Port Jeff Village trustee Lauren Sheprow on her run for mayor. Sketch by Kyle Horne: @kylehorneart • kylehorneart.com
Margot Garant, a seven-term incumbent, is stepping down as mayor of the Village of Port Jefferson to head the Democratic ticket for Town of Brookhaven supervisor. In an open contest, trustee Lauren Sheprow and Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden are vying to fill Garant’s seat.
Less than a year into her first term on the village’s Board of Trustees, Sheprow, who is running as a write-in candidate as of now, has her sights set on the office once occupied by her father, Hal, who served as mayor from 1977-91 with a one-term break.
In an exclusive interview, Sheprow offered her plans for communications, East Beach, parking and more.
What would be your top priority for the coming term, if elected?
There are several priorities. Fiscal responsibility is number one.
My first step will be to establish a finance and audit committee. In this village, the mayor has decided to be the finance commissioner, but there is no committee assisting the finance commissioner. The finance commissioner is working with the treasurer, and [they are] doing it themselves.
I support creating a committee of CPAs and people who work in finance who can inform our process, coming in with ideas, suggestions and opportunities to shape our budget a little bit differently — a little healthier and more disciplined.
Job two is establishing a board of ethics. It’s something that is highly recommended by New York Village Law.
Another aspect is being resident centric, having two-way communication with the residents. Right now, the two-way communication with the residents is once a month at a [general] meeting [of the village board].
We need a brand-new, professional municipal website. When you use it now, it’s so difficult. If you go to the Town of Brookhaven’s website, it’s so easy to navigate. That’s what I want to see for Port Jeff.
We can also do well to start listening to our chamber [of commerce] members and the Business Improvement District, hearing their feedback. There’s a lot of opportunity for success in how we do business with the merchants.
If elected, how do you intend to help guide East Beach bluff stabilization efforts and maximize the use of the village-owned Port Jefferson Country Club?
When I became a trustee, I was appointed liaison to the food and beverage licensee at the county club. I was interested in improving the relationship with the licensee and the member experience up there.
I started a task force made up of some members and a nonmember resident. We started meeting with management and came up with some real opportunities for improvement.
They changed the menu to be more community and family oriented. We discussed having socials and other events for members, and they ended up implementing that. There are still a lot of challenges that exist with that relationship, but it’s improving because of the task force.
Right now, we’re waiting to hear whether or not we’re getting that federal money [$3.75 million]. There’s some back-and-forth, I think, between FEMA and us.
I’d like to see the tennis program come back — and not just with two courts. I’d like to see six courts, at least, so we can welcome our tennis membership back. I’d also like to see the pickleball program come together and thrive.
What would be the best way to design that? We have engineers draw drawings, but shouldn’t we be relying on a real designer that has worked on country club designs before?
Let’s get someone in there who knows what they’re doing, looking critically at the space they have to work with and making the best recommendations based on their experience with other facilities.
What is the role of the village board in overseeing new developments and redevelopment projects?
The first thing we should do is hire a planner. We need a senior planner who can advise, direct and inquire. I’m not an engineer, architect or planner. But there are some very good engineers, architects and planners out there, and we need them on staff. It is our role to hire those positions.
I think we can commission a study to look at open space. How would you treat green space? You first have to understand what green space actually exists, and then get our planner and engineer to take a look at how to address these things.
The opportunities are there. We need to understand what they are and then get the advice of a senior planner to figure out how to move this village forward.
How can the village alleviate its parking capacity challenges, balancing the competing interests of residents, businesses and tourists?
I’ve been speaking with business owners, restaurant owners and residents, and there is a strong need for a parking committee. We need to understand what the business owners are seeing, hear their feedback and try to act upon it.
The parking committee should be made up primarily of business owners, but you also need residents who can weigh in on aesthetics and real-world experiences.
We also have to look at building a parking structure. They have parking structures that are architecturally appealing and can adhere to the architectural integrity of the community. That’s a design element, but the question of where comes into play.
If a big decision is to be made about a parking garage, then residents need to be heard on that.
What is your preferred method for public engagement?
I’m enjoying the face-to-face connections with people. I’m learning so much about the village, and people are so open to speaking with me right now. That’s my favorite way to communicate with people and engage.
If we have messages that we need to communicate in a broader sense, an upgrade to our website is essential. Sharing information through The [Port] eReport is good — it’s a good resource. But, again, it’s talking at people, not listening to people.
I feel we need to start suggestion boxes, surveys and phone banking. We need a community relations effort that hasn’t existed since I’ve been around.
All these things — code enforcement, parking, engagement with the school district — are all community relations functions that, if we do well, we’ll have residents feel they’re listened to and have a responsive government. That’s the goal.
What is your professional background, and how does it apply to the role of a village mayor?
I have been a public relations professional for pretty much my whole career. My most recent position was as the chief media relations officer at Stony Brook University, where I worked for 16 years. Prior to that, I was the public relations director at Mather Hospital for four years.
I consider my experience at Stony Brook the most illuminating. Stony Brook is a campus of about 44,000 people between students, staff and hospital employees. They have all of the infrastructure that a municipality has.
As I was working at Stony Brook, I was responsible for communicating a lot of the things that were going on at campus to the media. Everything that I was involved with there and helped communicate is very similar to what is happening in the Village of Port Jefferson. It’s similar in scope — Stony Brook was just much greater in size.
While at Stony Brook, I interacted with representatives from the federal, state, Suffolk County and town governments, building a lot of relationships with people in those jurisdictions. I was privy to how they did business and operated, so I feel very prepared.
Note to our readers
We intend to interview each of the declared candidates for village office, starting with those running for trustee, then mayor. In keeping with past practice, we first interview incumbents seeking reelection, followed by nonincumbents, selected alphabetically.
Former Port Jeff village clerk Bob Juliano on his run for trustee. Sketch by Kyle Horne: @kylehorneart • kylehorneart.com
What would be your top priority for the coming term, if elected?
It’s more like a top couple of priorities.
I’d like to see the Building Department be a full complement as far as the planning and enforcement sides. Right now, I know the building department is in the process of interviewing planners. Hiring in the village is tough because you have to go through civil service — you have to exhaust the civil service list before you go outside. It becomes a long, laborious project to interview and hire somebody.
Entering the busy season in the village, as far as tourists, the Code Enforcement office is a little in flux with not having a chief. I’d like to see that stabilized, going ahead and ensuring that the village is a safe place for everyone.
I’d like to see trustee [Stan] Loucks’ plan for the country club implemented. There’s water there that we should be capturing. It just makes economic and ecological sense to put his plan in and create another pond.
Environmentally, Port Jefferson was called Drowned Meadow for a reason. It always flooded out, so we have to work environmentally to do something to either alleviate or lessen the flooding in the downtown area. Especially going forward, I think flooding will be more and more of an issue downtown.
