RGeeProductions
10-12-2007, 12:50 AM
New coalition demands 62 percent of EPCAL be set aside
By Denise Civiletti
A new coalition of environmental organizations is demanding the preservation of 62 percent of the land at the Calverton Enterprise Park.
Calling itself The Coalition for Open Space at EPCAL, the group, which includes The Nature Conservancy, The Group for the East End, Peconic Baykeeper, and several Audubon organizations, is asking town, county and state lawmakers to protect 1,820 acres of the 2,900-acre site. After clearing restrictions required by zoning are applied, the developable land on the former Grumman site would be limited to 733 acres, or 25 percent of the total site area, according to the coalition's proposal.
Citing many environmental features of the site, including wetlands, kettle hole ponds, rare species and significant habitats, the coalition is calling for the protection of undeveloped land at the site, including a 145-acre parcel off Route 25 zoned by the town for office park development and the approximately 800 acres bordering the two runways on the site formerly leased by the U.S. government to Grumman Corporation, which manufactured military aircraft there. That acreage has been zoned by the town for recreational use and includes the land the town is negotiating to sell to Riverhead Resorts for a theme park, hotel and conference center, and time share residential units.
Representatives of the coalition presented their proposal to the Riverhead Town Board at last Thursday's work session. Town Board members, who voted Sept. 19 to sell 755 acres at EPCAL to Riverhead Resorts for the development of a large resort complex that would include a 350-foot-tall indoor ski mountain, did not embrace the proposal.
"We respectfully received the proposal but we pointed out that the SEQR process for both the recreational and industrial development will address all those issues," Supervisor Phil Cardinale said afterward. "There have been numerous SEQR procedures along the way," he said, referring to environmental review that took place in connection with the site's reuse plan and before the adoption of the original zoning.
Councilman Ed Densieski said the town should be wary about the coalition's plan. "We weren't given that property for open space and scenic vistas," Mr. Densieski said. "We were given that property for regional economic development." There is already a "huge amount" of open space reserved on the site, he said.
Mr. Cardinale points out that the Riverhead Resorts plan would limit development to 250 of the 755 acres it hopes to purchase.
Randy Parsons of The Nature Conservancy said in an interview this week that the coalition's proposal is "giving [Riverhead Resorts] notice that this is what the environmental community and a certain amount of the scientific analysis of the site shows is out there, so before they ... buy, before their design, before they do their number crunching on what kind of return they can get, they really need to do their due diligence, and this is part of it."
Councilwoman Barbara Blass said it would be useful to update the previously completed environmental impact statement "up front," since the town is making representations to prospective purchasers about the total developable square footage at EPCAL. Many of the issues pointed out by the coalition were identified in the SEQR process already completed in connection with the site and will be "fully vetted" when the SEQR process continues in connection with specific development plans, she said.
Development at EPCAL will have "a tremendous impact on the Peconic Estuary as well as the Long Island Sound," according to Jennifer Skilbread of Group for the East End.
"We're not saying not to do this economic development," Ms. Skilbread said. "You can still do economic development, but let's keep our eye on natural resources and see how we can protect them at the same time," she said.
That's the crux of the issue with EPCAL, according to Mr. Cardinale: "balancing the obligation the town feels for the piece as an economic engine versus the obligation the town feels for the environment."
Mr. Cardinale said "there's no way the recreationally zoned land at EPCAL would ever be developed if you protected the area adjacent to the runway" as the coalition proposes. "It runs right through the heart of it."
Noting that the premise for preservation of the grasslands adjacent to the 10,000-foot runway is the protection of bird habitat, Mr. Cardinale said, "They want us to be the economic engine, the last economic engine for the East End, but at the same time we must protect all the birds that are there [at EPCAL] because other developments before us have dislocated them."
Richard Amper, executive director of the L.I. Pine Barrens Society, which is not a member of the coalition, said the site "has evolved into a fabulous habitat" since the Pine Barrens Act was approved in 1993. The Pine Barrens Society is not joining in the coalition's call for preservation, however, because it reached an agreement with the state and town governments in 1993 regarding the development of land in the Pine Barrens "compatible growth area," which encompasses 2,500 of EPCAL's nearly 3,000 acres. "We think it would be wrong for us to say 'We want to redraw those boundaries' now," he said. "But those groups are not wrong. That is important habitat and if it existed in that form in 1993, it would have been put in the core."
