[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6036662,"mediaKeyId","5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1","parentId",5046272,"title","Town Board adopts dozens of resolutions, schedules multiple public hearings; licenses and grants among actions","audioSeconds",1514,"startMs",7835000,"endMs",9349000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1&start=7835&end=9349","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1/thumbnail_7835000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6036662/Huntington/Suffolk-County/New-York/Town-Board-adopts-dozens-of-resolutions-schedules-multiple-public-hearings-licenses-and-grants-among-actions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6036662-9f301de640b92820de463355415557ed/orig.mp4?Expires=1775204339&Signature=ERCbCUw~V4vAsL6bSSwfcWXKMJrSKGO2GeI3OSOkERVzSILAeK0bvzcSEOegBByF8gN4-HUd7usyDPzNSDFS8FlaflCopH9iq55aOYORbmxPKXSmMA2sFRzn71ote9J9Tzlak566isymrMUOHWYXDqI5jPlLY78KNRoal9rNx78vC568vhAW8skDsCwBwbvS~H0nXOxMwxPAClNqmot8BQ0J3tg6~NP0P8FXYmn4drpmoIq~cviSl4C2yf9~pjCyCc0bA12jf~uuiCHbzgaN9docMhHJS8eg2myMzjQZk20bnjrgpY6Ix1PPFwcpYZ7nVgFU8~T3oadaQ7nQzyBjOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Huntington Town","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Town Board voted on a long consent agenda and separate resolutions covering grant applications, license agreements for community events, contract extensions for town software and services, property acquisitions, and the scheduling of public hearings for traffic changes, zoning amendments and water- and sewer-district capital borrowings.

Votes at a glance (selected items adopted at the meeting):

- Resolution 2025-108: Authorize application for New York State CREST grant for park improvements at Terry Farrell Park. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-109: Authorize application for NYS Division of Homeland Security Critical Infrastructure Grant Program. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-110: Authorize application for state facilities grant for purchase of a vacuum truck; comptroller to amend budget. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-111: Authorize Town cosponsorship and license agreement for the Give a Dog a Dream walk event at Heckscher Park (05/10/2025). Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-112: Authorize acquisition of real property known as 20 Sixth Sabbath Day Path. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-116: Authorize agreement with Gateway Community Garden, Inc., for use of Gateway Park. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-121: First contract extension for enterprise permitting and licensing software (OpenGov). Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-123: First extension for summer food services contract for Project Play and St. John’s Camp. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-125: Authorize license agreements for farmers markets (Long Island Farmers Markets). Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-133: Authorize amended engineering contract for installation of water main at Tiziana State Subdivision (Dix Hills Water District). Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-135: Exempt Huntington Village BID from site-plan review fees and building permit fees for a project in the alley between New York Avenue and New Street. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolution 2025-136: Authorize settlement of lawsuit Town of Huntington v. L.K. MacLean Associates and related parties; controller to amend budget. Outcome: approved (5-0).
- Resolutions 2025-162 through 2025-166: Public hearings scheduled for capital expenditures and bond authorizations for Dix Hills Water District, Green Lawn Water District, South Huntington Water District, and Huntington Sewer District. Outcome: hearings scheduled (board votes to set hearings; no appropriation vote at this meeting).
- Resolution 2025-169 (late addition): Amend 2025 operating/capital budgets for Department of Parks & Recreation to permit a spray pad at Dix Hills Park; approved as a late starter (5-0).

Procedure notes: Many items were acted on as routine resolutions with unanimous votes; public hearings were scheduled where statute requires further public notice and review. Several items (including the steep-slope code amendment and selected agenda entries) were pulled for further discussion or deferred.

Ending: The board closed the public portion after extensive testimony and proceeded with votes. Several items will return to the board after required reviews or after the scheduled public hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Huntington Town Board Meeting\tMar 20, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","The Town Board approved an extensive consent agenda and individual resolutions covering grants, licenses, purchases, and scheduling of multiple public hearings.","taxTitle","Huntington, Suffolk County, New York","taxId",63611,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6036667,"Resident questions South Huntington water bond spending, calls for transparency and audit",398,5092000,5490000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1&start=5092&end=5490","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1/thumbnail_5092000.jpg","/articles/6036667/Huntington/Suffolk-County/New-York/Resident-questions-South-Huntington-water-bond-spending-calls-for-transparency-and-audit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6036667-0e18075adcb4f59cb0f4a430d71fcb04/orig.mp4?Expires=1775204340&Signature=JksEuQGeHlhnj9oNj14wd9oRMDfUpmb8kO4jUKwOgrNxPhZFakUghP7O3s2mGH0MJFmqVA4irUeEzzPbCmFLPmnlWjl3UF77ogRp8bLeRKfPEQftLFvLl0QMcR2Ujt9yCnWxV0M~nRYC8cjvXpV9y-caFHzI2p1tz5e1Zsb40SgphrJd2399-e3UrwOGAqPu4vs3Go2RaocdPomQ7bBZTQGvkF2Zx~Mrle7HFFuovezTvznMz679G53JT49fi5fcajXPVJyL6UDLcNdVvNWUCmrao9MfRaI7AR5zGCRic4ik9Kq1TtSye4-BKsrm3hwrEVfSIU5~NvWK4mrH4BRf2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Town Board meeting a resident, Michael Kornfeld, questioned the timing and necessity of additional bond authorization for the South Huntington Water District and asked why prior bonding included more than $1 million he said was earmarked for board-office renovations. Kornfeld and other commenters said special districts operate with limited public visibility and called for greater transparency and -- if warranted -- a comprehensive audit.