If elected, how do you intend to help guide East Beach bluff stabilization efforts and maximize the use of the village-owned Port Jefferson Country Club?
The country club is a very important piece of property that the village owns.
The country club is a dedicated parkland, so it’s there to stay. It’s there, and we have to protect it. [The Board of Trustees] started the [lower] part of the wall, which I think should have gone out to public referendum, but that’s water under the bridge — no pun intended.
I think what they have to do is to continue the wall. They have to build the second portion upland. I like the idea that they’re getting federal funds and help to stabilize the bluff and build the second part of the wall. That should stabilize it, but for how long, I don’t know.
I’m not a golfer myself, but I know it does help property values just by the village owning a golf course and having village residents able to join the country club to play golf.
I’d like to see it expanded a little. I know with the bluff issue, they had to close down the tennis [program], and I’d like to see the tennis courts come back for the tennis players to come back and play. I just started to play pickleball, so I’d like to see some pickleball courts put in there, too.
But I think it’s a valuable asset that the village has to protect.
What is the role of the village board in overseeing new developments and redevelopment projects?
The village board can lead and tell the Planning Board how we want the village to go.
There are two current issues that are going on. There’s the second half of the [uptown] Conifer Project, which I believe has already been approved and starting construction shortly. That’s going to be an asset to the uptown area as a whole. I’m hoping they have [commercial] tenants ready to enter the lower portion. Then they can start renting out the upper portion.
As far as Maryhaven, I’d like to see that thought out fully before they go and say, “Yes, you can do the condos.” I know as much as everybody else — I don’t have any inside information — and what was said at the [May 1] public meeting.
Everything has to be looked at there. Could the village use that property? It’s a perfect piece of property up the hill for the Fire Department, the Building Department and Village Hall. That would be perfect with everything right on the campus there.
That will cost money, so whether that’s feasible or not and whether there’s money out there is a question. But it has to be looked at and investigated before everything’s a done deal.
As far as future developments, I have an idea. I’ve seen it done in Westbury. A lot of times, the IDA will come in, the Industrial Development Agency will go in, and they’ll meet with the developer and say, “We’re going to give you rebates or tax relief.” And the village has no say.
In Westbury, I’ve seen it done where the property in question has to pay at least the taxes they’re paying now. So they don’t go back down to zero but start with the taxes they’re paying now. The village won’t lose any money, and then it builds up from there as the building gets built and the assessment changes.
How can the village alleviate its parking capacity challenges, balancing the competing interests of residents, businesses and tourists?
Parking in the village is very interesting. If you look back at the village’s history, one of the reasons it was incorporated was because of parking.
There’s very limited land in the commercial district to add parking. I can foresee some sort of parking — a level or two — being added to the area. “Where?” is the question.
If you put a parking structure in the uptown, you have to worry about getting people from the uptown area to downtown. How do we deal with that?
We have a parking administrator. I’d like to see maybe the parking committee come back into being and resurrect the parking committee to get more ideas — ideas from businesspeople and residents.
I think, eventually, the only way to do it is to put up some sort of parking structure. That’s going to have to be built. That leads to other challenges that we’ll have to overcome.
What is your preferred method for public engagement?
My plan is that once a month, I’ll be at the Village Center — in the living room area there — and as a very casual thing, I’ll sit there for anybody who wants to come by and talk to me. I’ll have set hours, and then I can bring those concerns and issues back to the village board.
I’d also like to see some sort of portal added to the village website. People can either volunteer or see what volunteer opportunities there are for various committees. It’s a way to open up to the rest of the village.
What is your professional background, and how does it apply to the role of a trustee?
I’m a graduate of St. John’s University. I graduated with an undergraduate degree in government and politics and public administration. I have an MBA, also from St. John’s, in economics.
Right out of college, I started working for two different banks for 10 years. Then I became a treasurer of the Village of Lindenhurst. I was treasurer for eight years. I had a brief stint working for News 12 and was moving to Port Jeff when a friend of mine said the [then] clerk was leaving Port Jeff and that I should drop my resume off to the mayor.
I did that and was interviewed by the first Mayor Garant [Jeanne]. She hired me, and I was the clerk of Port Jefferson for 18 years. Then I retired from Port Jeff and went to the Village of Westbury, where I grew up. I was clerk-treasurer of Westbury for two years.
When I was in college, my grandfather was the mayor of Westbury. He was a trustee for many years, so I got my introduction to local and municipal politics through the family.
Note to our readers
We intend to interview each of the declared candidates for village office, starting with those running for trustee, then mayor. In keeping with past practice, we first interview incumbents seeking reelection, followed by nonincumbents, selected alphabetically.
Veterans for Peace Golden Rule sailing into Port Jeff Harbor
The Golden Rule, above, will enter Port Jefferson Harbor tomorrow, May 26, at 6 p.m. Photo courtesy Myrna Gordon
Veterans for Peace Golden Rule will be sailing into Port Jefferson Harbor on Friday, May 26, at approximately 6 p.m. and will be docked at Harborfront Park from May 26-28.
This historic small ship is currently on a journey along the Atlantic coast for educational conversations about peace, nuclear disarmament, clean water and collective consciousness for our environment.
In 1958, as atmospheric nuclear testing heightened the stakes in the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Golden Rule sailed toward the Marshall Islands aspiring to stop early atmospheric testing.
The Golden Rule was the first sailing vessel in American history to practice nonviolent activism on the high seas 65 years ago and was the forerunner for today’s better-known Greenpeace ships, as well as the template for every kayak, canoe and outboard motorboat that’s peacefully protested anything in the nearly seven decades since.
The Golden Rule helped ignite a worldwide movement to end nuclear testing and led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed by President John F. Kennedy [D] in October 1963, some five years after the initial action.
The boat has a significant connection to Long Island as its first crew included William Huntington, a Quaker from St. James. In homage to him, a true trailblazer, the Society of Friends, Conscience Bay Quakers Meeting will join members of the Setalcott Nation, the original stewards of our waterfront community, and many other peace and justice organizations in meeting the boat and welcoming its captain and crew.
North Country Peace Group with South Country Peace Group are the sponsors of this event with a special acknowledgment to the Conscience Bay Quakers. We hope everyone can join us.
Myrna Gordon
Port Jefferson
Words matter in immigration dialogue
One of the most beautiful elements of America is diversity. The immigrants who live in our communities contribute to our economy, our culture and our public life. We are a better nation for it.
We have seen a vilification of those seeking asylum at our southern border. This past Sunday, local, state, and federal Suffolk County Republicans held a press conference, announcing a plan to hire legal counsel to block asylum seekers from entering Suffolk County.
