06/27/13 6:00am
06/27/2013 6:00 AM

CARRIE MILLER PHOTO | Environmental activists gathered in front of the Riverhead County Center to protest a bill proposed by Legislator Al Krupski (D-Cutchogue) to revise the county’s land preservation program last Tuesday afternoon.

Two weeks ago, freshman Suffolk County Legislator Al Krupski introduced legislation to alter Suffolk’s Drinking Water Protection Program to favor farmland preservation over open space.

It was a dumb-headed rookie error that threatens both. Here’s why.

1. For the past 25 years the Drinking Water Protection Program has been protecting both farmland and open space. Environmentalists and farmers have worked together to assure public support to fund these worthy goals with the result that we have protected more than 30,000 acres to benefit everyone. This bill pointlessly pits one objective against the other for no purpose.

2. What makes the Krupski proposal even worse is that the DWPP is nearly out of money, so his proposed legislation would create two sides scrambling for the leftover crumbs when they should be maintaining a productive alliance by seeking a new funding stream to keep protection of both farmland and open space moving forward in the region.

3. Worst of all, the Krupski measure seeks to change the DWPP by an act of politicians, when the existing DWPP was created through a public referendum which promised that any changes in the law could only be made by a new public referendum. So Krupski is undermining the whole democratic process that was designed and intended to put the public in control of the preservation program — not the politicians. Mr. Krupski has been in office for only a few months and already he’s running roughshod over the people who elected him. If he wants to subordinate drinking water protection to subsidizing agriculture, he and his friends in the county Legislature should put the matter to a vote. That’s what democracy is all about.

Mr. Krupski, a farmer himself, is also working on legislation that would permit more activities on land from which the public has purchased the development rights. He wouldn’t even talk to us when we asked about this. He claims that 95 percent of land purchases over the years have been for open space purchases and not for farmland. That’s just false. We’re seeing farms stripped of their productive soils, replaced by concrete and glass structures — not to produce food, but rather plants for Walmart. Then there are the wedding factories, and on and on. If the legislator wanted to run for president of the farm lobby, he shouldn’t have run for county Legislature. Maybe we should call him “Korruptski.”

Then, as the TV ads say, “But wait! There’s more!” The Long Island Farm Bureau — the agriculture lobbying group that says it told Mr. Krupski the DWPP legislation was a bad idea — flip-flopped and played politics by coming out in favor of the bill they say they discouraged him from introducing! They needlessly entered a fight they didn’t need. Almost all the farms that have sought county protection have received it. So now, Long Island’s leading environmentalists have come out against Mr. Krupski and the agriculture lobby to demand rejection of the bill and restoration of public control over the Drinking Water Protection Program. And more than 80 percent of Long Islanders consider themselves environmentalists.

As the name suggests, the Drinking Water Protection Program was created to buy open space that sits atop Long Island’s underground drinking water supply. That water supply was the first to be designated a sole source aquifer by the federal government, meaning that there is no other viable source of drinking water for the Island’s three million people except for groundwater. That groundwater also feeds our rivers, lakes, bays and harbors. By protecting open space, our water is not polluted by sewage, pesticides, fertilizer or toxic chemicals. On the other hand, farming is contaminating our drinking water and surface waters with fertilizers, pesticides and more. And we can’t seem to get the agriculture lobby to change its ways. Nobody wants the Drinking Water Protection Program to become the Drinking Water Pollution Program. So what’s to be done?

I suggest the following:

First, the Suffolk County Legislature should kill the Krupski bill.

Second, we should all sit down and decide on a new source of funding for land preservation, to be voted on by residents and taxpayers.

Third, we should insist on alternatives to the pesticides and fertilizers that scientists have shown are poisoning Long Island’s water.

Legislator Krupski and the agriculture lobby need to join with the rest of Long Island to find the way to productive farming AND clean water.

Mr. Amper is executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, an environmental education and advocacy organization.

06/19/13 11:33am
06/19/2013 11:33 AM

CARRIE MILLER PHOTO | Environmental activists gathered in front of the Riverhead County Center to protest a bill proposed by Legislator Al Krupski (D-Cutchogue) to revise the county’s land preservation program Tuesday afternoon.