Why it matters: Several water-district capital expenditures were scheduled for public hearings; residents who pay district rates urged the board to ensure bond funds are being used for infrastructure projects rather than for administrative or office upgrades that they view as improper uses of bonded funds.

Resident concerns and request for oversight: Michael Kornfeld said a recent bond approved for South Huntington included funds that he believes were for refurbishing district offices and a boardroom, and he asked why additional bonding was being considered when previous funds were not yet spent. He said the timing and lack of public awareness about special-district operations make oversight difficult and urged broader public scrutiny.

Town response and technical clarification: Supervisor Smith and other board members clarified that the town is using its bonding authority but that bonds for special districts are the responsibility of the district ratepayers, not the town’s general fund. The supervisor suggested residents contact district counsel or attend water-district commissioner meetings to obtain detailed information. Board members acknowledged the borrowing levels are large and said public engagement and clarity about project timelines would be appropriate.

Ending: The board scheduled required public hearings for several water-district capital projects; residents asked for clearer reporting and transparency about how previous bond proceeds are being allocated before new borrowings are advanced.","A resident urged the town to scrutinize proposed water-district bond spending and raised concerns about prior bond amounts that included funds for office renovations the resident called unrelated. Town officials said district borrowing is borne by ratepayers and suggested the resident contact district counsel for specifics.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6036671,"Neighbors split over Rosewood Farm spa plan; speakers urge event limits in any overlay zoning",1726,4034000,5760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1&start=4034&end=5760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1/thumbnail_4034000.jpg","/articles/6036671/Huntington/Suffolk-County/New-York/Neighbors-split-over-Rosewood-Farm-spa-plan-speakers-urge-event-limits-in-any-overlay-zoning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6036671-f30a5dd12e54f7831f6960e18347baac/orig.mp4?Expires=1775204340&Signature=oftEuaMsfdUjRcGdZS480GZ3uPoTKq6qHLQFO2I8ytINmOh8hVBVyRwo~Y~~~CHGRMMP2J8E5~-kQl~yH-CDUbHAqP-QkBdKkEmvTa41OwKxmQp7OVBKqxx-JhUReC~2eIfsXV0y~iQqd0ji4O0MND6LjaJiObt64sGqgn82GLHcirfymRmFlNEa1qWkVm2gEhoT9WxbDJ7zl4kBPOPNOulEZC4HsyoFcXxlXjjglQcB2X6YoIZ8aunktmQqeYVaRaVQapaTH2DG5xFuSlC5kFpFQD87kjlX2RFINOsYAT~rAYvWkKDp8UHCo0CKwhRodgqnZUOQTwsollocpbaWXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town Board heard a string of public comments both supporting and opposing a proposal by the owners of Rosewood Farm at 473 Woodbury Road to seek a zoning overlay that would permit a luxury spa, farm and related uses. Commenters were split: some called the plan a low-impact way to preserve historic structures and create a community amenity; others said the board should attach limits on event frequency, guest counts and deed restrictions to prevent future owners from converting the site into a high-intensity events venue.

Why it matters: The parcel is 24 acres and contains historic buildings that proponents want to preserve through an overlay and adaptive reuse. Neighbors worry that the permitting pathway could allow high-volume events or later subdivision into multiple estate homes, each with commercial activities, unless the board sets explicit controls.

Supporters’ view: Peter Golan and other supporters said the Rosenvelds’ plan to retain existing buildings and operate a quiet spa with a farm component would be “benign” and preserve the land more effectively than subdivision. Marianna Verkirk, speaking on behalf of an absent neighbor, said Rosewood Farm would be “a great addition” and urged the town to embrace preservation.

