Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Melville Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause, wider studies on Melville overlay after public comments
Summary
Multiple residents pressed the Town Board to pause the Melville Overlay District and conduct broader studies, citing unanswered questions about unit counts, segmentation and impacts on neighborhoods.
Several residents urged the Town of Huntington Board to delay or reconsider parts of the Melville Overlay District, saying the board and the public lack clear, complete information about the project.
At the meeting, resident Ellie D'Amico implored the board to “repeal your vote on the Melville plan,” saying there are “so many unanswered questions” and “so much misinformation” about the overlay. D'Amico questioned why the board placed a 400-unit pause on the proposal when the planning department had “capability to accommodate 320 units,” and called for a comprehensive land‑mass environmental and impact review rather than segmented reviews.
Resident Laurel Moynihan also raised procedural concerns in related hearings, telling the board she represents Cold Spring Harbor neighbors who object to applying historic‑building overlay protections at 473 Woodbury Road and arguing that scheduling matters while negotiations with property owners are ongoing is premature. Moynihan said neighbors fear a proposed “23 room hotel, event space, restaurant, bar, and spa” in a residential area would bring “transient people into our backyards.”
Supervisor Smith responded directly to D'Amico in the public portion, offering to meet and review details: “I’ll be happy to speak with you or anybody else that wants to in detail about the Melville Overlay District.” The supervisor also said there are currently “no plans. No developers. We know nothing about the financials” backing the overlay at this time.
The public comments followed earlier board discussion and agenda items that included scheduling related public hearings; board members emphasized that some items on the agenda were only to schedule hearings, not to approve final actions. The board did not adopt new development approvals for Melville at the meeting; instead, the record shows continued public concern and calls for broader studies and clarity before project approvals move forward.
Residents raised broader concerns about traffic, neighborhood character, and the town’s process for segmenting reviews. D'Amico cited municipal law language she interpreted as prohibiting parcel segmentation for smaller environmental reviews and urged the board to require a single, townwide analysis to avoid “smaller impacts and much easier passage.” Moynihan and other speakers said negotiations between neighbors and property owners are ongoing and asked the board to avoid scheduling final votes while talks continue.
The town board offered to meet with residents and staff to provide further information and said public hearings remain the formal venue for community input. The transcript shows the board repeatedly noted that being placed on the agenda for a public hearing does not itself constitute approval of a proposal.
The board did not take a final vote or adopt policy changes related to the Melville Overlay District at this meeting; public commenters and several board members said more information and study are needed before any final approvals.
Looking forward, the board has signaled it will continue the public‑hearing process and that staff will provide additional details when available. Residents who called for a pause said they will continue outreach and negotiations with property owners while pressing for a broader impact review.
