Q&A with town council candidate Joann Waski

Joann Waski is one of two Republican & Conservative candidates for Riverhead Town council. She is currently the chairperson of the Riverhead Town Planning Board. The verbatim transcript below, made from an audio recording of the Oct. 9 interview, has been lightly edited for clarity (deleting repeated words etc.)

Please note that this conversation preceded this week’s Town Board’s vote to cancel the town’s contract with Calverton Aviation & Technology (CAT) to sell its industrially zoned land at the Calverton Enterprise Park.

Denise Civiletti: If the Riverhead IDA sends the CAT application back to the Town Board, finding that CAT doesn’t have the financial wherewithal to develop the site, and you were on the Town Board, would you vote to cancel the contract with CAT?

Joann Waski: Immediately.

Denise Civiletti: When you were Vice Chair of the Riverhead Republican Committee, I believe you, based on what I saw, was very much in support of this application originally.

Joann Waski: I was. Can I explain that?

Denise Civiletti: Well, I was going to ask you: What’s changed? You strongly supported the deal, you were on hand the night of the vote, and in a recent forum, you called the deal ‘horrific.’ So why do you think the deal is bad now, and what’s changed?

Joann Waski: The dynamics of what originally was presented to the Town Board has significantly changed, including who is the owner. From the original application, it was Daniel Preston, and the Ghermezians have kind of changed hands, now it’s the son running the show. In the beginning, when I had the opportunity to speak to one of the Ghermezians — I don’t remember the man’s name that was affiliated with them. He no longer is, but he was describing to me what their plans were.

Denise Civiletti: Stuart Bienenstock. He wasn’t a Ghermezian family member, he worked for them.

Joann Waski: I did have the opportunity to speak with him and what he was telling me that they were going to be doing up at this property, once it got together, is they were going to be working on drones. Taking drones for hospital use, for heart transplants, kidney transplants. [He] said that instead of what goes into having a helicopter, let’s say from Peconic Bay Medical Center or Northwell, up to Boston, that the time that it takes to do the transfer of the organ transplant is a significant amount more time than a drone. I thought that it was fascinating, honestly. I really felt that there was going to be something great coming out of that. I had never heard of drones before for any kind of organ transplants, and I was paying attention. I was involved, I was paying attention, and then all of a sudden, it just started to fall apart. We started to learn of different ideas coming in that they were looking to do. Then, I heard a comment that the Ghermezians wanted to purchase every bit of runway up and down the East Coast that they possibly could. I’m a smart enough person to say: there’s a flag there.

Denise Civiletti: I never heard that before.

Joann Waski: Really? That’s what I was told. Since then, especially back this past year, all of a sudden they present this jetport — is what it does look like in the map — that came out of nowhere. They’ve rescinded that idea, supposedly, since. It fell apart, they were not the tried and true people that I first believed that they were.

Denise Civiletti: No question that what they first presented at the IDA meeting last September is very different from what they presented during the qualified and eligible sessions.

Joann Waski: Absolutely.

Alek Lewis: If you’re on the Town Board and you cancel the sale to CAT, as a Town Board member, what’s next for the EPCAL site?

Joann Waski: Well, number one, I would never want to see our runway sold. I don’t think that that is in the best interest of Riverhead. We should be holding on to those. I would also prefer to maybe lease out the land [at EPCAL], look at that option, go through with what they’re talking about with the subdivision and breaking it off into parts, and being able to bring in development that way. I also am a big supporter of the drag strip and motorsports. As I said during the debates, I love going up there for drag racing and seeing families together outside, doing something– children learning skills, learning how to work on the motor of a car, paint the car. Those things are important. I also believe that the bigger development, industrial development, should be within the fence at EPCAL. I would like to see that moved forward. I believe that the land is worth a lot more than $40 million, and I’m in real estate, so I’ve got a pretty good handle on [the land’s value].

Alek Lewis: What governs the EPCAL site now is the planned development zoning district. I’m sure you’re familiar. It allows, as of right, pretty much all uses that promote economic development, several uses that are only allowed by town board special permit. This means that they could build practically anything you want at EPCAL, barring a few things. So, if the EPCAL deal falls through, would you support revising the zoning on the property?

Joann Waski: It’s kind of a catchy question. I support the way that the zoning is right now. I am on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and we are looking at different ways of how zoning can be changed. Honestly, I don’t have a strong answer on that. There’s always room for change. I actually just had a conversation about this this morning with someone for something right outside of the EPCAL fence and it’s a different kind of zoning in some areas.

