Residents remain dubious about Calverton Aviation & Technology’s plans to develop EPCAL

At this summer’s second highly charged meeting on the fate and future of the Enterprise Park at Calverton, an attorney for the developer, Calverton Aviation & Technology LLC, repeatedly sought to reassure all on hand that the property’s two runways would not be used for cargo or package delivery planes. 

Attorney Christopher Kent argued consistently throughout the meeting, hosted Monday evening by Riverhead’s Industrial Development Agency, that existing and anticipated restrictions on the use of the runways as a cargo jetport would prevent CAT from using them in that way — even if they intended to do so, which he said they do not. One runway is 10,000 feet long and the other is 7,000 feet. 

Yet Mr. Kent also made repeated references — contradictory at times — to the potential future use of the runways. He noted that it was economically unfeasible to specify what the precise future uses of such a massive, mixed-use property might be, given that project approvals and initial construction are likely still some years away. 

“We don’t know today what we’re going to build two years from now, but we know we’re going to build something in line with the vision that the town’s had for the property for 25 years and the limitations that have been placed on that property by the town,” Mr. Kent said during the presentation. 

After assuring the IDA board and community members that packed the room at Riverhead Town Hall that his clients had no plans to use the runways for cargo transport, and that they would not be permitted to do so in any of the numerous necessary approvals ahead, Mr. Kent went on to make statements that seemed to undermine that assurance.

While detailing the proposed “Phase 1A” portion of the project, which would develop 1 million square feet of the property, Mr. Kent explained — almost as an aside — that planned office buildings were to be located some distance from the runways.

“And the reason why we would locate those [logistics] uses closer to the runway is because our office buildings, we would not like to have — most people who work in offices, I would think, would prefer not to have their offices located right on an active runway,” he said, before turning to the audience to ask: “Would you like to be in an office on an active runway?”

The comments were met with a combination of groans and mocking laughter from the audience. In a phone interview Tuesday, Mr. Kent explained what he meant by an “active runway.”

“The runway is an active runway, so you’re going to have some planes coming and going,” he told the News-Review. It’s going to be used for accessory aviation that supports businesses on the property. That is a permitted use, so there will be some planes flying in and out, but what they are going to be doing is delivering equipment. They are going to be delivering things that are necessary for business to be conducted on the property.”

When Mr. Kent first took the podium Monday, he insisted that “CAT’s project plan does not include a commercial airport or a cargo jetport as part of the proposed project.” 

He said the developer’s plans are “controlled and limited by several documents, including the deed from the federal government, the town-adopted generic environmental impact statements, the finding statements, the town-adopted urban renewal and reuse plans, the adopted zoning and the agreement of sale.”

He said CAT’s plans call for a “mixed-use project with a phased build-out over several years, if not decades, in full compliance with all the town’s adopted studies, plans and zoning and consistent with the town’s vision for the use of this property.” The full build-out is envisioned to include 10 million square feet of mixed-use industrial and commercial facilities and could take decades to complete, according to Mr. Kent. 

Yet he also cited the proposed project’s current allowed uses, which include redeveloping the runways. 

“The finding statement notes that redevelopment could accommodate a mix of uses, including … the two runways being available for limited redevelopment and/or historic use: aviation. The eastern runway has been, and continues to be, an active runway and would be available for such in the future and the western runway would also be available for its historic aviation uses and/or other contemplated, permitted, supported uses.”

Fears of a cargo jetport being built at EPCAL were sparked during an IDA meeting last fall when a CAT engineer described what residents interpreted as an admission that the site would ultimately operate as an air cargo hub.

At that hearing, CAT engineer Chris Robinson told the IDA, “I think the [vision] here is the aeronautic aspect — bringing packages which get brought into a logistics building, transferred onto tractor-trailer trucks … currently, that end of the logistics business is not handled on Long Island. This would be an incredible opportunity to bring that here.”

At Monday’s meeting, CAT chief executive officer Justin Ghermezian addressed last fall’s presentation with an apology.