Though seeking asylum is legal, county Legislature Presiding Officer Kevin McCaffrey [R-Lindenhurst] said, “We don’t know who’s coming over.” In doing so, McCaffrey implies that asylum seekers are a danger to us.
U.S. Congressman Nick LaLota [R-NY1] differentiated between documented and undocumented immigrants. Both ignore a basic truth: Asylum seekers are fleeing their countries because of climate change, poverty and political violence. They are not seeking to do us harm. Our federal government must provide assistance and address these root causes in our foreign policy. That is the direction we must take, rather than demonizing and “othering” asylum seekers.
Today’s asylum seekers remind me of my paternal grandfather. As a teenager, he fled Odessa [now in Ukraine] after his father, a practicing rabbi, was murdered in Siberia. My grandfather didn’t consider paperwork — he fled to survive. My grandfather may have had a different religion and skin color than the migrants at the border, but their stories and their humanity are quite similar. As a Jew who has had branches of my family tree cut off by political violence, I know that “Never Again” applies to every one of us, including asylum seekers.
Words matter. When our politicians use xenophobic rhetoric like the county Republicans are, it makes all of us less safe. Will the base they have riled up distinguish between which of their neighbors are documented or undocumented? Did the teenager who murdered Marcelo Lucero in Patchogue in 2008 check his immigration status before ending his life? Rather than learning from our history, the county Republicans seem intent on repeating that harm, all in the name of firing up their base for the November elections.
We cannot accept this in Suffolk. We must seek solutions that bring us all together, rather than divide us up. We must expect more from our elected leaders. If they cannot deliver, we must vote them out and replace them with moral leaders who can.
Shoshana Hershkowitz
South Setauket
Concerns about proposedMaryhaven development
The 19 units in Canyon Creek, which were completed in 1999, are directly impacted by any activities on the former Maryhaven Center of Hope site on Myrtle Avenue.
All four Port Jefferson Village trustees have met with several of the Canyon Creek Home Owners Association members on-site, and we expressed to them our overall concerns about the proposed development of the site by Beechwood Homes.
Our biggest concern is the proposed nearly 200 units, on the 10-acre site, to be priced at approximately $1 million each, in buildings that would be allowed to be three stories in height, plus the requirement for two parking spaces per unit.
Canyon Creek is located on close to 10 acres and has 19 units. We would hope that the village Board of Trustees would change the zoning to include a requirement of an equal density in the adjoining property. Our quiet and peaceful neighborhood will be detrimentally impacted with the proposal now before the board.
The proposed development plan calls for preserving the old building on the former Maryhaven site, but Beechwood is seeking concessions from Port Jefferson Village to change the zoning code to allow for increased density of residences on the site. The consensus among the homeowners is that while there are positive considerations for preserving the historic building and converting it for residential and recreational use, as proposed by Beechwood, the allowance of an incentive of increased units and taller structures as a tradeoff is absolutely detrimental to the Canyon Creek community.
There are numerous serious adverse impacts on our community from such a development so close to our backyards: loss of privacy, noise, change in ambience of the surrounding area, increased traffic, water runoff into properties and many more.
We as a community are very concerned that there appears to be a rush to change the code to allow the development of a property that would be inconsistent with the surrounding area without submitting an environmental and traffic study for full public review and comment.
We recognize that the board’s only role is to alter the zoning code, and we hope that they will take into consideration how all of Port Jefferson will be impacted, as well as the devastating impact it will have on Canyon Creek.
Maybe it’s the mayor and school board that lack that vision and understanding. The community wants answers. Port Jefferson currently spends over $50,000 per student, well above other districts. Our enrollment is declining, with graduating classes projected to drop to near 60 students by 2031.
Taxes are already projected in the school district’s current financial plan to increase 34% by the 2027-28 school year. After the LIPA glide path expires in 2028, taxes would double if the plant is closed. Mayor Garant said “The norm is like another 10-year glide path to give you a chance to settle into another loss of revenue.” [“Powering down?” May 18, TBR News Media]. Really, another glide path — what norm?
Over 10 years, Shoreham saw its LIPA taxes — which represented 90% of its budget — drop 10% per year. There was no further assistance. If the mayor knows where Port Jeff would get yet another glide path, please let us know the source, and have their representatives confirm it. And will this white knight also provide additional benefits for Northport and Glenwood Landing, which are on similar glide paths to Port Jefferson?
As an alternative to hoping for a magical rescue, let’s plan appropriately and realistically, with every option considered before we are asked to commit to another long-term bond that would effectively remove several options from consideration. Let’s find out if other districts would be interested in a merger or tuitioning our students. Let’s have an impartial consultant analyze the numbers and determine what our taxes would be with LIPA gone if we continue alone, or with a merger or some combination.
Also, let’s discuss whether the opportunities for our projected 60-student per grade high school enrollment would be greater, and at less expense, in a merged or tuitioned district.
And will the mayor and school board please stop discounting the feasibility of a merger based on our current school tax rate being so much lower than neighboring districts. That projected rate is 190.11%, according to PJSD’s Summary of Estimated Revenues in the 2023-24 Draft Budget, an increase from 178.46%. Take out LIPA’s assessed value and by my calculations the rate jumps to 330.37% which is equal to or greater than surrounding districts.
Our vision and understanding needs answers.
Robert J. Nicols
Port Jefferson
The reality of closing local generating plants
Your editorial and lead article [TBR News Media, May 18] both address the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed stringent limitations on power plants’ emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that cause the climate change we already see here.
The EPA’s proposal is consistent with the existing state Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act that mandates similar reductions in New York state of fossil fuel generation and its replacement with renewably generated electricity.
Both TBR pieces recognize that the Northport and the Port Jefferson plants cannot continue for too many more years to be powered by natural gas.
Your editorial correctly challenges local governments and school districts that have been subsidized by tens of millions of dollars annually that are indirectly paid by other Long Island residents through the taxes on these greatly overassessed properties to start “imagining a future in which those subsidies no longer exist.” These entities should certainly seek state aid to ease this transition, but that is not a long-term solution.
There could be other uses for these sites that are robustly connected to the grid, such as for landing power cables from offshore wind farms, or massive batteries to store electrical energy during times of low renewable generation.
Bruce Miller, former Port Jefferson Village trustee, suggested two possibilities for continued onsite electrical generation. One would be continuing to burn natural gas, while adding equipment to capture the resulting carbon dioxide. This possibility ignores the known substantial leakage of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — at the well, and all the way to the generating plant. Such carbon dioxide removal equipment does not now exist at scale, and would be rather expensive.
He also suggests burning hydrogen to produce electricity when renewable generation cannot meet demand. Such “green” hydrogen would be produced during the summer from water using renewably generated electricity, stored in large quantities, transported here by pipelines that could not leak even small amounts of climate-changing hydrogen, and burned to produce electricity. The main combustion product would be harmless water. However, the oxides of nitrogen and other polluting combustion products would have to be removed before being released, adding to the cost of the electricity generated.