Alek Lewis: Sticking inside the fence, because we’ll talk about outside the fence, but inside the fence; I mean, you saw how the Ghermezians’ plan changed over time, and that they can do all these different things. So, is that something you’d like to see prevented? Where, if the town is dead-set on certain uses, that you will only allow those, and only those, uses in the Enterprise Park?

Joann Waski: I do realize that over time, sometimes things change and a new necessity may come. So, to have something so ironclad, I don’t feel might be in the best interest of Riverhead and the residents. Twenty years ago, when they put the zoning in place, we had never heard of high cube warehouses, distribution centers, never imagined an Amazon. So, if we had something firmly set in place, you kind of have zero wiggle room. I don’t agree with that.

Alek Lewis: Going back to industrial development, both inside and outside the fence. That’s a huge topic, most of it’s in Calverton. Everybody on the ticket, Democrat and Republican, are opposed to these mega warehouses and massive logistics centers. Do you think that these uses are appropriate in EPCAL, or appropriate outside EPCAL, or are they appropriate anywhere in the town?

Joann Waski: If anywhere, I would say that it would be most appropriate inside the fence. Outside of the fence, no. I went down Twomey Avenue and Deep Hole Road last week and I saw all the open space, and I saw where a huge mega warehouse may one day end up. The thought of the people in Calverton having that in their back yard or front yard, as their view, is disturbing. You know, I don’t like when these applications come in and they need variances, and they’re asking to go higher and higher and higher. I’m not in support of that, because of that very reason. Because people are not thinking about what is going to be the negative impact on the surrounding residents, and it’s huge. If I live there, I’m in Jamesport, I would be fighting tooth and nail to say: ‘no’ to these mega warehouses.

Alek Lewis: I’d like to follow up that question, because the comp plan process — a lot of what BFJ is talking about, and obviously you know this, is that the town is seeking to increase the industrial zoning height by right from 30 feet to 35 feet and then allowing a 40 feet increase with TDRs, and also shrink the footprint of that development and then allow that to be expanded a bit by TDRs. Is that something that you’re in support of?

Joann Waski: No, no. Inside the fence is different. Outside of the fence, no. I do understand that with the TDR program, that we are just in discussion mode of trying to figure out how to increase the value of TDRs. So, what we’re doing right now with BFJ is discussions. Let’s figure out what would happen if we did this, what would happen if we did that. There has been no firm plan yet, for a definite recommendation. It’s discussion mode. Somebody can suggest it, we’ll digest it a little bit, come back to the next meeting and say ‘that’s not really sitting very well with me.’

Alek Lewis: I’m bringing that up because that was something proposed to the Town Board by BFJ and the planning staff after a number of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meetings had already gone. That’s why I wanted to bring that up. 

Do you think there’s too much industrial zoning in Calverton? And, if so, how should the current area be rezoned?

Joann Waski: We need industrial business, for our taxes. Once you lose that, there is nothing that’s going to stop our taxes from being on the rise. A problem is, and I hear this all the time, ‘I bought a house off of Fresh Pond [Avenue] and now they want to build industrial buildings, like Tractor Supply.’ Well, you purchased your land across the street from an industrial-zoned area. The town has to have somewhere. The reason that they made that area the industrial zone is because of its proximity to the [Long Island] Expressway. There’s a rail spur—

Denise Civiletti: Grumman, at the time.

Joann Waski: Yes. So I am absolutely for industrial development, but it has to be with some balance. We can’t just keep saying ‘yes, yes, yes, let’s allow this variance to go through, that variance,’ and totally cater to people that don’t care about Riverhead. They’re just looking to put their building up somewhere and then they’re out of here, and we’re left stuck with it. But I realize at the same time that we can’t say ‘no, no, no’ either. So that’s where I say that we need to balance the area.

Denise Civiletti: Let’s talk about exempting proposals from new code adoptions. Do you think there’s a place for that? Do you think that it’s appropriate to say ‘we’re gonna adopt a new code, pursuant to the comp plan, but if your application’s already under review, you’re going to be grandfathered in.’ Because the current Town Board has shown willingness to do that, with the moratorium. Just in general, with the comp plan codes that will presumably get adopted, there will be people saying ‘you can’t do this to us, we’re going to sue you,’ etc. How do you respond to that? We had that Calverton Manor suit for 20 years until it finally was adjudicated that the town had the right to change the zoning on that land, and that’s where the lavender farm is today. What’s your position on that?

