Riverhead Town Board members traveled to Southold Town Hall Tuesday morning for a joint work session with the Southold Town Board to discuss resort developments on the Long Island Sound bluffs with skeptical Southold Town officials.
The meeting occurred at the invitation of Southold Town, which has sent letters to Riverhead Town opposing the developments, conceived by Riverhead as “agri-tourism” resorts. Southold officials questioned their Riverhead counterparts Tuesday about the goal of the controversial proposed legislation, which has drawn opposition from residents, civic groups and the Group for the East End, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group.
The meeting came hours before the Riverhead Town Board moved the legislation forward Tuesday afternoon by setting an Aug. 20 public hearing on the proposed code.
MORE COVERAGE: Agri-tourism resort code back in play
Riverhead Supervisor Tim Hubbard and three council members (with Member Bob Kern absent) attended the joint meeting in Southold.
Southold Council Member Greg Doroski said he is trying to “understand some of the motivation” behind the legislation. “[D]o you see this hotel resort proposal as a preservation effort or is it [an] economic development effort?” he asked.
“I’m gonna say it’s a bit of both,” Supervisor Tim Hubbard said. “And I’m gonna defer, I think, to Ken [Rothwell], because Ken has been working on this. This is kind of — I don’t want to say it’s his project — but, you know, he’s probably been involved in it more than the rest of us.”
“It’s a tool for farming — farmers,” Rothwell said. He said the legislation requires a developer to “be engaged with the farmer” and can help farmers expand operations.
The proposed code requires that the agri-tourism resort be built on at least 100 acres of land. 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 initial concern — everybody jolts out when you say the hotel development. A hotel to me, when I travel, the hotel seems like this grand complex. That’s not what we’re talking about,” Rothwell said. “This is a low lying, it’s not going to be over 35 feet tall. It cannot be seen from Sound Avenue. So the whole frontage is going to be developed and keep that agricultural, historical view and aesthetics.”
Rothwell added that the hotel would not be seen from the Long Island Sound.
Riverhead’s code proposal establishes setbacks for a resort. The minimum front yard setback, which would regulate the development’s distance from Sound Avenue, is 200 feet. The minimum rear yard setback from the Long Island Sound bluff is 500 feet.
“This is preserved on the whole frontage of the property, it’s preserved on the back; it is a tool for farmers,” Rothwell said. “There’s been concerns from certain farmers that have come forward, but again, this is the land owned by the developer, when somebody purchases that property. It’s land owned by the developer. This legislation doesn’t change in any way any of the farming and the farmers that we have within the town.”
Rothwell said the code proposal would also contribute to the town’s tax base. Riverhead residents are “overburdened” by their tax bill, he said. He said 70% of the taxes collected on Riverhead properties are for school and 30% are for the town. (This is inaccurate. Roughly 60% of town tax collections go to school districts, while 35% goes to the town, and another 5% to special districts and the county, according to the town budget.)
“I think it brings jobs to Riverhead. And it brings up a complete spectrum of jobs,” Rothwell said. “So you have more high management positions, to simplistic jobs, top notch chefs, you know, it’s all there.”
Southold Supervisor Al Krupski asked whether the zoning change is proposed for the “whole length of Sound Avenue.” The resorts would be allowed 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.
Rothwell said the code change would only affect “approximately six parcels.” According to town officials, there are only six parcels or groups of parcels that are vacant and 100 acres or more within the RA-80 zoning district and could meet the requirements of the code.
Rothwell said it preserves farmland on both the development site and in other areas of the town, since developers would need to purchase farmland preservation credits in order to increase the development’s density to the maximum amount possible.
Hubbard said the town does have a transfer of development rights program to preserve farmland, but that it has not been “highly successful” and hope to improve it through the new comprehensive plan.
He said thousands of people come to the North Fork on weekends for events like pumpkin picking activities, music venues, and breweries. The resort is limited to 150 rooms and visitors would spend most of their time at the resort and spa, he said. That makes the resort “low lying, in that it is more of a staycation where people will come here and we expect them to stay.”
Southold Council Member Brian Mealy asked Riverhead officials whether they have studied the potential traffic impacts of a resort development.