Concerns and suggested conditions: Several speakers urged the board to require explicit limits on the number and frequency of events and to place deeded covenants restricting large gatherings and future commercial intensification. Dr. Tara Kaufman, who introduced herself as a doctor and local resident, told the board, “without explicit limits in place, there is a risk that the venue could be used to host multiple events daily.” Other speakers suggested that an overlay could work if it included clear, enforceable caps on events and language restricting intensive uses.

Planning process and next steps: The board noted a public hearing on the overlay was scheduled for April 8 and asked the applicants and planning staff to consider drafting specific conditions — including event caps, noise restrictions and deeded covenants — to be available for that hearing. Several residents asked for draft language to be circulated in advance so neighbors could comment specifically on restrictions.

Ending: The Rosewood Farm proposal remains under review; board members directed planning staff to work with applicants on proposed limits to events and to provide those drafts to the public before the next hearing.","The town heard mixed public comment on a proposal to create a historic-overlay zoning designation for Rosewood Farm, a 24-acre property in Cold Spring Harbor. Supporters said a spa and farm use would preserve buildings; opponents urged strict limits on events and clear deed restrictions to prevent future overuse.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6036677,"Steep-slope code amendment pulled after residents, experts warn it could favor developers",360,3600000,3960000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1&start=3600&end=3960","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","/articles/6036677/Huntington/Suffolk-County/New-York/Steep-slope-code-amendment-pulled-after-residents-experts-warn-it-could-favor-developers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6036677-ff405f34bcec5608c2427dff5af10e0c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775204340&Signature=U6JqZsxR-6rGncFGSvbv7ZqN9JJAaU9sqIbOP1vXRE7MlBzc-ZWSuivE70QTGVLDJO0VkKJHj6K9phyIUGcayWYHbffOXkg5yD~5mtnp3-Nvy6DPr--QE4tvx~H6zZAz6Gk2x4mWo3xRYsgjmZDf8CVdryW1GRzwdpge7j5SEQPEeuRO9MWdIIZ5r5PfX~Hp-w5nCmErSJp1Y4nFb4y8lpM8qaxzl8exoKAKF4NURHifSMZrwYgXCvRmH5ep9mc8jOZhrAJyUlmTSeAnZQuIkeek5gW-dlw70GXace8donqIyR1N6dKPrUkfn2hEuORRAyH~DeeA60RQsSXnQcbT2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Huntington pulled a proposed amendment to its steep-slope rules after public comment and board discussion raised substantial concerns about the draft’s scope and potential unintended consequences. The amendment, described by some sponsors as an effort to simplify permitting for minor retaining-wall and grading projects, drew sharp criticism from homeowners, civic leaders and former officials who said the text as written could weaken protections for hillside properties.

Why it matters: Steep-slope regulations were adopted to reduce erosion, slope failure and adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Critics said the proposed rewrite risked opening a loophole that developers could use to avoid environmental review and oversight; proponents said the goal was administrative simplification for homeowners and to reduce inconsistent regulatory burdens.

Public comments and key objections: Law professor and long-time civic activist Lawrence Kelly and other speakers criticized specific language that would have excluded some previously developed lands and nonresidential properties from the protections. Robert Burding, who has followed the code’s legislative history, warned that eliminating classes of properties from the rules “would create an arbitrary and capricious class of properties” and undermine the ordinance’s intent to protect the environment.

Multiple residents and civic leaders said the steep-slope rules protect scenic landscapes and prevent erosion that can lead to property damage and increased stormwater runoff. Ann West and others urged the board to “lean towards the citizens” and retain safeguards. Several public speakers told the board they feared the draft would favor developers and alter sensitive coastal hillside areas, and asked the board to exempt coastal land from any future weakening of protections.

Council response and next steps: Board members said the amendment had been pulled for further review. One council member explained the original intention was to ease burdens on homeowners, not to broadly relax standards for large-scale development; engineering and planning departments will reexamine the draft to address code drafting issues and public concerns. At least one board member urged that the public be given further opportunity to review any revised text before it returns to the board.

