A county effort to preserve a nearly 10-acre parcel of vacant land on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard in South Jamesport has run into resistance at Riverhead Town Hall.
The property, part woodland and part fallow farm field, is located between a residential subdivision and the town boat ramp.
County Legislator Greg Doroski met with the Town Board at its work session Thursday to discuss preservation of the site as open space. Doroski said the county wanted the town to partner in the acquisition by agreeing to maintain the site for passive recreation use.
That got pushback from board members, who said they’d prefer to see a development rights purchase rather than outright acquisition, so the property could be farmed. Some members objected to its conversion to county parkland, expressing concern that the use could be disruptive in a quiet residential area. Others voiced concerns about the cost of establishing and maintaining amenities like the walking trail and gravel parking area suggested by Doroski.
The town last year approved a four-lot residential subdivision of the site. It was the second time the Riverhead Planning Board approved a subdivision of the land. The board granted preliminary approval for a six-lot subdivision in November 2023.
The property owner, Peconic Farms LLC, returned to the Planning Board last summer with a revised plan, scaled down to four lots. After a new public hearing, the Planning Board granted preliminary approval to the four-lot map on Sept. 4.
At public hearings on each of the subdivision plans, neighboring residents turned out to oppose residential development of the site, citing the property’s low elevation, its location in the flood plain and frequent flooding — issues already affecting nearby homes. Neighbors argued that development would worsen existing conditions, which include frequent flooding of properties and homes.
Attorney Patricia Moore of Southold, representing the Great Meadow Property Owners Association, a community of 54 homes adjoining the Peconic Farms property on the west, told the Planning Board at the Aug. 7 public hearing that, because of the site’s low elevation and proximity to East Creek, people who buy the lots are “going to be buying a pig in a poke when they find out that the entire property is so low.” Moore said they will either need to import a “significant amount of soil to elevate the properties” or build the homes on piles. Planners don’t “generally create lots that would be developed with those kinds of restrictions. It goes against your subdivision rules and regulations,” Moore said.
Existing flooding conditions in the adjoining community will only get worse if the town allows the site to be developed, Moore predicted.
Dean Gandley, a representative of then-Legislator Catherine Stark, told the Planning Board during the Aug. 7 hearing that the legislator had written to the property owner about the county’s interest in preserving the property as open space and was waiting for a reply.
Ilene Sperling, president of the Great Meadow Property Owners Association, followed Gandley to the microphone to say the residents would like the property to be preserved as open space. She repeated other residents’ concerns about flooding. “Whenever we get a bad rain, you get high tides, that property tends to flood and backs up into our homes,” Sperling said.
“I think it’s great that the county might want to preserve this property. I hope that the property owner will give that serious consideration,” said Joan Cear. “I would encourage the Planning Board to request further investigation into the flooding concerns and how to mitigate that if the development of the land is to go forward.”
In September, Stark introduced a procedural resolution authorizing an appraisal of the Peconic Farms property for acquisition under the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program. The Legislature approved that resolution, according to county records.
Doroski, a Democrat, defeated Stark in the November election.
The discussion at Thursday’s work session quickly exposed a disconnect between the county proposal now moving forward and what some Riverhead officials said they believed the property was being considered for.
Council Member Joann Waski said she originally discussed the parcel with Stark as a farmland preservation priority, after speaking with members of the town Farmland Preservation Committee.
“This is prime farmland,” Waski said. “This should be preserved as farmland, not open space, not a parking lot, not walking paths, not public access for everybody that lives in Suffolk County.”
Her concern, she said, is that an open space acquisition could eventually create public access to Peconic Bay in a quiet residential area of Jamesport.
“This is Jamesport, a quaint, unique area,” Waski said. “I am not in favor of this being open space. I would like it preserved as farmland.”
Supervisor Jerry Halpin echoed that concern, saying the town’s objection is not to preservation itself, but to potential public access and parking.
“I think that’s the heart of what we want,” Halpin said. “We would like to see it stay” farmland.
“If I had my way, I agree there should be farmland and there could be a buffer or something like that,” Doroski said. “But that’s not the deal that was put together before my time. This is the deal that we have.”
Council Member Ken Rothwell expressed reservations during the work session about taking the land off the tax rolls.
“When we take this off and we remove it as open space, we go down to zero,” Rothwell said, referring to tax receipts. “We have to tell the taxpayers really what we’re doing.”
Doroski cautioned that residential development can also carry costs, particularly for schools and services.
Council Member Bob Kern said property tax impacts would be less with high-end homes, especially if they are second homes, which are less likely to put children in local schools.
Deputy Town Attorney Annmarie Prudenti said the county has not clearly defined what improvements or uses it would expect, noting that passive recreation typically involves infrastructure such as trails and parking.
“What is the proposed plan?” Prudenti asked. “What is the thought regarding the improvement of open space such that it would require maintenance?”
Doroski said the town would have the ability to negotiate the terms of any management agreement, suggesting options could range from minimal upkeep to limited public access.
Town officials pointed to past experience with the county’s Sharper’s Hill preserve, where they said management responsibilities proved more complex than anticipated.
“It took forever working with the county,” Kern said.
Prudenti said Riverhead’s experience has not been that the town simply designs its own management plan.
“In theory, it’s great when you state that the town can design its own management plan,” she said. “I assure you it has not worked that way in the past.”
Doroski pressed Riverhead officials to make a decision before a Monday morning meeting of the Legislature’s Environment, Parks and Agriculture Committee. An appraisal of the property has been completed, Doroski said after the work session. If it moves forward, the county would make an offer to the property owner, which, if accepted, would then require approval by the full Legislature.
But the deal would stall without the town’s participation, he told Riverhead officials.
The legislative committee was scheduled to discuss preservation of the site during its executive session Monday. The discussion was postponed, Doroski said in a phone interview Monday afternoon.
On Friday afternoon, during a visit to the site, Doroski expressed bafflement at Riverhead board members’ reaction at the Thursday session. He said he thought the town was on board with the plan and said the community supported preservation.
Sperling, the property owners association president, said in a phone interview Friday the community has supported preservation of the property, but had not been aware until recently that the county’s proposal could include public access features.
“This is the first time we’re hearing about trails or parking,” Sperling said. “That was never discussed.”
Residents would oppose any plan that draws additional traffic or activity to the site, she said, particularly given its proximity to an existing public marina.
On Monday afternoon, Council Members Rothwell, Kern, Waski and Denise Merrifield issued a joint press release about the county’s proposal.
“It is critical that our community, particularly the Jamesport community, understand the concerns expressed by the majority of the Town Board regarding Legislator Doroski’s proposed preservation plan,” the press release said. The proposal includes “maintenance by the Town” and “a request that the Town agree to issue a blank check in an unknown amount for an unknown project,” the council members said.
The board members said they “expressed concern for an undisclosed County plan for either a park preserve, hamlet park or recreation park.” Their concerns, they said, “were related to costs of improvements and perpetual annual maintenance costs paid by taxpayers, be it general fund or Community Preservation Fund, and potential negative impacts related to quality of life.”
Board members said in the press release they worried that the project would not be under the control of the town and “could potentially morph into a project with significant costs to the Town,” including access to the town’s East Creek parking area, boat ramp and beach, an increase in traffic and an intrusion on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties.
“The undersigned will support, by Town Board resolution, preservation of this parcel by County and/or combined County/Town as open space without park improvements, such as parking lots, trails, picnic tables, barbeques, playgrounds and instead keep this property natural without impacts to neighboring residents, restricting County residents from using and visiting our beaches, and eliminate perpetual costs to our taxpayers,” the council members’ press release said.
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.