Environmental advocates lined up Tuesday to speak out against a bill proposed in the Suffolk County Legislature that’s designed to revise the county’s land preservation program.

The bill, proposed by Legislator Al Krupski (D-Cutchogue), would ensure that half of Drinking Water Protection Program funds, which must be used for land preservation, would be designated for purchasing farmland development rights.

With funding for the program dwindling, the environmental activists believe legislators should focus on securing future land preservation funds “rather than declaring one land type is more superior to all others,” said Kevin McDonald of the Nature Conservancy, during the public hearing portion of Tuesday’s Legislature meeting at the County Center in Riverside.

“We should in fact be arguing for additional funding for a wildly popular program that helps both the environment and the economy,” said Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, who also spoke during the hearing.

According to a press release from Mr. Krupski promoting his proposed bill, 95 percent of program funding currently goes to open space purchases, which include wetlands, Pine Barrens, woodlands and hamlet parks. The remaining five percent is allocated for farmland preservation, the release states.

Joe Gergela, director of the Long Island Farm Bureau, said he applauds Mr. Krupski’s efforts in taking on the “sensitive” issue.

“It is a balancing act,” Mr. Gergela said at the hearing. “He has raised awareness of the importance of farmland in the program.”

Since the Drinking Water Protection Program started in 1988, about 12,000 acres of farmland have been preserved, leaving 23,000 acres to be protected, Mr. Gergela said.

Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment also took to the podium. She said that, according to the county charter, the Legislature does not have the last say on changing the voter-approved law, which directs a quarter penny sales tax on every dollar to the Drinking Water Protection Program.

A mandatory referendum is needed to make any amendments to the program, she said.

“You can’t do this legally,” she said.

“When the voters of Suffolk County approved this overwhelmingly important environmental program, they approved very specific wording and provisions and had an expectation that land preservation would proceeded accordingly,” Tom Casey, vice president of the Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference, told legislators.

The program has secured more than a billion dollars for land preservation throughout the county, Mr. Amper said.

In 2007 the county accelerated the program, bonding purchases against future sales tax revenue through November 2011. But now the county must purchase land on a pay-as-you-go basis, significantly reducing available funds, according to previous Times/Review coverage.

Currently, the county has $25.1 million in program funds to spend on acquisition, but it already has 43 properties, totaling 420 acres, in various stages of purchase, together costing $23.9 million, according to an April 29 press release from Suffolk County executive Steven Bellone.

For future purchases, the county anticipates receiving $5 million from this years sales tax, along with $1.14 million that’s available from leftover program funds. Moving forward, it must rely solely on the yearly sales tax revenue to fund the program, according to the release.

During the hearing, Mr. Amper asked that legislators not lose sight of the program’s goal.

“This is for drinking water protection,” he said. “When you buy open space above important aquifer sources, the water below stays clean.”

[email protected]

06/13/13 6:13pm
06/13/2013 6:13 PM
Broidy in Reeves Park

BARBARAELLEN KOCH PHOTO | The land just west of Park Road/Thomas Kelly Memorial Drive that nearby Reeves Park residents have wanted to see preserved.

Two Riverhead Town Board members who oppose a plan by Suffolk County to purchase 15 acres of land on Sound Avenue as open space now say they would support  a move by the county to preserve the property as farmland instead.

But county officials say such a move would require the entire potential acquisition process to start again, with no guarantees the county will be making any offers on the land.

Council members Jodi Giglio and George Gabrielsen sent a letter to county Legislator Al Krupski (D-Cutchogue) Thursday voicing their support for preservation of the land as farmland, rather than open space.

Under the county’s farmland preservation program,  the county would buy what’s called development rights and the land could only be used for agriculture in the future.

“The property being preserved as parkland would require taking the entire property out of farming permanently and would not only require use of town Community Preservation Fund funds, which have been depleted in recent years, but also ongoing maintenance of the park with town resources, on behalf of all Suffolk County residents,” reads the letter, which was also sent to the News-Review.