There are no certain answers to continued use of these sites for electrical purposes to replace lost tax revenues. Just the opposite is true: The higher the taxes on any new facilities, the more expensive will be their operation and less likely they would be built here.
Peter Gollon
Huntington
Editor’s note: The writer was a LIPA trustee from 2016-21.
EPA power plant standards are cost prohibitive
The EPA’s proposed rules for cutting emissions are so onerous that older generators, like Northport and Port Jefferson as well as hundreds around the country, will be shut down because the expense to upgrade would be prohibitive.
These power stations have operated since the 1960s with incredible reliability and cost-effectiveness. They have blessed Long Island and the communities that host them with tax income and life-sustaining, consistent energy. The developed world survives on this.
A main difference between our society and the third world is their lack of affordable, reliable energy. It is also a matter of survival. One can broil in the heat and freeze in the cold. One can starve for lack of food and water. One can die from inadequate health care facilities and resources.
Note well that these power plants have operated within EPA pollution regulations. Now the EPA is moving the goalposts. Companies, towns and cities that have relied on the energy for our civilization will be in mortal danger.
It is extremely difficult, costly and lengthy to site, plan, permit and build a new power station. The real estate is gone. The possibility of rebuilding an old power station to new standards, repowering, may not be cost-effective, especially if there are the preferential power purchase agreements that put wind and solar electricity ahead of fossil fuel generation.
Another consideration is China, Russia, India and the Global South in general are building fossil-fueled power plants, including coal, at a breathtaking rate — hundreds a year. Decarbonization of New York state and the U.S. power plant emissions will have no effect.
Furthermore, wind and solar power operate on average about 20% of the nameplate capacity of generation. Spinning reserves are mandatory. Battery backup, aside from the huge expense, child labor and devastation to the environment in obtaining rare earths, may work for a few hours. Where is that coming from if Northport, Port Jeff and other power stations are closed?
Planet Earth, throughout its billions of years, experienced much higher temperatures and CO2. In fact, the Holocene period, with the greatest explosion of flora and fauna in history, flourished with way higher temperatures and CO2. Life adapted and thrived. In fact, thousands of scientists confirm there is no CO2 crisis.
Buy some candles if this goes through.
Mark Sertoff
East Northport
Have you seen my wife?
If you live in the village of Port Jeff, I’m sure you have.
The kids and I, however … not so much. Since my wife, Kathianne Snaden, became village trustee in 2019 and deputy mayor in 2021, I sometimes think village residents get to see her more than we do.
When I get home from work, my first question to the kids is, “Where’s Mom?” Their answer in that typical teenage voice is usually, “At a meetinggggg… .”
It seems like my wife is always at a meeting. Board meetings, trustee work sessions, union negotiations, meetings with business owners, meetings with residents, meetings with Suffolk County Police Department brass, and on and on the list goes. When what she does as deputy mayor comes up in conversation and she explains all that she actually does here in the village most residents respond with some variation of “wow, I didn’t realize that you did so much.” All the nice flowers you see planted this week … Kathianne personally worked with the garden center and the parks department to make that happen and so much more.
Kathianne makes so many positive safety and quality-of-life improvements here in the village it would be difficult to list them all in under 400 words.
On top of all that, I think one of the things that really sets Kathianne apart is her willingness to meet with people, be approachable and be open to any inquiry from residents. On more than one occasion, Kathianne and I have been out in the village and she will post online where we are and anyone who wants to talk can come down and sit with us, whether we are at the Farmers Market, watching our kids play at Rocketship Park or even out to dinner. Kathianne makes herself available to everyone.
As a business owner, I recognize the drive and positive spirit my wife has to get anything done that she sets her mind to, and I’ve seen her do it. As a Port Jeff resident, I’m thankful for the great ideas, programs and initiatives she has brought to the village that benefit us all.
As a husband I’m so proud — she impresses me every day. And while it means I (and the kids) still won’t see her that much at home, I urge everyone to vote for Kathianne Snaden for mayor so she can continue to excel for us here in Port Jeff.
William Snaden
Port Jefferson
Sheprow will put residents first
It’s time for a change of direction in Port Jefferson. That’s why I’m proud to endorse my long-time friend, Lauren Sheprow, for mayor.
I’ve known Lauren since our days at Scraggy Hill Elementary. She’s always been bright, dedicated, focused and, most importantly, a great friend. As a single mom, she raised three wonderful children while pursuing a career that ultimately led to her becoming chief media relations officer at Stony Brook University.
I know running for mayor wasn’t in Lauren’s plan. But when she became a village trustee, she saw major decisions being made without any input from residents. So she did what Lauren always does — started asking the tough questions. The concerns she raised, however, even when they identified a potential conflict of interest or a question of ethics, were frequently met with denial or simply ignored. That’s part of the reason she decided to run.
With deep roots in Port Jeff, Lauren has a vision that’s focused on putting residents first. She wants to bring best business practices back, increase transparency and put an end to closed-door decision-making. Lauren is a communications professional and as mayor will work to improve our relationships with the business community — as well as our town, county and state governments — to ensure we’re making the most of all our resources.
She’ll also put an end to wasteful spending. On day one, Lauren will seek board consensus to enlist the expertise of a forensic accountant and an administrative consultant to help bring fiscal responsibility and operational excellence to Port Jefferson.
If, like me, you’re ready for new leadership and a fresh start for the village, I urge you to vote for Lauren Sheprow as our next mayor.
April Quiggle
Port Jefferson
Exploiting bail reformis not a solution
In response to my letter on bail reform [“Eliminating bail reduces recidivism,” TBR News Media, May 4], Jim Soviero takes exception to my use of the term “crocodile tears” [“Local crime exposes bail reform dangers,” May 18] to describe his professed concern for “minorities” that “tragically . . . continue to suffer disproportionately from violent crime.”
This was not an attack on his person or behavior, or an attempt to question the sincerity of his political beliefs. My point was that it seems a trifle presumptuous for Soviero, who is white, to proffer ending bail reform as a cure for the suffering of “minorities” when they themselves overwhelmingly disagree.
The larger point is that exploiting bail reform to excite fear and division for political gain is the worst possible way to actually address the underlying issues behind violent crime. Bail reform isn’t something that was just dreamed up by “leftist think tanks” as Soviero puts it. It was to address a very real problem he ignores, namely, the inequity of a system that condemns people who have not been convicted to days, weeks or even months in jails such as Rikers Island, for, in effect, the crime of being poor. As I noted in my May 4 letter, it is overwhelmingly supported in the minority community. If it’s so harmful to them there’s a very simple remedy— they can vote out their representatives who support it.
