A proposed amendment to the zoning for the undeveloped, town-owned land at the Calverton Enterprise Park has come under fire for not going far enough to prohibit aviation uses at the site.
The criticism, raised by a vocal few during a public hearing last week, raises fundamental questions about the future of the property’s development now that the Town Board has canceled the contract with its previous buyer, Calverton Aviation & Technology, an affiliate of the Canadian development conglomerate Triple Five. What should aviation look like at EPCAL? How should the runways, the property’s most valuable and uniquely marketable assets, be used? Or should the idea of planes landing at EPCAL be abandoned altogether?
“I think this is not a good area to have a general aviation airport,” said John Cullen of Northville, the chairperson of the town’s Helicopter Noise Task Force. “Obviously you have Brookhaven about 10 miles away or 15 miles away, and you have Gabreski right even closer,” he said, referring to other local airports.
“I could go on forever about this, but having tie downs, having fuel being brought into the planes, is all saying this is what you plan on happening there,” Cullen said. “I don’t want to be a Debbie Downer, but I don’t think it’s the right thing to do for the area.”
Cullen’s comments came during a public hearing on a change to the Planned Development (PD) zoning use district that would expressly ban use of the site’s two runways for a “commercial passenger airport or a cargo airport.” The amendment would also ban flight instruction, flight training, aircraft rental and aeronautical services, except for fueling, hangaring, tie-down, parking and maintenance “ancillary” to a permitted principal use.
It would also prohibit registration or licensing of any portion of the property with any federal, state or local government entity or agency thereof, or the listing of the property on aviation charts or maps for any of the uses prohibited by the proposed amendment. All new owners, lessees or applicants will be required to file covenants restricting the use of property in the PD district consistent with the terms of the amended code.
The current PD district code says nothing about the use of runways at EPCAL nor does it regulate aviation uses at the site. Aviation uses are also not on the list of those allowed by special permit, making them allowable by right. Some of the changes in the proposed code include promises made by incoming supervisor and current Council Member Tim Hubbard during the campaign season.
The zoning currently allows “all uses that promote economic development,” by right and by special permit. The zoning also allows two “supportive uses,” those being residential uses and retail, personal service and restaurant uses “specifically designed to support permitted principal or other supportive uses within the EPCAL property.”
Town officials have argued that the current zoning does in fact limit aviation uses, pointing to an environmental review done for the property while the U.S. Navy, which owned the property and leased it to defense contractor Northrop Grumman for decades, prepared to transfer the site to Riverhead Town for economic development. An environmental study completed in 1997 assesses the effects of “operating several flights each weekday and one flight each weekend day,” and the landing of only turboprop planes or small corporate jets at the airpark.
But the serious possibility that the site can be more than just a few small planes — triggered by the plans presented by CAT to the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency in September 2022 for an air cargo logistics hub that would have utilized cargo jets — has put the future of aviation uses at EPCAL front and center.
CAT’s plans led to hundreds of residents flooding public meetings and voicing their opposition against the EPCAL deal and the possible impacts of airplanes and trucks associated with its air cargo logistics hub proposal. The Democrats ran against the incumbent Republican Party on the coattails of the controversy surrounding the EPCAL deal. The PD district, as well as Hubbard’s support of the legislation to create the zoning, was criticized by Democratic candidates during the campaign as enabling CAT’s proposal.
Triple Five executives worked to distance themselves from the plans presented last September, but residents remained skeptical of the company’s development plans. Hubbard, the Republican supervisor candidate, said in July that CAT’s plan to use the runways at EPCAL to bring in air cargo for logistics and distributions could comply with the PD district, but said he would require covenants on the property to prevent the use.
Hubbard also said during a candidate interview with RiverheadLOCAL that he wants to “put directly into the zoning that there will never be a commercial airport there, there will never be a jetport there, there will never be a cargo port there,” as well as allow certain, unspecified uses by special permit only. The Town Board was, however, prohibited from changing the property’s zoning while in contract with CAT, and for five years after the closing of the sale.
The land deal with CAT and its development plans, the key issue of the campaign, became somewhat moot after the Town Board canceled the contract with the developer on Oct. 24, two weeks before the election. Hubbard and the Republicans swept town elections in a landslide.
The proposed PD district amendment would make good on Hubbard’s promise to amend the zoning, as well as require the filing of covenants restricting the use of the property consistent with the changes to the town code.
One of Cullen’s principal objections to the proposed code is that it does not prohibit “general aviation.” The International Civil Aviation Organization defines general aviation as “all civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire.” According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, it is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of aerial uses such as recreational flying, flight training and other commercial purposes.
Reeves Park resident Mike Foley said he is supportive of changing the zoning, but asked why general aviation was not prohibited by the code change.
“[B]ecause either it was something that might have been an oversight, you’d reconsider now, or there was something that was on your mind that this could possibly be a beneficial use to the town,” Foley said. “So I’m just asking you guys, I’m throwing it out to all of you. What would be the reason of keeping general aviation as a possibility?”