The councilpeople say it is more desirable to preserve the land as farmland, which would be “in keeping with the rural character of Sound Avenue and would support the Scenic Rural Historic Corridor.”

The land in question is just shy of 15 acres of farmland stretching north from the northwest corner of Park Road (also called Thomas Kelly Memorial Drive) and Sound Avenue.

[See interactive map below]

It is owned by Ed Broidy, a developer whose Boom Development company first proposed a commercial shopping center at the site in 2003, a plan that met with community opposition.

When the town rezoned the property to residential uses in the mid-2000s, Mr. Broidy sued, but later offered a settlement in which he would develop the land residentially, with one seven-acre farm and 16 residential lots on the remainder of the land.

The county later proposed to acquire the land as open space under the “active recreation” section of the voter-approved drinking water protection program, for use as a fitness trail. However, that section of the program requires that a town or private entity act as a partner to manage the recreation use, and submit a plan to do so beforehand.

Riverhead Town officials estimated the cost of creating the fitness trail at about $70,000, and council members Gabrielsen and Giglio opposed doing so, saying at a recent public Town Board work session the town doesn’t have the money.

Without the support of Ms. Giglio or Mr. Gabrielsen, and since Supervisor Sean Walter once represented Mr. Broidy as his attorney and recused himself from the discussion, the Town Board wouldn’t have three votes to support of the acquisition.

That would mean the county could not proceed in purchasing the parcel.

Mr. Krupski, whose district spans the North Fork, said Friday that he plans to speak with Mr. Broidy next week, but he said preserving the land as farmland would require a whole new process be started at the county level.

On the other hand, he said, the alternative could be that the land isn’t preserved at all.

The acquisition of the farmland development rights also would require that the land be farmed, and Mr. Broidy has indicated in the past that he is not interested in doing that.

There currently is no application with the county for the purchase of the farmland development rights on the Broidy parcel, officials say.

Mr. Broidy could not immediately be reached for comment.

Long Island Pine Barrens Society executive director Richard Amper has been critical of the two council member’s opposition to the park purchase.

“It’s properly purchased as open space,” he said Friday. “The county approved the purchase on the basis of its suitability for trails and recreation. The county got it right, Gabrielsen and Giglio have it wrong. Development rights are purchased only with the expectation that the land owner is going to continue to farm the land.

“That’s not going to happen here.”

Mr. Amper said the purchase would be “a gift from the county…why don’t they just say ‘thank you?”

[email protected]

View Larger Map

04/18/13 6:00am
04/18/2013 6:00 AM

COURTESY PHOTO | Boy Scouts on a rope obstacle course.

There are two troubling elements in the controversy of the proposed training course proposed for the Boy Scouts of America property in Baiting Hollow. The project would be built close to adjacent property owners.

First, why can’t the Boy Scouts of America learn to be good neighbors? Previously, the Suffolk Chapter proposed to site a money-making cell tower on the property, without regard for their neighbors’ concerns. The Nassau Chapter proposed converting their scout camp in Wading River into a golf course until environmentalists intervened and protected the land, the community and the camp.

What kind of message does this send to the young people the Boy Scouts of America are trying to shape? It sure isn’t the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The scouting organization may not be willing to love their neighbors as themselves, but they might try, at least, to accommodate them. Flat or not, the portion of the scout property abutting their residential neighbors can’t be the only place to erect telephone poles.

The other problematic position to emerge from the Riverhead Town Planning Board’s meeting on the subject was the position of member Ed Densieski. He asked why members of the public should be accommodated at an evening meeting, because they had to work during the day, at the alleged inconvenience of the applicant. Of course, it’s because government is supposed to represent the public’s interest, not the applicant’s. Maybe that’s why Densieski is no longer a member of the Riverhead Town Board. You have to get elected to that body.

Richard Amper, Lake Panomoka

To read more letters to the editor, pick up a copy of the Riverhead News-Review on newsstands or click on the E-Paper.

03/29/13 8:00am
03/29/2013 8:00 AM

BARBARAELLEN KOCH PHOTO | Kent Animal Shelter kennel attendant Erin McGrellis holds Walter, a 3-year-old French bulldog surrendered by his owner because he was picking on an older dog in the household. He’s now undergoing training to rid him of his bad habits.

