Syosset school district urges DEC, town to reject or strengthen Amazon warehouse remedial plan near two elementary schools

The Syosset Central School District on Wednesday urged state and town reviewers not to approve the remedial action work plan for a proposed Amazon last‑mile warehouse at 305 Robins Lane, saying the developer’s documents omit several specific protections the district says are needed to protect nearby schools.

Superintendent Doctor Rogers told the board the district’s submission to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and to the Town of Oyster Bay ran to 102 pages and identified gaps including inadequate testing for contamination hotspots, missing dust‑control and stormwater prevention plans, and no independent third‑party construction monitor with authority to stop work.

“The plan is at best incomplete,” Rogers said, summarizing a consultant review by Walden Associates. He said the site — which the applicant describes as a roughly 200,000‑square‑foot warehouse with about 14,000 square feet of office space — was once a State Superfund site and is now in the state’s brownfields cleanup program, so construction activity could mobilize residual contaminants.

Rogers said the district’s consultants recommended additional perimeter testing, targeted soil removal where hotspots are identified, and clear assignment of construction oversight authority so that any complaint can be investigated and work stopped if necessary. The district also requested site‑specific air and dust modeling and a noise analysis tied to school‑day exposures.

The district noted the facility would sit close to two schools: South Grove Elementary is roughly 950 feet from the property border and Robins Lane Elementary about 2,200 feet away. Rogers said the applicant projects most traffic will use the Long Island Expressway but that about 10% of van trips could go north on Robins Lane, passing directly through a school zone.

Board members asked whether the district had access to any contractual agreements between the site owner and Amazon and who would carry liability if contamination or operational impacts occurred. Rogers said the district had not been provided with those agreements and would ask the district attorney to research who would be responsible.

Rogers also disputed a developer suggestion that the district would receive new tax revenue, saying: “That’s not accurate. The applicant has applied for tax relief in the form of a PILOT that would have to be approved by the Nassau County IDA; if tax relief is granted, it will essentially obviate any new revenue to the school district.”

The superintendent said the district filed the technical comments with the DEC on the day the board saw the presentation and also submitted similar comments to the town’s planning advisory board. He asked that any future remedial or site‑plan documents be revised to address the district’s concerns and returned for the district’s review.

Rogers framed construction as the period of greatest risk because disturbance of soil could release contaminants, and he said several required plans were missing from the applicant’s package or were too generic to evaluate local wind direction, contaminant types, or dust generation. He urged that a third‑party monitor be empowered to halt construction if necessary.

The district’s concerns remain procedural and technical; Rogers emphasized the school district has no permitting authority but is seeking to ensure that DEC and the town consider local school impacts when they review remediation and development plans. State and town review processes were described as ongoing, and Rogers said the DEC record and the town planning record were being kept open to allow additional comment.