“I personally apologize for the confusion that was created when it was referenced by a professional consultant as a hypothetical concept of [the] full build-out. We should have immediately flagged it for what it was and more importantly for what it was not. Those concepts are not included in any plan we’re placing before the IDA or the Town Board,” Mr. Ghermezian said.

During CAT’s presentation, IDA treasurer Lee Mendelson noted that the project includes plans for two 300,000-square-foot logistics buildings near the 10,000-foot runway and references provisions for runway use “supportive and accessory to the development, as well as to support the principal use of the development.”

Mr. Mendelson wanted to know “if we have 600,000 square feet of logistics buildings — which could be used for warehouse and distribution … what would be a ‘supportive and accessory use’ for the runways with respect to those buildings?”

“I’m not sure there would be any supportive or accessory uses to the logistics buildings,” Mr. Kent responded, “unless they were flying in some type of a part or some kind of machinery or equipment that’s necessary for repair.” 

Seeking further clarity, Mr. Mendelson asked, “even if … the majority use was some sort of warehouse and distribution, it’s your statement that the use of those runways would not be ‘supportive and accessory to warehouse storage or distribution’ ?”

Mr. Kent responded that the development agreement “will specifically exclude the use of runways by shipping and/or delivery companies, seeking to use aviation as a principle use to transport goods to off-site consumers.”

Mr. Kent also noted that CAT is “looking to preserve and protect more land at EPCAL than we’re looking to develop — and that’s a very unusual thing from the perspective of a developer.”

IDA chairman Jim Farley asked Mr. Kent if he was “suggesting you’d be willing to wrap those runways with definitive restrictions going forward?”

“I think that’s going to be asked of us,” Mr. Kent responded.

“We are prepared for that,” Mr. Kent said. “We’ve had those discussions with the client and we understand the rationale behind it and the whole idea is that we want to work with the Town of Riverhead to build a good project, a project that’s going to ultimately be embraced, so we’d be willing to do that, yes.”

Many residents expressed vociferous opposition to the proposal.

Phil Barbato of Jamesport urged the IDA board “to vote no on any tax abatements. They’ve already gotten the best land deal in the history of Long Island,” he said, referring to the agreed-upon sale price of $40 million for the 1,644-acre parcel. “Please do not approve this project,” he added.

Riverhead resident John McAuliff wanted to know what assurances the town is seeking to prevent the developer from “flipping the land.”

“Can you put a 30-year restraint on selling?” he asked. “Can you really guarantee what will happen long term?”

Southampton Town Councilman Tommy John Schiavoni wanted to know whether any federal funding is attached to the project, which he said could limit the town’s control of the runways.

“I am warning this board,” Mr. Schiavoni said. “If federal funds are commingled … you will not have control over this airport.”

Ken Rubino of Baiting Hollow called the proposed development “the most environmentally harmful project facing the East End … since the Shoreham [nuclear] plant was built.” Other residents questioned the integrity and the financial stability of CAT’s parent company, Canada-based Triple Five Real Estate LLC.

Claudette Bianco of Calverton wondered why “this company or companies, such as they are, are spending millions and millions of dollars renovating a runway for nobody?” Ms. Bianco also urged the IDA board not to agree to tax incentives.

“If they can afford all this on speculation, they can build it themselves,” she said.

Andrew Leven, a former federal prosecutor and current Democratic candidate for Riverhead Town Board, was deeply skeptical of CAT’s claims that comments Mr. Robinson made to the IDA board last fall were a mistake.

“The notion that CAT hired a consultant who sat down with drawings and plans and asked for comments on this jetport and then billed [CAT] for it and presented it to this body? That, somehow, this was a mistake?” he asked, his voice incredulous. “Okay, fine. If that is the level of scrutiny CAT is going to be put under … so be it.”

Community groups EPCAL Watch and Heart of Riverhead Civic Association are hosting a meeting to further discuss CAT’s plans at the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall on Peconic Avenue Thursday, Aug, 17, at 6:30 p.m.