Kent Animal Shelter’s plan to build a 10,000-square-foot facility to replace the aging structure on its River Road property in Calverton took a big step forward last Thursday, when the Riverhead Town Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved a series of variances needed for the project.

Kent Animal Shelter has been operating at its 2.1-acre River Road location since 1968, during which time it has gotten more than 30,000 animals adopted and has treated more than 60,000 dogs and cats through its spay/neuter program, said executive director Pamela Green.

The nonprofit animal rescue organization’s current facilities “are antiquated by any standard,” Chuck Bowman, vice president of Kent’s board of directors, said at last week’s ZBA hearing.

Mr. Bowman is also a land-use planner who is donating his services for the Kent project, Ms. Green later said.

Editorial: Two new animal shelter efforts need local support

“The shelter is 45 years old and the buildings are falling apart,” Ms. Green told the ZBA. “It really would be a shame if we couldn’t continue our services.”

Kent seeks to remove two old buildings near the river and build a 10,000-square-foot facility that would incorporate the functions of several current buildings into one, Ms. Green said. The new structure will have about 60 indoor dog runs and will be sound-proofed, so noise will not travel outside the building.

“The new building will be so much better for the animals and for the people,” Ms. Green said.

COURTESY DRAWING | A rendering of what the new Kent Animal Shelter will look like.

Kent expects the project to cost about $1.75 million. Kent’s funding comes entirely from private contributions, grants and bequests, Mr. Bowman said.

About three years into a capital campaign that launched in 2010, Kent has more than $400,000 on hand, with future fundraising events planned, Ms. Green.

Typically, such building projects are financed over several years.

The shelter still will need a special permit approval from the Town Board, site plan approval from the Planning Board, a hardship exemption from the state’s Central Pine Barrens Commission and sewage flow approvals from the county health department before it can begin construction on its long-held vision.

Those approvals are expected to take another six to nine months, shelter officials said.

Kent had at one time looked for land at another location to build its new shelter, but found that the town’s zoning doesn’t specifically permit animals shelters anywhere, which is why Kent will need a special permit from the Town Board.

“It’s very difficult to site one where you can actually keep all your neighbors happy,” Mr. Bowman said. “So with that, we decided we were going to stay in our existing, non-conforming site, which is on the Peconic River.”

Kent has already received state approval to build near the river, which is located within the boundaries of the state’s Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, which limits development near New York rivers.

Kent plans to move the buildings further away from the river, upgrade its sanitary system and build a buffer between the buildings and the river, according to Mr. Bowman.

Kent also purchased a neighboring property to create more of a buffer between the shelter and neighboring properties.

The shelter handles spaying and neutering of animals for Riverhead Town and often takes animals from the town’s shelter and helps get them adopted, Ms. Green said.

Securing approval from the Pine Barrens Commission is expected to be the toughest hurdle facing the project.

At a Dec. 20 hearing before the commission, Riverhead Supervisor Sean Walter and Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine, two of its five commissioners, voiced support for Kent.

“They are our de facto municipal shelter,” Mr. Walter said of Kent at the hearing.

But Richard Amper of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society criticized Mr. Walter’s comments and suggested it may be a conflict of interest for Mr. Walter to vote on Kent’s application.

“Kent providing great public service is entirely irrelevant to this application,” Mr. Amper said at the time, indicating that the commission’s vote should be based entirely on whether Kent meets the criteria for a Pine Barrens exemption.

The Long Island Pine Barrens Society is a nonprofit environmental organization and isn’t part of the Pine Barrens Commission, though Mr. Amper is vice president of the commission’s advisory committee and was instrumental in getting the state Pine Barrens Protection Act enacted in the early 1990s.

Those who’d like to contribute to the new shelter fund should contact Pam Green at 631-727-5731 or [email protected].

[email protected]

02/28/13 12:00pm
02/28/2013 12:00 PM

BARBARAELLEN KOCH FILE PHOTO | The southern entrance into the already-developed part of EPCAL, referred to as the industrial core.

