Duffy MX Motocross Track proposal scoped for environmental impact review

The Riverhead Town Board on Feb. 18 held a public scoping session to shape the required draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Duffy MX Motocross Track, an outdoor motocross facility proposed for a 15-acre property at 2822 River Road in Calverton.

The project returned to town review last year after an earlier version stalled under the Calverton industrial moratorium. In October 2025, the Town Board issued a SEQRA positive declaration for the application, triggering the requirement for an environmental impact statement.

What the board was scoping

Senior Planner and Zoning Officer Greg Bergman told the board the scoping session was limited to what the environmental impact statement must study, not whether the public supports or opposes the project. Separate hearings will be held on applications for a special permit and site plan approval, he said.

Bergman said the applicant submitted a draft scope on Jan. 15, triggering a 60-day SEQRA timeline for the town, as lead agency, to issue a final scope. He said the final scope is due March 16 and he asked the applicant for a one-day extension so the board could adopt it at the March 17 Town Board meeting.

Agency and staff comments: mining permit, WSRR permit, and adding the ZBA

Bergman said the town received scoping comments from the state DEC, Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Central Pine Barrens Commission.

Among the most consequential issues: DEC determined the project will require a mined land reclamation permit, and town staff said the Zoning Board of Appeals must be added as an involved agency because mining is not a permitted use in the Calverton Industrial zoning district.

Bergman also said DEC indicated the applicant will need a Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers permit, and a variance from WSRR requirements to obtain that permit, in addition to the mined land reclamation permit.

The draft scope’s core impacts

The draft scope describes excavation of about 120,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel—reported to take about eight months—followed by construction of parking areas and related structures, and notes sand mining is not permitted in any zoning district in Riverhead.

It also identifies impacts to prime agricultural soils (Riverhead Sandy Loam), including more than 2.5 acres within Suffolk County Agricultural District 7, and notes the loss would be an irreversible conversion of agricultural land.

The draft scope flags Pine Barrens issues as well, stating the site is within the Central Pine Barrens Compatible Growth Area and does not conform with the plan’s land-use standards, including a requirement to set aside at least 40% natural open space; it notes Pine Barrens advised a hardship waiver is required if the project is not revised to conform.

Noise is a major focus, with the draft scope noting potential exceedances of town thresholds during excavation/export and track operations, and that the site is within 1,500 feet of a state-licensed day care facility.

What staff wants added to the scope

Bergman outlined several additions/edits staff intends to require in the final scope, including:

• A land-use consistency section stating the project proposes a sand mine, which is prohibited in the Calverton Industrial district under town zoning.
  
• Expanded “sensitive receptor” analysis for noise to include nearby residential properties, agricultural operations, preserved open space, parkland areas and licensed daycare centers.
  
• Traffic analysis that explicitly covers special events and races.
  
• A requirement for Phase 1A/1B archaeological survey work, citing correspondence with the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

During the scoping discussion, Bergman said one alternative to be studied could be constructing an indoor motocross track, which could reduce noise and lighting impacts and potentially eliminate the need for excavation.

Councilwoman Joann Waski noted a concern raised previously by the applicant—that the project depends on proceeds from soil export—questioning how an indoor track would be feasible. Bergman responded that financial viability does not control what the town must evaluate for environmental review.

Public comments: trucking, dust, prime soils, Pine Barrens waiver

During public comments on the draft, Laura Jens-Smith of Laurel said the environmental review should quantify anticipated truck trips and haul routes, analyze roadway and pavement impacts, and assess construction-phase noise and air quality (including fine particulates).

She also urged the town to quantify acreage of prime agricultural soils permanently lost, evaluate cumulative impacts to agricultural preservation, and identify whether topsoil would be stripped and preserved or removed. She flagged the Pine Barrens open space standards and the possibility of a hardship waiver.

The DEIS should include a detailed noise analysis, to assess impacts on a nearby day care facility and other nearby uses, including residences.

The “proposal affects multiple protected resources, including our prime agricultural soil, our prime barons lands, land use standards, sole source aquifer protection, proximity to a Superfund site, nearby wetlands, adjacent homes and community facilities,” Jens-Smith said. “For this, I hope that you will take a hard look at this scoping and have the questions addressed.”