Rothwell said the town would only have to study the traffic impacts of the development if it has more than 250 rooms. That is based on the traffic impacts section of the New York State DEC’s Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Workbook, which says a hotel/motel with 250 or more rooms would result in a “substantial increase to traffic” for the purposes of completing the environmental assessment form. The workbook also says that even if a development does not meet the threshold outlined in the workbook, a traffic analysis may still be necessary if the development meets certain conditions, including the lack of existing left turn lands on the adjacent roadway to a proposed access point, high traffic volumes on surrounding roads, and other factors.
Rothwell said a residential development in the area would contribute more traffic than an agri-tourism resort. “I know that I got two young boys at home, and my wife, we got four cars in our driveway, and we’re all out and about at the same time,” he said. Residential development also “puts more kids in the school,” he said.
“Have you given any thoughts to the potential detrimental impact of creating another economic center?” Doroski asked. “It seems like, currently, there’s some tension between the development on [Route] 58 and downtown. I know there’s been a lot of focus on the revitalization of downtown, but having multiple economic centers seems like a real challenge.”
Hubbard said downtown is for smaller boutique stores, while Route 58 is for big-box stores.
“Just looking at the hotels, let’s say on [Route] 58. They may be in competition with these hotels and just wondering, I guess from a planning standpoint, does that make sense?” he said.
Rothwell said he has talked with hotel owners and that it’s “hard to get a room” in Riverhead.
“It’s less of a concern, but maybe more of an opportunity for any one of those current hotel owners to go, wow, my rooms are always booked, maybe Riverhead is the place to be and maybe I do need to expand into those additional rooms,” Rothwell said.
“I think that this is a very different experience,” Council Member Denise Merrifield added. “The hotels are a location just to stay for the night and go expand out to wineries [or] beaches. The resort, or the place with the agri-tourism, that’s a destination to stay at. Maybe you go out to a restaurant at night, but you plan on being there for that experience.”
Council Member Anne Smith asked whether the town has a developer interested. Rothwell said the town met with a developer that “showed interest,” but that so site plan has been submitted to the town. “There’s no guarantee that anybody’s going to come forward,” he said.
Alfred Weissman Real Estate, a development firm based in Westchester County, met with town officials several times since October 2022; the firm’s attorney and planning consultants helped town officials create the first draft of the code change, according to emails obtained by RiverheadLOCAL. The company 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.
MORE COVERAGE: Hubbard, town staff defend developer’s involvement in agri-tourism zoning code proposal
Doroski asked whether a resort built under the code would receive Industrial Development Agency tax breaks. He said Southold recently fought against Suffolk County IDA giving a tax break to a hotel development, but was unsuccessful.
“[I]f they give it an IDA tax break, don’t you run into the issue of not getting that tax base?” Doroski asked.
Hubbard said he would suggest that there should be no IDA tax benefits for a project like a resort. “This isn’t a needed item. IDA really should be looked at for projects that you need, that you don’t have,” he said. “We wouldn’t give IDA [benefits] out to a bank or a gas station in Riverhead, because we have plenty of those. Do we have plenty of spas and resorts? No, we don’t. But to me, that’s more of a luxury. That’s not a necessary item.”
Hubbard said Riverhead IDA is made up of Town Board appointees. “That’s the only real control we have over the IDA because they are a separate voting entity,” he said. “But I don’t see a project like this qualifying or even even getting a look from the IDA.”
Doroski suggested that the town put language into the legislation to prohibit IDA benefits for a project.
Krupski asked whether the Suffolk County IDA is “kept out” of Riverhead projects because it has its own IDA. Hubbard answered “yes.” (This is inaccurate. Developments in Riverhead are allowed to apply to the Suffolk County IDA for benefits. While most IDA projects in Riverhead receive benefits from the Riverhead IDA other projects, including the Suffolk County Community College Culinary Arts Center, receive benefits from the Suffolk County IDA.)
Hubbard said there is a “whole other side” to the agri-tourism legislation. He said he agrees with a lot of the reasons to oppose the legislation.
“At this point in time, it’s still a discussion,” Hubbard said. “And the farmers aren’t 100% on board with it for various reasons. The people don’t seem to be on board with it. And then you have to weigh the negatives versus the positives; right now I see a lot more negatives than positives.”
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.