A plan released this week by local environmentalists for the redevelopment of Enterprise Park At Calverton is nearly identical to the one that Riverhead Town is presenting to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, Riverhead Town Supervisor Sean Walter said.

“It’s very close to our plan,”  Mr. Walter said.

He said that’s a good thing because it’s important to have the environmental community working with the town as it presents its plans to the DEC.

Richard Amper, the executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, called on local environmentalists in November to come up with a plan of their own for EPCAL. Mr. Amper said at the time that Mr. Walter “is launching a one-man war on the environment.”

Mr. Amper and others released their plan this week.

“From what I’ve seen, there does seem to be agreement,” Mr. Amper said.

Mr. Amper worked with Bob DeLuca of the Group for the East End, Geoffrey Freeman, an architect and planner, Tony Coates, a former Business Improvement District member, and Ray Pickersgill, the BID president, to come up with a plan.

His group, led by Mr. Freeman and including members of the business community, did not see the town plan when it put together its proposal, he said.

“They spent three months trying to determine what needed to be preserved as far as endangered species, wetlands and grasslands and they came up with a plan we think the town can work with,” Mr. Amper said.

The town will need to formally submit a plan to the DEC, which Mr. Walter thinks it is close to doing, and after that, the plan will be subject to a scoping hearing, where the public suggests issues that should be studied in an environmental impact study. After that, it must undertake that study.

The study will take about a year before the plan can be approved, he said.

“It’s key for everybody to have input, so this becomes a partnership with everybody,” Mr. Walter said.

While the two maps look identical, the one submitted by Mr. Amper’s group states that 695 acres can be developed at EPCAL, while the town traditionally has said its plan identifies about 600 acres.

Mr. Walter thinks that’s just because the town has access to surveys and computer models of the land in question.

He said that if anything, there’s only about 50 acre difference between the two plans.

“For too long, some have suggested that EPCAL development has been blocked by environmentalists,” Mr. Amper said. “That’s never been true and it’s high time we proved it. Intelligent planning dictates that we identify the areas that must be protected before additional land is developed.”

[email protected]

12/28/12 2:00pm
12/28/2012 2:00 PM

SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PHOTO | The proposed pool and fitness center at Suffolk County Community College’s eastern campus would be similar to this one at the Brentwood campus.

Suffolk County Community College’s proposed “Health and Wellness Center” at the Eastern Campus in Northampton, a project that would include an indoor swimming pool, will need to get an exemption from the state’s Central Pine Barrens Commission before it can move forward.

The Eastern Campus, which was built in 1977, is located within the core of the Central Pine Barrens, an area where the state’s 1993 Pine Barrens Protection Act places strict limits on new development.

But the college argues that the health and wellness center was part of a 1973 college master plan for the Eastern Campus, and that many other components of that plan have been allowed to be built by the Pine Barrens Commission.

The fitness center project, which would be similar to what the college has at its Brentwood campus, would include an eight lane indoor swimming pool, fitness center, meeting space and nursing laboratory, according to George Gatta, an executive vice president at the college.

The fitness center would include a strength training room, aerobic room, gymnasium, classroom space, office space, locker rooms and lobby, according to the county.

The Suffok County Legislature has included $17.75 million for the project in its capital budget.

The college plans to make the fitness center and pool opened for use by the general public when not being used by the college. At Brentwood, the fitness center and pool have more than 1,440 members, who pay a membership fee, and the pool is also used by local high schools and swim clubs that rent it for meets, according to Mary Lou Araneo, the college’s vice president for institutional advancement.

Mr. Gatta argued at a Dec. 21 meeting of the Pine Barrens Commission that the college’s 1973 master plan for the Eastern Campus included six buildings that the Pine Barrens Commission has allowed to be built on the campus since 1995, including the 40,000 square foot Montauk Learning Resource Center, which was formally opened last year.

In order to get an exemption to build in the Pine Barrens Core, a development must qualify as “non-development” under the guidelines of the 1993 law.

One category that the Pine Barrens law does not define as “development” is “public improvements undertaken for the health, safety and welfare of the public.”

The college is arguing that the health and fitness center falls under that category.