John Stefans contributed to the reporting of this story.
By Denise Civiletti
A new coalition of environmental organizations is demanding the preservation of 62 percent of the land at the Calverton Enterprise Park.
Calling itself The Coalition for Open Space at EPCAL, the group, which includes The Nature Conservancy, The Group for the East End, Peconic Baykeeper, and several Audubon organizations, is asking town, county and state lawmakers to protect 1,820 acres of the 2,900-acre site. After clearing restrictions required by zoning are applied, the developable land on the former Grumman site would be limited to 733 acres, or 25 percent of the total site area, according to the coalition's proposal.
Citing many environmental features of the site, including wetlands, kettle hole ponds, rare species and significant habitats, the coalition is calling for the protection of undeveloped land at the site, including a 145-acre parcel off Route 25 zoned by the town for office park development and the approximately 800 acres bordering the two runways on the site formerly leased by the U.S. government to Grumman Corporation, which manufactured military aircraft there. That acreage has been zoned by the town for recreational use and includes the land the town is negotiating to sell to Riverhead Resorts for a theme park, hotel and conference center, and time share residential units.
Representatives of the coalition presented their proposal to the Riverhead Town Board at last Thursday's work session. Town Board members, who voted Sept. 19 to sell 755 acres at EPCAL to Riverhead Resorts for the development of a large resort complex that would include a 350-foot-tall indoor ski mountain, did not embrace the proposal.
"We respectfully received the proposal but we pointed out that the SEQR process for both the recreational and industrial development will address all those issues," Supervisor Phil Cardinale said afterward. "There have been numerous SEQR procedures along the way," he said, referring to environmental review that took place in connection with the site's reuse plan and before the adoption of the original zoning.
Councilman Ed Densieski said the town should be wary about the coalition's plan. "We weren't given that property for open space and scenic vistas," Mr. Densieski said. "We were given that property for regional economic development." There is already a "huge amount" of open space reserved on the site, he said.
Mr. Cardinale points out that the Riverhead Resorts plan would limit development to 250 of the 755 acres it hopes to purchase.
Randy Parsons of The Nature Conservancy said in an interview this week that the coalition's proposal is "giving [Riverhead Resorts] notice that this is what the environmental community and a certain amount of the scientific analysis of the site shows is out there, so before they ... buy, before their design, before they do their number crunching on what kind of return they can get, they really need to do their due diligence, and this is part of it."
Councilwoman Barbara Blass said it would be useful to update the previously completed environmental impact statement "up front," since the town is making representations to prospective purchasers about the total developable square footage at EPCAL. Many of the issues pointed out by the coalition were identified in the SEQR process already completed in connection with the site and will be "fully vetted" when the SEQR process continues in connection with specific development plans, she said.
Development at EPCAL will have "a tremendous impact on the Peconic Estuary as well as the Long Island Sound," according to Jennifer Skilbread of Group for the East End.
"We're not saying not to do this economic development," Ms. Skilbread said. "You can still do economic development, but let's keep our eye on natural resources and see how we can protect them at the same time," she said.
That's the crux of the issue with EPCAL, according to Mr. Cardinale: "balancing the obligation the town feels for the piece as an economic engine versus the obligation the town feels for the environment."
Mr. Cardinale said "there's no way the recreationally zoned land at EPCAL would ever be developed if you protected the area adjacent to the runway" as the coalition proposes. "It runs right through the heart of it."
Noting that the premise for preservation of the grasslands adjacent to the 10,000-foot runway is the protection of bird habitat, Mr. Cardinale said, "They want us to be the economic engine, the last economic engine for the East End, but at the same time we must protect all the birds that are there [at EPCAL] because other developments before us have dislocated them."
Richard Amper, executive director of the L.I. Pine Barrens Society, which is not a member of the coalition, said the site "has evolved into a fabulous habitat" since the Pine Barrens Act was approved in 1993. The Pine Barrens Society is not joining in the coalition's call for preservation, however, because it reached an agreement with the state and town governments in 1993 regarding the development of land in the Pine Barrens "compatible growth area," which encompasses 2,500 of EPCAL's nearly 3,000 acres. "We think it would be wrong for us to say 'We want to redraw those boundaries' now," he said. "But those groups are not wrong. That is important habitat and if it existed in that form in 1993, it would have been put in the core."
John Stefans contributed to the reporting of this story.