Soviero scoffs at the data presented by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study I cited, surrounding the word “data” with scare quotes. Naturally, since the data doesn’t support his contention that bail reform is terrible, he would much rather rely on anecdotal evidence that seems to. And for every horror story he could cite where someone was harmed by a person arraigned and released without bail, I could cite a horror story of someone who committed suicide or whose life was damaged beyond repair by being held in jail for days or weeks without being convicted. The point is, this is no way to formulate criminal justice policy. If we don’t use data, what do we use? Who can cite the most sensationalized anecdotes?
New York City Mayor Eric Adams [D], whom Soviero approvingly cited in his original letter denouncing bail reform, recently termed fixing it a “bumper sticker slogan.” Adams is right. Instead of politicians weaponizing this issue for political gain what we need is reasoned discussion of underlying issues. The problems with the criminal justice system are much deeper and more entrenched beyond the obsession with this one issue.
David Friedman
St. James
Editor’s note: This correspondence on bail reform is now closed.
Port Jefferson Village trustee Stan Loucks on his bid for reelection. Sketch by Kyle Horne: @kylehorneart • kylehorneart.com
If reelected, what would be your top priority during the coming term?
I want to go forward successfully with a plan to capture water — not only to give us more water at the golf course but to protect the environment.
The water now that’s running rampant, a lot of it is dumping right into the Long Island Sound. We have a large spillway that goes right alongside our golf course. All that water we’re going to try to collect, putting it in ponds on the golf course.
The water we collect will be purified before we put it on the golf course. We’re going to have a system to sanitize the water.
The one pond we have now is filled with turtles, fish and wildlife. I’d like nothing better than to see more water on our golf course.
How do you intend to help guide ongoing bluff stabilization efforts at East Beach and maximize the potential of the village-owned Port Jefferson Country Club?
The lower wall is basically complete. The bluff itself — except directly underneath the clubhouse — has been stabilized.
It’s all been raked out, leveled out and covered with a heavy-duty burlap. And both the east and west portions of the bluff project are fairly complete. Now we’re waiting for [the Federal Emergency Management Administration] to come through with the money to begin phase II of the bluff project — an upper wall.
Our goal at this point in time is to save that structure, our clubhouse up there now. Prior to FEMA, maybe my thoughts would be different. But that [$3.75] million we’re getting from FEMA is a game changer for the taxpayers and the village.
What is the proper role of the Board of Trustees in overseeing new developments and redevelopment of village parcels?
We’re running out of space for further development, barring, for example, uptown. Many developers have come in there and bought out a lot of the businesses.
Beyond the master plan, a lot of that development came in as a way to replace revenue lost from [the Long Island Power Authority glide path settlement]. Unfortunately, the Town of Brookhaven controls the [Industrial Development Agency] tax situation.
When those developers come in and get a tax break, that’s not on us. That’s very unfortunate because, in the first two or three years, they pay a very small percentage of what they should be paying.
The village has probably reached its max in development. Maryhaven is kind of a foggy area for me right now. I was not involved in any of the discussions leading up to the [May 1] public hearing. I think some of the board members were a little surprised.
I have some great ideas, but I’m not so sure that, moneywise, the village can afford my great ideas. We have some major [flooding] problems with the fire department, Village Hall and all of Theatre Three. The village is built in a bowl, and as we keep developing more buildings and more blacktops, water has nowhere to go. Things are going to deteriorate and get worse downtown.
If I had a magic wand, Maryhaven would be a village possession. Village Hall, the parks department, the fire department — everything can go on that property. But I don’t think that’s going to happen. I definitely would not want and would not vote for any kind of apartment complex to go in there — we have enough of that.
Would I like to see more homes in the village and more green space? Absolutely. But I think we’ve reached the point of density that we want to be at in terms of building in the village.
How can the village alleviate its parking capacity challenges while balancing the competing parking interests of residents, businesses and tourists?
The only solution I see is a parking facility — a parking garage.
It would not be a subsurface parking garage because of the water table in Port Jefferson. Where I would put it, I don’t know, but that’s the only solution I can see — a two-story, maybe three-story parking garage somewhere in the village.
We do have some vacant land that the village owns. It’s the location, the acceptance or rejection of that location and the concept. Some people don’t like parking garages, but I can’t see a solution beyond that.
Would you support resurrecting the parking committee?
I think a parking committee should be in place. The more people you can get ideas from, the better off you are.
What is your preferred method for engaging the public?
It’s about time that we’ve got a [civic] organization that’s going to take an interest in what’s going on in our village.
I have spent eight years as a trustee, and it was always amazing to me — I’d go to a board meeting and see eight people sitting in the audience. Yet you have all these major problems — parking, flooding, code enforcement.
I come from a small village upstate where their civic association was half the village’s population. It’s a valuable organization — to get information from the people who live there.
I was very pleased the other night with that whole scenario [during the May 1 public hearing]. People were sincere, they were civil and they gave a lot of good feedback. I hope the [Port Jefferson] Civic Association stays active, and I hope they stay in the direction that they’re going in.
When they talk about zoning, I don’t think that’s negative. That’s a sincere concern. The board can listen to the public more, and it’d be nice if even the Planning Board exposed themselves more to the public. I like hearing from the public, and I think that’s important.
What is your professional background, and how does it apply to the duties of a trustee?
My professional background is in education. A graduate of [SUNY] Cortland, I started as a phys ed teacher. At that time, I immediately started my education at Hofstra University, receiving a master’s degree in secondary school administration, then continued my education and got a master’s degree in districtwide administration.
I moved from a physical education teacher to the local athletic director. Throughout my career, I coached girls tennis, boys golf, boys basketball and varsity football. After 34 years in Plainview, I retired in 1995.
One year after the village purchased the [Port Jefferson] Country Club, I got involved in tennis, belonging to the tennis membership up at the country club. I got involved on the tennis board and became chairman, then moved over to the golf side when it became reasonably priced. I got involved with the board of governors, became president and was later appointed to the [Country Club Management Advisory Committee].
In 2013, [Mayor] Margot [Garant] asked me to run for trustee. At that point in time, I was not interested. In 2015, I did relent and ran for trustee and was elected. I was elected again in 2017, 2019 and 2021, and I’m running again now.
I am involved in the recreation and parks in the village. And, of course, the country club is my main goal. Right now, we have a lot of projects going on up there.
My entire career, my goal has been to work for people and work with students of all ages and backgrounds. My main interest right now is to continue working in pretty much the same direction I have been going in. I’m interested in serving the public, continuing what I did for 34 years [in education].
Note to our readers
We intend to interview each of the declared candidates for village office, starting with those running for trustee, then mayor. In keeping with past practice, we first interview incumbents seeking reelection, followed by nonincumbents, selected alphabetically.