Joann Waski: My feeling is: once you’ve accepted the application, you’ve taken money from the applicant, the ball is already rolling with them. I don’t think that it’s fair to pull it from them. It’s like you’ve already gotten into almost a contract with them, once you start taking their money. They’re being strung up, for a time. It takes years for these projects to go through. I don’t want to call it grandfathered in, but —

Alek Lewis: What’s the cutoff point? When they process an application?

Joann Waski: Once the [State Environmental Quality Review Act] review begins, that would be something to say: ‘okay, we’re very much entertaining this idea.’ You’re going through the process, and we can’t just say ‘no more, goodbye.’

Alek Lewis: I will follow that up with this question. You’re against massive logistics centers. Riverhead Logistics Center is something that has an application in. Would that be exempted by whatever the comp plan is?

Denise Civiletti: The SEQRA process is well underway too. They’re in their [Environmental Impact Statement] now, I think.

Alek Lewis: Would that be something exempted? Because I know there are conversations surrounding logistics centers not being permitted use at all, so what do you say to that?

Joann Waski: I say that that’s where I wear two hats. I am the chair of the Planning Board. I’m on the Planning Board, I’ve been sworn to do my job. I tried to do that very well. At the same time, I am a resident, first and foremost. This has been my home for 50 years. When I have my family at Thanksgiving, saying to me in Calverton, ‘what the heck are you doing to help us?’ I’m doing my job. There’s a process that has to be followed and just because I may not like something—

Alek Lewis: I’m not talking about your position on the Planning Board, but if you’re elected to Town Board, and you have to implement the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan says we don’t want logistics centers and Riverhead Logistics Center already has an application in, what do you do then? Do you grandfather them in?

Joann Waski: I honestly do not have an answer for that. That is something that I think that it would be better to discuss with our town attorneys and find out, because I don’t know. I don’t mean to say I’m not on the Planning Board, but I’m not on the Town Board, so I don’t know.

Denise Civiletti: Fair enough. Talking about economic development again, you’ve said pretty clearly you support the Riverhead IDA. You don’t support getting rid of it, abolishing it, dissolving it or anything like that. Besides the issue of transparency, which you also spoke to, are there any other changes that you’d like to see in the way that the Riverhead IDA does business? The way it monitors progress and results from the projects that get IDA benefits? Which kinds of projects get IDA benefits? Recognizing it’s a separate entity, obviously, you’re not a decision maker, but in terms of making the Town Board’s feelings known about that kind of thing. Or do you just think that everything they’ve done and are doing is fine? What’s your position on that?

Joann Waski: I appreciate the IDA, because they are able to come and help areas, kind of like Railroad Avenue here, where it’s a blighted area. I agree with IDA incentives to try to get a developer to come in and better the area. I like the fact that someone like the All Star Bowling Alley that received IDA incentive[s], they would not have been able to come here [without the IDA incentives]. There are businesses that do need IDA help. The reason that I support Riverhead IDA is, as I said in the debates, the IDA does not go away. It would go over to the county. I prefer to have somebody with insight for the Town of Riverhead, that cares about the town, such as [Riverhead IDA Executive Director] Tracy Stark-James does a very good job. I think that she is severely understaffed. She’s a one man show running the IDA, with the help of the board. When people are complaining that the website isn’t up-to-date and everything should be on the website, which it should — but I do think that there is a little window of time that those have to be up. 

Denise Civiletti: A point of fact is it’s almost completely outside of what’s required. I don’t want to waste time talking about that, but it needs to comply with the state code. It needs to be very different than what it is. How about the issue of the kinds of projects? You spoke about these warehouses, and the need for a particular kind of development for improvement to a blighted area, or provide jobs. Do you think that a project like NorthPoint [Riverhead Logistics Center] isn’t going to come to Riverhead for the warehouse on Middle Road, if they don’t get IDA benefits? If that’s the case, do we want that enough to say ‘yeah, we’re gonna give you a 10 year tax abatement plan?’

Joann Waski: I do see the double-edged sword on that. I know exactly what you’re saying. I’ve said it about other projects in the past, as a resident. I do realize that we do need the help for our taxes. Whether they’re going to come here or not, based on the IDA.

Alek Lewis: Do you think that there’s an affordable housing crisis in Riverhead?