In 1995, the college submitted its 1993 master plan for the Eastern Campus, which included the health and wellness center in a “phase two,” and which included the Montaukett building in Phase One, to the Pine Barrens Commission.

The commission, on Jan. 3, 1995, ruled that Phase One of the master plan “constitutes non-development” under the Pine Barrens Act, but it made no mention of phase two or three of the college master plan.

“We never got an explanation why phase two and three were not included,” said Louis Petrizzo, the college’s general counsel.

“The college continued to inform the commission of its plans to implement the remaining elements of the 1973-76 and 1993 master plans, as well as the 2001 master plan update,” Mr. Gatta said. They sent letters to the commission in 2005 and 2006 and have received no response or explanation why the second and third phases of their master plan didn’t receive approval.

He said the college, “receiving no response to either communication, moved forward with the planning and contraction of the Learning Resource Center and continued to plan for the implementation of the Health and Wellness Center.”

The Pine Barrens Commission is made up of the supervisors of Riverhead, Southampton and Brookhaven towns, along with one representative each from Suffolk County and New York State.

“We’ve already passed judgment that this is non-development,” said Riverhead Supervisor Sean Walter, alluding to the 1995 Pine Barrens ruling.

John Milazzo, the attorney for the commission, reminded him that the master plan was in three phases, and only the first one received commission approval in 1995.

“So, if the first phase was non-development, couldn’t we just pass a resolution at the next meeting saying this is non-development too?” Mr. Walter asked.

Richard Amper, the executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society (which is not part of the pine barrens commission, although Mr. Amper was instrumental in developing the Pine Barrens Act), pointed that there were amendments to the Pine Barrens Act in 2005, and that there may be different criteria now than there was in 1995.

Mr. Milazzo concurred. He also said that the presentation at the Dec. 21 meeting was just for informational purposes, and that there is currently no formal application before the commission for the college’s plans, so they couldn’t approve them yet.

Mr. Amper later criticized commissioner members during a hearing that same day on Kent Animal Shelter’s proposal for a new shelter building at its River Road location, which needs an exception to build in the Pine Barrens core.

During that hearing, Mr. Walter praised Kent, saying they are “our defacto municipal shelter” and handle 50 percent of the dog needs for the town.

Mr. Amper said that “Kent’s providing a great public service is entirely irrelevant to the application.”

He said he’s been complaining lately that the commission members are judging applications based on whether they are a good use or provide a public service, rather then whether they meet the criteria set forth of the Pine Barrens legislation.

“Even if it were a place to honor saints, that doesn’t mean it qualifies for a hardship exemption,” Mr. Amper said.

[email protected]

12/26/12 8:00am
12/26/2012 8:00 AM

DEC COURTESY PHOTO | Hurricane Sandy damaged cars parked on the grasslands at EPCAL.

And then came the cars. Cars as far the eye could see.

Just a few weeks after superstorm Sandy ravaged the Northeast, storm-disabled cars, trucks and SUVs began arriving by the truckload to town-owned land in Calverton and other points on the East End.

Riverhead Town inked three separate deals in late 2012 with an Illinois-based auto auction company to store cars on Calverton Enterprise Park tarmacs. And the town is being paid handsomely for that space, with lease payments likely amounting to about $2 million with a potential for extended leases — and more money — in 2013.

But the storage of thousands of cars did not come without controversy, as environmentalists expressed concern about batteries and petroleum products leaking from cars and toward protected groundwater.

“Riverhead has a long history of anti-environmental behavior at EPCAL, but turning the Pine Barrens into a junk yard probably takes the cake,” fumed Richard Amper, the executive director of the Riverhead-based Long Island Pine Barrens Society.

While state Department of Environmental Conservation officials were OK with the town’s deals, other vehicles stored on grass on private property there were ordered to be moved — though DEC officials in late December said that still wasn’t happening.

As for the town land in EPCAL, thousand of cars are expected to cycle through the property as they get assessed and auctioned off.

With more and more cars arriving to other points on the East End, often private properties, the state Pine Barrens Commission, comprising local and state officials, was last examining the situation and trying to figure out how best to address potential environmental issues.