Slow down multifamily development in Port Jeff Station/Terryville
Certain multifamily housing project proposals are progressing too fast in the hamlets of Port Jefferson Station and Terryville.
In Port Jefferson Station, starting at the intersection of Terryville Road and Main Street (aka Route 112), traveling north there are proposals to build four multifamily housing communities.
Proposal 1 will be built at the shopping center where the post office is located. Proposal 2 will be built at the old Malkmes Florists on Oakland Avenue. Proposal 3 will be built on Cherub Lane. And Proposal 4 will be built adjacent to the railroad tracks on both the east and west side of Main Street.
As a result of these proposed multifamily housing projects, our communities have requested an environmental impact statement and a comprehensive traffic study. Both requests have either been ignored or denied by the Town of Brookhaven.
This is not an anti-development letter. It is a shoutout to our Brookhaven elected officials to slow down the process of reviewing these proposed multifamily housing projects.
It is time to perform the necessary studies to help us better understand how these proposed projects will affect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the current and future traffic patterns in our communities.
We have a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and feel safe in our communities without worrying about increasing traffic on our neighborhood streets. It is time to complete the necessary studies so that we can better understand how these multifamily housing projects will affect our quality of life.
Multifamily housing is not a cure all, and there are times when such projects cause detrimental quality-of-life issues that cannot be reversed.
Please slow down and complete the necessary studies.
Louis Antoniello
Terryville
Consider eminent domain for Maryhaven
In the United States, governmental bodies, at all levels from federal to a village, have an obligation to promote, and often provide, resources for the general welfare of their population.
In Port Jefferson vacant land is becoming a precious resource for uses that could provide and promote our general welfare. To that purpose, governments have the authority to gain ownership of land through the process of eminent domain.
Our village government held a public hearing on May 1 regarding a code change that would specifically allow a developer of the Maryhaven property to purchase the entire property, and construct as many as 192 condominium units. Special permission to do so is contingent on the builder’s willingness to maintain the outer walls of the existing historically important building known as the Maryhaven Center of Hope.
A building that was used for generations to help many in need — young children with severe disabilities, and later to house and aid those who required group living quarters, training for minimal paying jobs and other needs for their adult lives.
Without dishonoring the building that served those with the greatest needs for survival, it is difficult to understand how the proposed code change aimed specifically at “saving” the Maryhaven building is achieved by gutting the structure for the creation of expensive condominiums, a clubhouse and a swimming pool within, all to serve a private luxury gated community.
How does the proposed code change honor those that spent their professional lives providing for those with the greatest needs for their survival?
The future of this land is of particular importance at a time when the effects of climate change, ushering in periods of rain beyond current capacity to mitigate the potential of severe flooding, threatens our fire department and, possibly in years to come, the accessibility of our current Village Hall.
Now is the time to plan for a new Center of Hope with uses that promote and provide for the general welfare of those who follow us. The use of eminent domain to secure that property would honor the building and its grounds in service to the public, the fire department and village government operations.
Michael Mart
Port Jefferson
Local crime exposes bail reform dangers
In an effort to champion the successes of cashless bail, letter writer David Friedman cited a study done by the Data Collaborative for Justice [“Eliminating bail reduces recidivism,” TBR News Media, April 27]. Along the way he took the opportunity to make inaccurate personal assumptions about me, while criticizing respected Albany District Attorney David Soares [D]. In a clumsy effort to paint me as insincere, Friedman applies the term “crocodile tears.”
I’ve spent over three decades working with special needs and at-risk children ranging in age from preschool to high school. Responsibilities included teaching, meeting with parents and working with multidisciplinary teams that included probation officers, child protection specialists, social workers and psychologists. We had uplifting successes and heartbreaking disappointments. Tears, whether for joy or sorrow, were genuine.
Soares, shamefully silenced by his own party for condemning cashless bail, had a different take on much of the Collaborative Justice “data.” But an area where he could agree was the study’s very own “Summary and Conclusions.” Here were highlighted the dangers of “increased recidivism for people with substantial recent criminal histories.”
That terrifying scenario became reality in Suffolk County.
On April 24, Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond Tierney [R] announced the recent seizure of guns and narcotics: “Law enforcement was able to recover … approximately 268 grams of fentanyl, which could kill 134,000 people.’’
Tierney blamed bail reform laws: “Out of the 21 individuals arrested, we only got to seek bail on 11.” Consider that fact, knowing 350 of our neighbors died of fentanyl overdoses last year.
On May 11, Michael Lafauci, a six-year veteran assigned to the 6th Precinct’s Anti-Crime Unit, barely survived a gunshot wound. The alleged shooter was Janell Funderburke. Last August, he and three others were arrested after fleeing police, then crashing a 2018 BMW. Suffolk cops pulled them from that burning vehicle and, in the process, found a handgun and drugs.
Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association President Noel DiGerolamo linked Lafauci’s horrific wounding to what he considers New York’s failed bail reform law, saying this suspected gang member “should never been out on the street.” He continued, “An individual who one day is rescued by Suffolk County police officers … only … for him to attempt to kill one. This is what our leaders in Albany have created.”
Counting on those 10 enjoying a cashless bail release, as described by Tierney, after their drug bust to “reform”? Ask DiGerolamo, the two DAs and, most importantly, Officer LaFauci.
Jim Soviero
East Setauket
WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL
We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation.
Above, declared candidates for Port Jeff Village offices during a May 10 general meeting of the Port Jefferson Civic Association. Left to right: Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden, trustee Lauren Sheprow, trustee Stan Loucks and former Village Clerk Bob Juliano. Photos by Raymond Janis
The Port Jefferson Civic Association hosted a Meet the Candidates forum on Wednesday, May 10, offering residents an opportunity to question the four candidates currently declared for the upcoming village election on June 20.
Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden and trustee Lauren Sheprow have both announced bids for village mayor as seven-term Mayor Margot Garant will not seek reelection, instead pursuing the office of Town of Brookhaven supervisor. Incumbent trustee Stan Loucks and former village clerk Bob Juliano are both running for trustee.
Questions were fielded from current members of the civic as well as from the audience. For nearly an hour and a half, the candidates touched upon a wide range of subjects, from declining public revenue to resident participation to development and redevelopment.
Public revenue
Due to the landmark tax settlement between the Village of Port Jefferson and the Long Island Power Authority, the village and local school district are experiencing a gradual decline in public revenue from the Port Jefferson Power Station. The candidates were asked how they intend to address this issue.
Snaden maintained that there are viable pathways toward alleviating budgetary pressures on taxpayers. “One of the things to increase revenue is to have responsible — very responsible — balanced development,” she said. “Increasing that tax base without tax abatements” represents a way to help taxpayers while “additionally making fiscally responsible decisions.”