Joann Waski: Absolutely.

Alek Lewis: What should the town’s role be in trying to make living here affordable and try to help mitigate that crisis?

Joann Waski: I am really a fan of first time homebuyers being given incentives to not rent apartments, because [in] the apartments, they’re not able to save any money — anything. All their salary is going right to the $3000-$3500 a month for rent, which isn’t fair to purchase a home in Riverhead. It’s extremely expensive, especially because of the [Community Preservation Fund] tax. The other towns do have a first-time homebuyer exemption, which the town of Riverhead does not have, and they can’t have it right now, because we do still have money that is being paid off in the Town of Riverhead. We’re seeing the light at the end of the tunnel on that, so hopefully we’ll be able to offer that to the first-time homebuyers. There is conversation about a condominium coming into play, that will be an incentive for first time homebuyers. I really wish that we could go back to — I remember back in the 1980s, early ‘90s, that we had the lotto housing developments, and I really think that if we could do something — but what I see from these homes, they bought them for very cheap. I believe that the town had the deed on for ten years — eight or 10 years they held the deed until that was over.  

Denise Civiletti: What are you talking about?

Joann Waski: Two Bears.

Denise Civiletti: No. Two Bears wasn’t like that. I did a lot of those closings. 

Joann Waski: They weren’t able to sell it — the town had something. I’m gonna look into it.

Denise Civiletti: Actually going back to even that silver lining, there’s one off of Osborne [Avenue], the town could have done more things to retain affordability for longer than it did, or at all. So you’ve lost that opportunity to keep that in affordable housing. It was a long time ago, I was no longer on the Town Board, but I was closing for Center Bank and Long Island Mortgage Corp.

Joann Waski: I really think that we should be able to have a community that does not get to become market value.

Denise Civiletti: It remains affordable.

Joann Waski: Yes, yes.

Denise Civiletti: Do you favor — the town had a chance and it didn’t, but it still may be able to next year — adopt another half percent to the two percent transfer tax. You mentioned that before, the other East End towns did that, so that know, once you cross that threshold, there’s an exemption, not for first time homeowners, but for all homes that are sold, then there’s another half percent on top of that two percent, and that’s dedicated toward things like providing grants to assist with closing costs, grants to assist with down payments, and stuff like that, or accessory apartments. It’s up to the town to decide what those sort of things would be. But the Town Board, last year, said ‘we already have enough affordable housing here, we’re doing our part, they should do theirs,’ and left it at that. Do you agree with that? Do you think that should change? If there’s still an opportunity to do it, would you support that?

Joann Waski: I would support it. We definitely need, unfortunately, well, fortunately for me, I kind of have a little edge on this from being in the title business, I do see that people need incentives and help with their closing costs. I don’t agree that there’s enough affordable housing here, that’s absolutely, in my opinion, that’s not what I’m seeing from my end.

Denise Civiletti: Especially if people want to buy houses. Start a family, or whatever.

Joann Waski: The average home right now is over $600,000. I have three children — three adult children at home — who cannot afford to move out of my house. They have decent jobs.

Denise Civiletti: It’s funny, some people automatically think it’s about low-income housing and stuff like that, it’s way more broader and deeper.

Joann Waski: I see that. I see these first time homebuyers, young kids, 30 years old, strapped with a $4,500 mortgage. They don’t realize they’re going to have children down the road, and the furnace is going to break and you’re going to need a new car. They don’t see the whole picture of what home ownership is.

Alek Lewis: To get into your record a little bit, as a planning board chairperson, you reviewed a few controversial projects, and obviously, you didn’t want to get into exactly what you have currently. But you voted yes to approve a site plan to legalize the expansion of the tasting room at the Riverhead Ciderhouse. It was originally built without town approvals; you’ve been criticized for that. Can you please explain a little bit more about how you came to your decision to vote yes on that application, and respond to the criticisms that your opponents have kind of levied against you?

