A proposed zoning code to allow resorts on farmland north of Sound Avenue in Riverhead is poised to move forward, despite opposition from some residents and groups.
The Town Board is taking up a new draft of the legislation that allows a portion of the farmland preserved as a part of the development to be used for indoor and vertical farming, if the farming is within a barn and screened from Sound Avenue. Resorts could only be built on 100 acres of land or more, and at least 70% of that land would need to be preserved for agricultural uses. Town officials have touted the proposal as a farmland preservation tool.
Some local farmers and the Long Island Farm Bureau, a farm industry group, had pushed to allow all types of agricultural production, including vertical farming, on the land, town officials said. The proposal has been shelved multiple times by town officials because of disagreements with — and among — farmers.
Town Board members have rejected calls from some town residents and groups, including Southold Town and the Group for the East End, to exclude the idea of allowing the developments, which town officials call agri-tourism inns and resorts, in the new comprehensive plan. Board members dismissed objections from residents at a recent meeting.
There is at least one developer that was interested in developing such a resort. Alfred Weissman Real Estate, a development firm based in Westchester County, had featured the North Fork Resort, a “luxury resort and spa” on the Long Island Sound, in the “new development” section of its website last summer. Emails obtained by RiverheadLOCAL show early drafts of the proposed code were created with the input of the firm’s attorney and planning consultants. The firm, a company associated with the firm, and one of the firm’s executives have made contributions to Supervisor Tim Hubbard and Council Member Ken Rothwell’s political campaigns.
MORE COVERAGE: Hubbard, town staff defend developer’s involvement in agri-tourism zoning code proposal
The Town Board is expected to consider a resolution on Tuesday to set a public hearing on the law for Aug. 20. Board members were presented the legislation Thursday among the resolutions to be taken up at the board’s July 16 meeting. Board members did not discuss it.
The proposal has been revised since it was last presented to the board in early June. Previous versions of the legislation said preserved agricultural lands could only be used for “agricultural production dependent on the use of agricultural soils,” as defined by state Agricultural and Markets Law. This language was intended to specifically prohibit indoor farming structures, which town officials argued were not in character with Sound Avenue.
The new draft of the legislation says no more than 5% of the preserved lands can be used for agricultural production not dependent on soils — such as vertical farming — as long as the production is “located within traditional barn structures and suitably screened from [the] Sound Avenue Historic Corridor.”
Rothwell, one of the board’s biggest advocates for the legislation, said in an interview after Thursday’s work session that the new draft strikes a “common ground” that allows the farmers to do some indoor farming, while “keeping the aesthetics of the area looking nice.” He said the town also incorporated other suggestions from the Long Island Farm Bureau into the legislation.
Long Island Farm Bureau Administrative Director Rob Carpenter said in a phone interview Thursday that he and other farmers have yet to see the legislation. “We appreciate the town working with the farm community and we are eager to see the revised draft when it comes before the Agricultural Advisory Committee for review,” he said, reserving further comment.
The most recent proposal also includes regulations on how a resort can develop on the beach along the Long Island Sound. The development will be able to have only one walkway/stairway “with no greater than 10% disturbance of the bluff area for such improvement,” the legislation states.
Town Board members briefly discussed agri-tourism resorts during a work session on June 27, during which town planners asked the board whether they wanted the idea to remain in the town’s new comprehensive plan. The topic has received heavy criticism from residents and groups during the comprehensive plan update process; 32 of the 62 letters received by the town after its public hearing opposed the idea.
Board members expressed unanimous support for keeping the idea in the plan, but not before Hubbard announced that he could not support the code change presented earlier that month. He said he met with roughly 20 farmers, none of which supported the legislation because of the restrictions on “what the farmers can do.”
“I have publicly said many times, I support what the farmers support,” Hubbard said during the discussion, “and the farmers do not support this, so I cannot support this.”
The supervisor said after the work session Thursday that he had not read the new draft of the legislation and declined to comment.
Asked on Thursday whether he expected significant community opposition to the legislation, Rothwell remained resolute in his support.
“If somebody reads the entire legislation, they will see that it’s good for the community,” Rothwell said. “It is a tool that is going to protect the integrity, it’s going to protect the agricultural preservation, the historic corridor, the aesthetic, the views and how the appearance is right now. I want people 50 years from now — 100 years from now — to drive down Sound Avenue and be like, ‘wow, look, this is still a farming community.’ That’s what this legislation is.”
The proposal would require the agri-tourism resort be built on at least 100 acres of land in the RA-80 zoning district, an area that covers most of the land north of Sound Avenue from Baiting Hollow to the Southold-Riverhead town line. At least 70% of that land would have to be used for agricultural production, while the other acreage could be built as a resort with a spa, restaurant, conference rooms and other amenities. The code would allow up to 300,000 square feet of structures on the 70 acres of agricultural land, which could include greenhouses, barns and agricultural worker housing. Both agricultural and non-agricultural buildings would be allowed to be up to 35 feet tall.
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.