Sheprow proposed a close review of the current budget, exploring ways to save money. “I think we’re looking right now at spending a lot of money on contractors that we didn’t spend in the past,” she said. “We really need to look at this budget, get disciplined and get strategically creative about how we use the money that currently comes in.”
To make up for the loss of public revenue, Juliano proposed reforming how the Brookhaven Industrial Development Agency offers tax abatements to developers.
“As developers come in and want to build things in the village — apartments or whatever kind it may be — the village will be made whole,” he said. “It won’t lose any money in that way.”
Loucks acknowledged the difficulties of managing the existing village budget. Like Juliano, he suggested closer oversight of the development that takes place, looking at ways to avert tax relief incentives for developers.
“Going forward, I think we have to take a close look at the development we do in this village so that we get our full tax base rather than tax breaks,” he said.
Public engagement
Asked about their preferred approach to bolstering resident involvement in village decision making, the candidates offered slightly different answers.
Sheprow proposed overhauling the village’s current website to disseminate information more effectively for residents.
“We need a whole revamp of our website,” she said, adding, “We need to be more comprehensive in how we communicate on our website. We need to have a more user-friendly website.”
Snaden touched upon her background on the village board and some of the initiatives she headed to promote resident engagement.
“I found out that if you want to get involved, the information is there,” she said. “One of the first things I did was to ask that the meetings upstairs be live streamed,” adding, “The other thing I started was the [Port] eReport, the newsletter that goes out to anybody who wants to have it.”
Juliano proposed making himself available one Saturday out of the month, holding informal face-to-face meetings with constituents at the Village Center.
“I would also like to see on the village website a portal for people who would like to volunteer for different committees and boards to list what they would like to do to be active,” he said.
Loucks advocated for meet-and-greet opportunities for village residents to make contact with their local officials.
“I would like to, maybe once a month, be at the Village Center at a specific hour,” he said. “I’ll be there. You come and talk to me and ask me questions.”
Development/redevelopment
The village is currently working through several unresolved development proposals, most notably at the Maryhaven Center of Hope property on Myrtle Avenue. Asked for the tools at residents’ disposal to oversee these projects, the candidates advanced differing perspectives.
“The best tool residents have is their voice,” Sheprow said. “It is to let the representatives who make decisions on code and development proposals know how they feel.”
Snaden stressed the importance of residents being proactive in major decisions over development. “Get involved, but get involved before it happens,” she said.
Loucks suggested the village hire new staff to oversee development. “Our village does not have an engineer to oversee these developments, and I think we need one in the worst way,” he said.
Juliano said residents must be vigilant about bringing their concerns to the board: “If you see something, say something,” he said. “If you don’t say something, we wouldn’t know about it.”
The declared candidates will be back in front of the public on Tuesday, June 13, for a second Meet the Candidates forum hosted by the Greater Port Jefferson Chamber of Commerce. The event will take place at the Port Jefferson Village Center from 6 to 9 p.m.
In the May 4 edition, the editorial board highlights that the Brookhaven landfill is a major issue in this year’s Town of Brookhaven elections [“The landfill election”]. We need bold leadership to tackle Long Island’s decades-long solid waste crisis. This is an issue of economic, environmental and racial justice that we can no longer afford to ignore.
Carting our garbage off of Long Island to another community is not a sustainable solution. We must reduce our waste, and this cannot only rest on individual households, but also on businesses and producers. We can incentivize waste reduction with pay-as-you-throw programs. We can also utilize the knowledge of experts like Stony Brook University’s research associate professor David Tonjes, whose work on waste management provides guidance on how we can address this crisis with innovation and ingenuity. We are capable of long-term, sustainable policy, but only if we have the political and moral courage to do so.
It is clear to me that the current Town Board are not the people to meet this moment. The past decade of one-party rule in Brookhaven includes a botched rollout of the recycling program, our roads in disrepair, and gerrymandering our council districts to bolster a weak incumbent in the 4th Council District. They have left us with a solid waste crisis, used nearly $250,000 of our taxpayer dollars to pay an EPA fine for air quality violations in 2020, and ignored the voices of the directly impacted residents of North Bellport time and again. They do not deserve to be reelected in 2023.
Outgoing Supervisor Ed Romaine [R] must be held accountable for his role in the failures of the Town Board he has led. Romaine is seeking the office of Suffolk county executive, and he must be questioned about the harm he has had a hand in creating in the Town of Brookhaven. We as voters must consider if he is fit to handle higher office, given the mismanagement of our municipal government under his leadership.
We deserve better elected officials than we currently have in our town government. The communities of color who have been disproportionately impacted by the landfill crisis deserve to be listened to by our representatives. There is too much at stake to accept the status quo and small-minded thinking of the current Town Board. It is time for bold solutions that meet the urgency of the moment. It is time for change.
Shoshana Hershkowitz
South Setauket
Still no funding for Port Jeff Branch electrification
Funding to pay for a number of transportation projects and pay increases for transit workers were items missing from Gov. Kathy Hochul’s [D] $229 billion budget.
There is no new funding to advance Hochul’s three favorite NYC transportation projects: the $8 billion Penn Station improvements; $7.7 billion Second Avenue Subway Phase 2; and $5.5 billion Brooklyn-Queens Interborough Express light rail connection. Also missing was funding to advance the $3.6 billion Long Island Rail Road Port Jefferson Branch electrification project. All Port Jefferson LIRR riders have to date is the ongoing LIRR diesel territory electrification feasibility study.
There was no additional funding to pay for upcoming 2023 NYC Transport Workers Union Local 100 contracts for LIRR and Metro-North Railroad employees. The MTA only budgeted for a 2% increase. NYC TWU president, Richard Davis, will ask for far more so his 40,000 members can keep up with inflation. Both LIRR and MNR unions, with thousands of members, will want the same.
Larry Penner
Great Neck
Maryhaven: a breakdown of process
Our village process is broken. Let’s take the Maryhaven project as a recent example of what’s wrong.
This proposed development should have been brought to the Port Jefferson Village Board of Trustees via the Planning Board, which is responsible for overseeing all building-related matters.
But during the recent public hearing, we learned from the developer that he’d been in discussions with the mayor, deputy mayor and village clerk for well over a year, despite the fact there was still no proposal before the Planning Board. The first time the rest of the trustees heard about the project was when it was announced by the deputy mayor at a public meeting on March 6 of this year.
It’s likely the village attorney was also aware of these talks. As previously reported in this paper, he was pressing the village to be “proactive” and change the code to rezone the property in order to clear the path for the developers, whenever they were ready to apply. To that end, he proposed the May 1 public hearing. The attorney also suggested that if the code modification wasn’t suitable to the residents as is, there would be an opportunity to make adjustments. That is not entirely accurate.