Joann Waski: Absolutely. When it came time for the vote, trust me, this was a very, very hard vote, because I knew that I was going to be met with a lot of opposition in the room, and I knew that I was running for office. It’s like, ‘this is gonna kill me.’ But I was doing my job. So, Mr. [John] King, went in front of the Town Board, he was fined. He filed for the applications to complete the work properly, to get the permits for it, he was penalized in his application fees, in order to do that. He did everything that he was asked to do by the town. So, it’s not that he put an expansion outside of the warehouse building, he didn’t break through the outside wall and add square footage there. There was something that was done internally, inside the structure of the building. There are other applications that we have had before us in the past year alone, that we have granted the same courtesy to. Our job as a Planning Board is to make sure that everything is legalized. Mr. King, I felt that under our power, that it would be beneficial to us and the community to have him remove the sliding doors, that he was able to pump music outside, because he’s not allowed to have outdoor music, just like the Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard was trying to accomplish. People have been trying to compare the two, they’re completely different. I think that it hurt Mr. King more to have to close up these doors now, and he is never allowed to come in front of the Planning Board again to ask for any other extension. He’s finished. He’s done. In my power as a Planning Board member, I believe that I did the right thing. I really know that Mr. King probably would have hit us with a pretty good lawsuit to say ‘you allowed this one to go ahead and legalize there—’

Denise Civiletti: What could you have done alternatively? Besides say, ‘okay, you can legalize this because you did this without permit,’ what’s the alternative? Take it down?

Joann Waski: Well, that’s what some residents were looking for us to do. But like I made the reference [to] during the meeting that night, you have residents that put a swimming pool in, and they never filed for the [certificate of occupancy], we don’t say ‘you have to remove the pool and put it back in.’

Denise Civiletti: It did say, though, that this is the last time, we’re never doing this again. So, if he does that again, what happens?

Joann Waski: Well, I think that when I am on the Town Board, one of the first things that I would like to do is have stiffer fines for when you do these kind of things. I do realize that there are people who just might not know better, but this was the second time for Mr. King. I really think that stiffer fines should have been given. However, that is not what’s in the works now, with the current town rules and regulations. So he was fined, he was punished. That’s not our role, as Planning Board, to punish people like that.

Alek Lewis: While the planning board was thinking of Mr. King’s application, he donated a large financial contribution to the Riverhead Republican Committee. How can you reassure voters that you made an impartial decision with the [Riverhead] Ciderhouse application in light of that donation, and that you’ll be making impartial decisions when those supporting your campaign or the Riverhead Republican campaign committee appear in front of the Town Board?

Joann Waski: First of all, I did not know that he made a large campaign donation to the Republican committee. I am not on the Republican committee. I am a prior committeeperson. I only learned of Mr. King’s donation through your article with the campaign funds. I also know that you guys know that I did not personally receive any donation from Mr. King. Otherwise, that would have been part of the article. It was also said that most of the Republican campaign funding comes from developers, and, if you look at my campaign, you will see that all of my donations came from friends and family. And some of them, our business owners in town. I do not have any big developers or consultants. Not one.

Denise Civiletti: Is that intentional on your part?

Joann Waski: No. First of all, for them, I’m new. People in the town — everybody knows who I am. I’m born and raised here.

Alek Lewis: But let’s be honest Joann, the goal of the Riverhead Republican Committee is to get Republicans like you elected. So, I think it’s a fair question.

Joann Waski: It’s a fair question, I’m just saying that I have my own supporters. I don’t need and I don’t want to have people donate to my campaign because they’re trying to influence a vote on me.

Denise Civiletti: I’ll turn that question around just a little bit. As a councilperson, assuming you’re elected, and you are interested in running for reelection, would you accept campaign contributions from developers with pending — to you, personally — to developers with pending applications?

Joann Waski: No.

Denise Civiletti: It’s a hard question.

Joann Waski: It is, it is. I’m not really in that position right now.

Denise Civiletti: When someone who’s running or trying to get elected, you’re put in a position of, ‘okay, I need to get money, because it’s more and more expensive during the campaign,’ and you’ve got these people with checks coming to your fundraisers, it’s puts you in a very difficult position.

Joann Waski: No matter how you slice it, it’s a difficult place. I’ve worked very hard to make something of myself. I was always Richard Spanburgh’s daughter. Now, I’m Joann Waski. I created myself, and I have a successful business here. I’ve been going through, trying to do all the right things. At the end of the day, all I have is my reputation. I don’t ever want to be known as somebody that [had] some investor, applicant ruin my reputation like that.

Denise Civiletti: That’s where the rubber meets the road, I guess. It’s one thing to say ‘I’m not benefitting from this,’ but then when you run for reelection, and these people come along with the check —

Joann Waski: I think I’ve done very well right out of the gate with raising funds on my own. Asking people for money is one of the hardest things that I do, I just can’t do that. It’s not in my makeup.

MORE COVERAGE: Elections 2023