Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverhead residents urge council to preserve early public review as town moves to streamline site-plan process
Summary
At a packed public hearing, residents and advocacy groups warned that a proposed amendment to Chapter 301 would remove a preliminary site-plan review step and delay meaningful public input until late in the approval process, urging mandatory, recorded presubmission conferences instead.
Riverhead — Residents and civic groups pressed the Town Board on June 16 over a proposed rewrite of Chapter 301 of the town code that would streamline site-plan review and move many application fees from the written code into a fee schedule set by resolution.
Matt Charter, a senior planner with the town’s planning department, told the board the changes are intended as housekeeping: eliminating a three-step review that includes an optional presubmission conference, preliminary site-plan review with a public hearing and a final approval phase, and replacing code fees with an administrative fee schedule so fees can be changed by resolution.
The changes, Charter said, would align Riverhead with neighboring municipalities and reduce procedural duplication. “It’s really streamlining to what’s more typical for the area,” he said, noting that some towns retain only an optional presubmission stage.
But multiple speakers, including Kathy McGrath of Northville and representatives of the Group for the East End and the Greater Calverton Civic Association, said the proposed elimination of a preliminary site-plan public hearing would deprive residents of early notice and meaningful participation. McGrath read the Group for the East End’s written comments and urged the town to make presubmission conferences mandatory, allow immediate public comment at those meetings, and record them for posting online.
“This will not provide the public with early notice,” McGrath said, arguing developers could bypass early review and the public might only learn of a project ‘‘just before final action.’’ Barbara Blass of Jamesport added that early input often saves time and money by highlighting substantive issues before plans are finalized.
Some commenters also contended the timing of the proposal could affect a pending application for the Petraelli Square Hotel and asked the board to clarify whether any pending applications were being processed under the proposed rules. Charter responded that public hearings still occur — at different phases — and that the town’s and planning board’s statutory deadlines for decisions would still apply. He rejected suggestions the rewrite was tailored for any particular applicant, saying the revisions reflect long-standing departmental practice.
Town staff said written comment would remain open for 10 days following the hearing; the board repeatedly referenced a June 26 deadline for written submissions. Several public commenters requested that the board adopt additional safeguards — mandatory presubmission conferences, recorded sessions, and explicit notice requirements — if it moves forward with the consolidated review process.
What happens next: The Town Board left the public hearings open for written comment through June 26. No final vote on the Chapter 301 amendments occurred at the June 16 meeting.