Ending: For now the steep-slope changes are on hold. Board members asked residents to submit written comments to planning and engineering and signaled they would revisit the draft after technical review and public input.","The town board postponed a proposed amendment to the town’s steep-slope regulations after lengthy public comment. Residents and civic groups argued the draft went beyond simplifying minor permitting and could remove safeguards meant to protect scenic, environmental and flood-control functions of hillside land.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6036682,"Huntington board hears hours of opposition and expert testimony at Green Meadow Estates rezoning public hearing",1558,1556000,3114000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1&start=1556&end=3114","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046272-26e1c0b8b020f3224b06e2d44b0c0ec1/thumbnail_1556000.jpg","/articles/6036682/Huntington/Suffolk-County/New-York/Huntington-board-hears-hours-of-opposition-and-expert-testimony-at-Green-Meadow-Estates-rezoning-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6036682-3f6ea1ac829024ddd65df3bbeb6dfa2c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775204340&Signature=MGPPHExN~xi5gB4VxgPB8iUTbm8z2WgZqfggoU0I0K~PIMtPK9pyXjpxMxIFkh3TbImKamgODfLGTAa8r7L67MsTkm8jIuS2fUKV5VhxQ03LqsQ4t~GTpi-1BjQBmHTZwcvzh38F55e3fWzZGnfyPyJLj9JjN6JJfs2r2h5tHIjeHwAoeIeZIMW6QZwKZ~mpmEIzQ6zKJViOqc57icdkxqZyha7naLhJVVSsGSCJ~xwn9eQluA8FNaxBcfawDDjlZ7lTmRfvX5XsWqhRLEfLkQhqlRtlFa1f8Oosvkb448WWv3h75FoNsMcYViOASLLwyi-78huMRWcbi609F-Adcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Huntington held a public hearing on a zoning change proposal for an 8.81-acre tract on the west side of Lake Road near Elks Court seeking to rezone the property from R-40 (one-acre minimum) to R-20 (half-acre minimum) to allow a 14-lot subdivision. The hearing drew developers’ representatives, traffic and real-estate consultants, and more than a dozen residents who urged the board to preserve the existing one-acre character of the neighborhood.

Why it matters: The property lies near the Long Island Rail Road crossing and within the Harborfields school district. Neighbors warned that rezoning will increase traffic and reduce open space and wildlife habitat; the applicant says the plan will add housing stock while keeping a “country” feel with an oversized 1.5-acre lot on Elks Court and half-acre lots elsewhere. The board heard competing technical analyses and personal testimony but did not vote at the meeting.

Developer presentation and technical reports: Ryan Brown, attorney for the applicant, said the proposal followed more than a year of plan development and argued the subdivision would provide low-density single-family housing consistent with nearby rezonings. Brown said the plan includes an affordable housing component and use of an existing recharge basin to avoid off-site drainage impacts.

Wayne Muller, a traffic engineer with Robinson and Muller Engineering, presented the project’s traffic analysis and told the board, “based on the detailed analysis that we performed, we do not believe that the subdivision of the property to contain 14 lots will have any significant impact on traffic conditions either on the subject property or on the surrounding roadway network.” He said sight distances at the proposed driveway meet recognized standards and that existing peak traffic at nearby Elks Court and the Lake Ridge condominium is low.

Opposition and local concerns: Residents said the proposed change would reduce neighborhood character and increase traffic, deliveries and service vehicles. Barry Specht, an Elks Court resident of three decades, told the board, “to me, low density is to maintain the 1 acre zone that is in place now.” Other speakers asked the town to require a full environmental impact statement before a rezoning, citing potential disturbance to bird nests and other wildlife and invoking New York environmental protections.

Wildlife and environmental review: Several residents and speakers raised the presence of osprey in the area and said a mature nest had been removed after the property changed hands. One speaker said removal of nests “is illegal under New York State environmental law.” The applicant’s submitted environmental assessment materials were discussed in the hearing: Planning staff indicated an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1 had been filed and that the action was classified as unlisted with EAF Parts 2 and 3 prepared to analyze impacts and consistency with the town comprehensive plan. Town staff told the board the EAF analysis concluded that, given past disturbance and the site’s context, clearing vegetation would likely displace common suburban wildlife and that many species would relocate and potentially return after revegetation; that analysis does not by itself preclude further review if evidence of protected species or significant impacts is found.

Process and next steps: The hearing was informational; no final vote or rezoning decision occurred that night. The Town Board scheduled the item as a public hearing and reminded speakers that zoning and planning review, including any necessary planning-board approvals and environmental review under the town’s procedures, remain part of the process. Several residents requested additional studies and tighter public disclosure before any final rezoning vote.

Ending: The town board left the hearing open for public comment and will follow its established sequence — further agency review, planning-board review and any future board action — before acting on any rezoning request. Residents seeking to add material were told to submit written evidence to the town clerk for the record.","The Town Board held a public hearing on a proposal to rezone an 8.81-acre parcel on Lake Road from R-40 to R-20 to allow a 14-lot single-family subdivision. Developers presented traffic and market analyses; neighbors asked the board to preserve one-acre zoning, raised wildlife and stormwater concerns and pressed for an environmental impact study.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Town Board adopts dozens of resolutions, schedules multiple public hearings; licenses and grants among actions

Resident questions South Huntington water bond spending, calls for transparency and audit

Neighbors split over Rosewood Farm spa plan; speakers urge event limits in any overlay zoning

Steep-slope code amendment pulled after residents, experts warn it could favor developers

Huntington board hears hours of opposition and expert testimony at Green Meadow Estates rezoning public hearing