Residents voiced strong support for moratoriums on industrial development in Calverton and commercial battery energy storage system facilities — with caveats — during public hearings at Tuesday’s Riverhead Town Board meeting.
Many of the residents who spoke in favor of the industrial moratorium, which would pause the processing of unpopular large-scale warehouses, have been advocating for the measure since last year, an effort that culminated in the Town Board in January rejecting the request and refusing to set a public hearing. Others, including civic leaders, have been advocating for the moratorium since the town started the process of updating its two-decade old comprehensive plan in 2020.
But while speakers Tuesday night were unanimous in their support of both moratoriums, the length of the moratoriums — which would be for six months for the industrial development and three months for the battery storage facilities — as well as clauses exempting some projects from their application, came under criticism.
“Members of this board that are against the moratorium on industrial development in Calverton have argued one point over and over, and that’s that we need the tax base, which I don’t agree with,” Danielle Kilfoyle of Calverton said. “Riverhead Town already hosts the bulk of the industrial development for the entire East End of Long Island.”
“Tax revenue from large-scale industrial developments isn’t free money. Hosting development comes at a cost. And it’s a cost ultimately paid by the taxpaying residents of this town,” Kilfoyle said. “Year after year, our taxes increase. This shows me the immense development that Riverhead already hosts is costing too much. The town is taking on new development to pay for the adverse effects previous development has had on this community, which is not economically sustainable.”
The industrial moratorium, which was proposed by Council Member Tim Hubbard, came in response to anticipated changes to the town’s zoning code through the comprehensive plan to decrease the “bulk” of new development and implement a revamped transfer of development rights program to help preserve farmland. Hubbard has the support of council members Ken Rothwell and Frank Beyrodt to move the law forward.
The town needs to address the root of its problems, Kilfoyle said, which includes updating the town’s “outdated” zoning laws that doesn’t protect the town from overdevelopment. “At the rate we’re going, that’s going to take a lot longer than six months,” she said, encouraging the board to extend the time of the moratorium beyond the time proposed.
“The comprehensive plan is only as good as the policies you actually enact,” Gilfoyle said. “The comprehensive plan has been a dumping ground for excuses on why local government has failed to protect us. We rely on this board to actually make the changes we need to protect our community.”
Kilfoyle and other speakers were supported by cheers and claps from a crowd of roughly 80 people gathered in the meeting room at 200 Howell Avenue. Tuesday night’s meeting was the last scheduled to be held at the old Town Hall.
“It seems that there is a stigma surrounding the word ‘moratorium’ when it is discussed by this board at times,” Jennifer Hartnagle of the Group for the East End said, as she expressed the organization’s support for the industrial moratorium. “If utilized appropriately, which in this case it is and it’s warranted, it’s an acceptable, lawful planning tool that’s routinely used by other townships. Your planners and attorneys have argued the same.”
Hartnagle said the nonprofit conservation organization is not advocating for a moratorium to “cheat developers,” but rather to deal with a “historic amount of development” proposed during the comprehensive plan update process.
“Why waste money on a comp plan if the town continues to approve projects that are in direct contradiction to what’s going to be recommended? It makes zero sense,” Hartnagle said. “Instead of worrying about business owners and how they’ll be impacted and getting caught up in the stigma that has been created, it’s really time to worry about the community as a whole,” she said to audience applause.
“We live here. We breathe here. We spend our money here. We want to continue to enjoy the quality of life that we all deserve,” Hartnagle said. “Please, please consider what not taking action will look like this time and act responsibly in favor of enacting this moratorium.”
Residents Tuesday, as they have been for the last few years, concerned primarily about the emergence of large industrial buildings in the Calverton hamlet, particularly warehouses and logistics/distribution centers. Calverton, which is the western part of town and hosts the end of the Long Island Expressway, has most of the town’s industrially zoned land.
Cindy Clifford of Riverhead questioned the timing of the industrial moratorium public hearing with the 2023 general election just weeks away. Voters will pick a new town supervisor and two new council members on Nov. 7.
“But now, just a couple of weeks before the election, with ‘no warehouse’ signs everywhere, are we to believe that you’ve had a change of heart? Maybe grown a conscience? That you suddenly care about what the residents want? That you care about the land?” Clifford said. “If that’s the case, then I am also requesting you close the window for public comments, which you’ve been getting for a year or so, and go ahead and vote tonight.”
Clifford and several others asked the board to vote for a moratorium during the meeting, or to indicate what they would vote on the moratorium.
Supervisor Yvette Aguiar denied the request.
“You’re out of sequence. There is a process for taking the vote. This is a public meeting for your comments, not to indicate ‘are we taking a vote’ or ‘where people are voting,’” Aguiar said in response to Clifford. “We’re taking all your comments and we will follow the process. I’m the presiding officer and I will follow the process. Thank you for your comments.”
“Do you want to do a straw poll?” Clifford pressed further.
“I’m not sure I’m the only one that would like to see you stand on this. But since you are not going to, actions speak louder than words,” Clifford said.
Town Attorney Erik Howard, in response to another speaker, said the board cannot adopt the moratorium without comments from the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The town has to give the planning commission 30 days to submit their comments, he said. He noted the planning commission’s next meeting is on Nov. 1.
“I wouldn’t anticipate being able to give this board the clearance, based on their recommendations, until that Nov. 1 meeting,” Howard said.
The Town Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting is set for Nov. 9 at 2 p.m., two days after the general election.
Some speakers asked the board to amend the industrial moratorium law to remove exemptions. The exemptions, which are tied to the environmental review of industrial projects, would apply to one major project, the 412,000-square-foot industrial park proposed by H.K. Ventures of Great Neck.
“If we are going to have a moratorium, there should be no exclusions whatsoever,” Angela De Vito of South Jamesport, the Democratic candidate for town supervisor, said to applause.
The Town Board received one letter in opposition to the moratorium from the executive directors of the Long island Builders Institute and the Association for a Better Long Island, two groups who advocate for development.
“[I]ndustrial development is the backbone of our region’s economy,” the letter reads. “These properties generate tax revenue and create jobs, which results in a substantial positive impact to the local school districts. Therefore, when a moratorium is placed on such developments the local municipality is effectively reducing the town’s tax base and shifting the tax burden onto its residents.”
The public hearing on the three-month long, town-wide commercial battery storage moratorium law went similarly. The moratorium was proposed in response to three fires at battery energy storage facilities across New York State, including one in East Hampton. Town officials said they are waiting for the findings of a state working group investigating the causes of fires and potential public safety risks of the commercial facilities.
Hubbard has the support of Beyrodt and Council Member Bob Kern to move the law forward.
De Vito also objected to the length of the proposed battery energy storage moratorium, as well as the section of the law that allows the Town Board to exempt select project applications after a public hearing. She also asked the board why the town did not include tier 1 battery energy storage systems, which are smaller and are typically used in residences. She received no answer.
John Cullen of Northville said the battery storage moratorium should be for well over a year to allow the technology present in the facilities to evolve. “Technology is changing so fast, and I’m sure that by the time a BESS or anybody else comes into town, one or two years later there’s going to be something so much better,” he said.
The Riverhead Town Board was criticized for adopting a code to allow battery energy storage systems in the town. Several community members urged them to defer action on the battery energy storage code until its impacts can be assessed through the comprehensive planning process, as well as questioned the safety of the facilities following high profile fires.
Tuesday’s hearings were begun at the board’s prior meeting this month, which was held at 2 p.m., and adjourned to Oct. 17 at 6 p.m. to provide an opportunity for public comment at an evening meeting. The hearing record was left open for written comment until 4:30 p.m. on Oct. 27.
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.