Deputy Town Attorney Annemarie Prudenti answered Foley.
“Just to be clear, what hasn’t been read, and the language includes, the fueling, hangering tie down, parking and maintenance must be ancillary to a permitted use. This legislation does not open up EPCAL and its runways to general aviation. It simply does not,” Prudenti said.
“The language is intended to be as restrictive as it is and be consistent with the environmental record going back to the date the town acquired the property from the United States Navy,” Prudenti said. “In that [final environmental impact statement] going back to 1998, what the study was and what was determined was that small corporate planes and prop planes could be utilized for the runway and used to increase the value of the development to the entities that were coming in. And that’s what this language states.”
Foley asked whether the town could restrict general aviation further. Prudenti said the town could clarify in the code that the use is “not open to the general public.” She also said the town could also add “air freight” to the prohibited uses.
The Town Board was in agreement that the code be amended to reflect the changes Prudenti stated during the hearing, but they did not agree on any prohibition of general aviation at the site.
Town Board members have expressed support for some aviation uses at EPCAL. Hubbard specifically has said he would support the runway’s use to test aircraft manufactured at the site — what he called a “historical use” — or to allow the private plane of an executive at one of the site’s businesses to land. Council Member Ken Rothwell inquired during the hearing about whether the manufacturing or flight testing of drones could be allowed under the zoning.
Another concern, raised by Northville resident Kathy McGraw, was that the language of the amendment was not careful enough in preventing a developer other than Triple Five from creating a logistics center that can utilize the runways to handle packages.
“If you have a permitted use at EPCAL, which is warehousing, and you were to build 8 million square feet of warehousing, could there be a very good argument that delivery of those goods by drone would be ancillary to the permitted use?” McGraw asked. “And I just want to make sure we’re being careful not to let that happen down the road.” No town officials responded to McGraw.
While a majority of the few speakers at the hearing were against the legislation because it didn’t go far enough, one person said it went too far. Martin Sendlewski of Riverhead, who spoke over Zoom, said the runways at the EPCAL site are seen as the “biggest asset of the property.”
“Today, basically, you have a public hearing to amend the zoning, which effectively is, realistically, is going to wipe those two runways right off the face of the earth, for the most part,” Sendlewski said. “Not in terms of, quote unquote, some small ancillary uses. But in reality, they’re gonna lose their value.”
Sendlewski said the amendment to the PD zoning is not affecting private residences in the town, but public land that was deeded to the town by the Navy for economic development.
“I know there are a lot of people that are opposed to the aviation use, etc. and they’re absolutely entitled to that — First Amendment, put the signs out, a lot of people feel that way,” Sendlewski said. “But I don’t think the ‘town’ is in an uproar. There are certainly a lot of people who are passionate about it. However you might be surprised to find that there are also a lot of people who think that these runaways are a good asset and should be considered in future planning of this development, especially now that CAT is gone, it’s gonna go into its next phase, I presume, and we’re gonna be looking for proposals for the property.”
The amendment to the PD zoning is going to “cut out a lot of proposals.” He asked the Town Board to put the zoning change as a referendum so residents can vote for whether the town should permit aviation uses at EPCAL.
Prudenti said the zoning change in question is not a referendum issue. The change is a correction and clarification that is supported by the environmental record of previous studies for EPCAL’s development, she said.
Marilyn Banks-Winter of Riverhead asked whether the town is studying the environmental impacts of cargo planes and other planes coming into EPCAL. Board members responded by saying that there are no cargo planes coming.
“Okay, so no cargo planes. And nothing for the public [use]. So it’s [for] private industry,” Banks-Winter said. “What’s happening with that?”
“Nothing’s scheduled. They are not here. The birds are not coming — the planes are not coming. Trust me,” Aguiar said to Banks-Winter. “They’re not here. They haven’t been here. Grumman closed. And this legislation is to help with that.”
“And if for whatever reason somebody decides that they’re going to try to make some type of aviation, that has to go through a whole process, from the county, to the Planning Board, to the Town Board, to the public,” Aguiar said. “It’s so far away — we’re generations away from that, if it ever happens.”
The Town Board members’ responses to Banks-Winter’s questions echo their comments before they voted to cancel the contract with CAT. Board members said that what CAT presented to the Riverhead IDA was an impossibility and that residents concerned about the development of an “air cargo port” are misleading the public and fear mongering.
The PD district governs the development of most of the roughly 2,100 acres of land at EPCAL currently owned by the town, including the inactive 7,000-foot western runway on the site.
The active 10,000-foot eastern runway on the site is within the Planned Industrial Park zoning use district, which governs the “industrial core” of the property. Unlike the current PD district, the Planned Industrial Park district does regulate aviation uses. It prohibits “regularly scheduled or unscheduled passenger service, air taxi, air charter or fixed-based operator as currently defined by the FAA.” It allows aircraft maintenance and design, as well as several accessory aviation uses.
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.
