the town board assumed lead agency status under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and issued a negative declaration under SEQRA, which allows the application to proceed without the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The action is classified as a Type I action under SEQRA.

Former councilwoman and longtime planning board member Barbara Blass in comments read prior to the board’s vote on the SEQRA resolution, objected that the board’s action “is based on incomplete and inaccurate information and is inconsistent with prior actions” taken by the board.

Blass said the full environmental assessment form does not mention the applicant’s intention, as expressed by its attorney, to seek “tax relief” from the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency and therefore did not assess its impact on the tax base or perform a cost-benefit analysis. The EAF also does not state that the project lies with a Brownfields Opportunity Area, a designated urban renewal area or the Peconic Estuary, Blass said.

She also said the EAF does not adequately assess the site’s location in a or adjacent to a critical environmental area or its location within a floodplain.

Blass also complained that the town’s analysis died not adequately assess cumulative impacts, taking into account two other apartment buildings being built or proposed nearby. One of the two has been required by the town board to complete an environmental impact statement and assess cumulative impacts. The development of the other building, currently under construction on the corner of East Main Street and McDermott Avenue, submitted a “voluntary” environmental impact statement at the time of its application.

Review of the current application is occurring “in a vacuum,” Blass said. SEQRA requires a “hard look” at the action in light of similar proposed and/or approved projects in the vicinity, she said.

Riverhead planning department planning aide Greg Bergman said nothing about the application reached the threshold for additional environmental review.

The applicant’s attorney, Christopher Kent, told the board that if it determines the proposal conforms to the generic environmental impact statement prepared in connection with the 2003 master plan, no further environmental analysis is required.

Councilman Tim Hubbard said the 2003 master plan “talked about this type of building.”

Councilwoman Catherine Kent moved to table the resolution but her motion did not get a second.

She said the town should fully assess cumulative impacts of this proposal with the other two apartment buildings to the east and voted against the negative declaration.

“I’m not against the project. I just say we have to make sure we take a really hard look and make sure we get this done right,” Kent said.

Kent cast the lone dissenting vote on the resolution, which passed 4-1.

Hubbard said he favored the application because, unlike the other apartment buildings built as workforce or, in the case of Peconic Crossing, low-income housing, it is a “market rate” development. The market-rate rentals will be inhabited by people who have disposable income to spend downtown. Hubbard said this is the kind of development needed to promote downtown revitalization.

“You’re going to have a vibrant downtown,” Hubbard said.

Councilman Frank Beyrodt thanked “the planning staff for their thorough account and defense of the application. I know in the short time that I’ve been involved in this town, I’ve heard this application defended at least two to three times very capably and aptly by the planning department.”

Councilwoman Jodi Giglio cautioned that “SEQRA is not be used as a sword.” She said she believes a thorough review has been undertaken. “I feel like we are beating the SEQRA determination to death.”

“I’m a stakeholder and a property owner in downtown and I’m very passionate about downtown and its revitalization. I think this is a great project to bring downtown,” Giglio said.

“This project should have been voted on last year,” Supervisor Yvette Aguiar said. It’s only 36 units. I’ve reviewed it in detail with the planning department,” she said before casting her vote in favor of the negative declaration.

The proposal calls for razing the buildings currently on the site, including the Norton House, a building constructed circa 1855 by blacksmith Richard Norton, who “specialized in fashioning the iron work for numerous vessels built in nearby shipyards during the second half of the 19th century,” according to comments submitted to the town board by the landmarks preservation committee. The Norton House was most recently occupied by a Subway sandwich shop on the ground floor and residential uses above.

The LPC recommended having the developer move the Norton House to the north side of East Main Street, between the Tuthill-Mangano Funeral Home and the Howell House (in an area that is currently part of a municipal parking lot.) “The loss of five (5) parking space would be a minimal sacrifice in exchange for preserving an original 19th century structure,” the LPC said.

The State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation said the existing structures are not eligible for listing in the state and national registers of historic places, according to the town board resolution, but noted the project area is adjacent to the State and National Register-listed Riverhead Main Street and Second and Ostrander historic districts. The proposed project as currently designed will have no adverse impact on historic resources, the state agency said, according to the resolution.

The developer, “in an effort to mitigate the loss of the Norton House,” has agreed to commemorate the Norton House and Richard Norton “by documenting the existing structures and placing a permanent display in the lobby of the building or in one of the display windows along Main Street.” The developer has also offered to name the building “the Shipyard.”

While the existing structures are demolished (60 to 100 days) and during the first six to eight months of construction, the parking district access roadway that runs along the east side of the Salvation Army building would be closed to traffic.