River Road resident Craig Dahlgren raised concerns about dust from racing activities on an outdoor dirt track. He said another track operating in the area causes significant dust to blow across the road from time to time. “How is this going to affect residents,” he asked.

He also raised questions about the impacts of lighting and noise, as well as of special events he said the applicant indicated he’d like to host at the site.

Mike Spindler of River Road said the project would severely impact quality of life in the area, where he’s lived for 45 years.

“I urge you to study thoroughly this scope document, to see how I believe this project would shatter a community and create an unwelcome change in the quality of life for…area residents and businesses and be an unwelcome change for those scores of visitors who frequent the area to appreciate and peacefully enjoy all it has to offer,” Spindler said. He said he’s familiar with motocross racing, having raced his bikes at other tracks around the region. Putting the track below grade won’t eliminate racing noise, he said. “Everybody knows sound travels through the wind. The wind’s out of the south, the wind’s out of the north. That sound is going to travel. It’s very peaceful back there,” Spindler said. “Noise is often the number one concern of area residents when they look to buy a place. It’s often the number one consideration, even beyond schools,” he said.

Sand-mining questions raised

Council Member Ken Rothwell confirmed with Bergman that if the applicant doesn’t remove excavated materials from the site, the activity wouldn’t be sand-mining, but excavation and grading. Bergman said planning staff suggested that as an alternative to study. Bergman also said an indoor track should also be analyzed as an alternative.

“My concern is that during the work session that the applicant had stated that he was counting on the proceeds from the sand mining to be able to complete the project,” Council Member Joann Waski said. “So how would he be able to do an indoor track?”

Bergman said the financial viability of a project has no bearing on the town board’s environmental review. 

Victor Prusinowski, a consultant to the applicant, told the board the excavation is part of creating the track and mitigating noise, not a commercial sand mine, and said the team would be amenable to a bond to address concerns about unfinished excavation. He said the applicant retained Nelson, Pope & Voorhis and would address the concerns identified in scoping.

“We will explore all alternatives,” Prusinowski said. “We’d love to build an indoor track. If we can find somebody to put up $5 million to build that size track,”  he said.

Barbara Blass of Jamesport objected to the board sending the application to the ZBA for a variance to allow a prohibited use. “I am appalled that there is consideration for the second time in a few short months that an application for a prohibited use would be going to the zoning board for a determination,” she said. “How does that happen? And if it’s a use of variance, they have to demonstrate that they can’t use that property for anything else.” Blass suggested the board might be considering revenue from fees due the town for exportation of soils.  “I know it’s very tempting to try to find a waiver, to waive the prohibition in this town against sand mining, because you stand to gain $3 a cubic yard for 120,000 cubic yards…over $300,000.”

Toqui Terchun, president of the Greater Calverton Civic Association, said the scope should contain an economic value analysis, which she said will show the extent to which excavating and selling sand from the site will enrich the developer. She said excavating and selling 120,000 cubic yards of sand will produce $1.8 million to $3 million in revenues. “This is a commercial mining operation for profit, disguised as recreational development,” Terchun said. The Calverton civic group will submit a comprehensive comments document to the board after the hearing, she said.

Applicant responds

Applicant Dan Duffy said an indoor track is “not conducive to the sport.” There are issues with lighting and ventilation. 

Duffy said putting the use below grade is the best possible noise mitigation measure. Sand isn’t good for building berms, he said. Soil is better for building berms, he said. The applicant will not remove agricultural soils from the site, because he said, “that is what we ride on.” Duffy also raised the issue of possible groundwater contamination due to a PFAS plume in the area, emanating from the former Grumman site in Calverton. That complicates the site’s future as agricultural land, Duffy said.

Dan Duffy Jr. of Kingston, the applicant’s son, said the excavation should be understood as a pit roughly six feet deep on one side and 12 feet on the other — rather than a sand mine. “They are two different things,” he said.

Editor’s note: This article has been amended to correct a transcription error in reporting the comments of Barbara Blass regarding the volume of materials to be excavated and exported from the site according to the application and of Toqui Terchun regarding submission of written comments.