We know this from our experience with the Mather Hospital expansion. Before the project came to a public hearing, the village made several decisions, from seemingly irrelevant (at the time) code changes to the most crucial, allowing the hospital a variance for extra clearance. The latter resulted in 2 precious acres of forest being cleared.
The impression the village gave at the time was that residents would still have a chance to weigh in. But when that time came, despite nearly 70 letters protesting the clearing of the forest and all the objections raised at the hearing, it was too late.
The Planning Board’s position was that its hands were tied by all those prior decisions, and it did not have the tools to consider the objections. In other words, we should have been paying attention when Mather first announced the master plan.
So forgive us if we’re skeptical when the village attorney tells us that we’ll have an opportunity to comment on the project overall at a later date.
Ana Hozyainova, President
Holly Fils-Aime, Vice President
Port Jefferson Civic Association
Declining public revenue in Port Jeff
The spirit of New York’s Freedom Of Information Act is transparency and access. Its introduction states, “The people’s right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality.”
The issue of the future tax revenue from the Port Jefferson Power Station is critically important to both the Village of Port Jefferson and the Port Jefferson School District. So, it is surprising to me that the LIPA settlement agreement is not made available on the village or school district websites. And when I asked the village that a link be included, I was told that the village attorney advised the village not to put it on the website. I would have to complete a FOIL application. I did so. It had no redactions, and nothing in the document contained any confidentiality clause. The Town of Huntington puts its Northport Power Plant LIPA agreement on its website. So what is the objection to making the Port Jefferson agreement accessible to all on our websites? Would they prefer to have the fewest taxpayers know its full terms and potential consequences?
While both the village and school district are quick to tell us how little our tax bills will rise when promoting 30-year bond proposals, their assumptions are highly suspect given the lack of any reasonable assurance that the LIPA benefit will survive beyond the glide path expiration just four years away. Both the Port Jeff and the Northport agreements state that any extensions under the same terms beyond the 2027 expirations are dependent on power needs of National Grid. With repowering off the table, and the state’s goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030, it would seem there is little likelihood of any significant extension beyond expiration. The Port Jefferson Village budget for 2023-24 reveals LIPA taxes covering 36% of property taxes while the school district budget includes LIPA representing 42%.
It’s time for the village and school district to face the elephant in the room and (1) make critical information available on their websites and (2) for any discussion of potential costs to taxpayers, include calculations that consider a potentially abandoned power plant and taxpayers having to face 60%-plus tax increases to make up the LIPA loss.
Robert J. Nicols
Port Jefferson
Time to put the brakeson spending
Port Jefferson and Belle Terre residents are facing a school district budget and bond vote Tuesday, May 16, at the Port Jefferson high school from 6 a.m. until 9 p.m.
It’s a rather hefty price tag being proposed: $47 million for the proposed 2023-24 budget and close to $16 million additional for a bond focused entirely on enhancements to the high school.
While district residents have been more than generous in past years in support of our schools, maybe it’s time to ask if spending over $50,000 each year to educate a student is really feasible. (That’s the amount when you divide the proposed 2023-24 budget by the 933 students in the district, as suggested by Deputy Superintendent Sean Leister as a simple approximation of the per pupil costs, at the village board meeting on May 1.)
Perhaps this is the time to put the brakes on this spending and take a hard look at the future of the high school and consider alternatives.
Charles G. Backfish
Port Jefferson
We need to say ‘no’to the school bond
Port Jefferson School District residents will be asked May 16 to approve an almost $16 million bond entirely for the benefit of the high school building. The more crucial question to be asked is: “Why are we considering this enormous expenditure when our high school student population is still dwindling?”
According to the school district’s own numbers — found on the district website or online (Long Range Planning Study, Port Jefferson Union Free School District 2021-22) — our enrollment numbers are declining precipitously. On page 18 of the report, our high school’s total enrollment grades 9-12 by 2031 will be a mere 233 students. Divide that number by the four grades in the school and your average graduating class size by 2031 would be only 58 students.
Port Jefferson high school’s small size cannot be compared to that of a prestigious private high school. Even most of the top private schools like Choate, Phillips and Exeter keep their total high school enrollment over 800 students. Most parents want a high school atmosphere that is academically, athletically and socially rich for their children — a true preparation for college. A high school with less than 240 students can’t realistically provide that.
Our high school is presently functioning with the classroom configurations it has had for decades. Before we invest many millions to move art, tech ed and music to the main building to create team and trainer rooms, let’s first focus on what we do if the high school population keeps dwindling, as the district study projects.
Perhaps we could maintain a strong pre-K through 8th grade school system here and investigate tuitioning out our high school students to Three Village and/or Mount Sinai. This solution has been used successfully by many small school districts. Other larger local districts are facing declining enrollments as well, undoubtedly because of the high home prices and high taxes presenting an obstacle to young families seeking to move to this area. Given that reality, neighboring school districts would welcome our high school students.
Right now, we need to say “no” to the school bond. Before we spend almost $16 million on the high school building, we must find a solution to this ongoing decline in enrollment. To keep ignoring this serious issue is unfair to our already stressed-out taxpayers — and equally unfair to our future high school students.
Gail Sternberg
Port Jefferson
Experience matters
Kathianne Snaden is running for mayor and Stan Loucks is running for reelection as a trustee for the Village of Port Jefferson. They have worked together on the village board for four years.
Kathianne has shown to be tireless and dedicated to the betterment of every facet of our village. She has opened the doors to the internal workings of government by live streaming the board meetings, originating the Port eReport and the practice of responding to every and all questions from everyone. As the liaison to the Code Enforcement Bureau, she is totally committed to improving public safety and was responsible for increasing the presence of the Suffolk County Police Department. Kathianne is also our liaison to the Port Jefferson School District. This is an important relationship that was absent and created by Kathianne.
Stan Loucks has been devoting his retirement years to the Village of Port Jefferson. Prior to his election to the village board in 2015, he was on the tennis board, the board of governors, the greens committee and the Port Jefferson Country Club management advisory committee for a total of 20 years, including chair. Stan has been the liaison to the parks and recreation departments, deputy mayor and liaison to the country club.
He is a hands-on person who will always be directly involved in any issue related to his duties. He has been directly responsible for numerous projects and improvements such as renovation of the golf course; building a new maintenance facility, driving range, fitness center, membership office; upgrading village parks; initiating relationships with our schools and much more.
Kathianne was TBR News Media Person of the Year in 2019, and Stan was Person of the Year in 2021. Seems like they would be the team that we would want to represent our village.
Experience, knowledge, integrity, dedication and hard working are qualities that we need.
Jim White
Port Jefferson
Editor’s note: The writer is a former Port Jefferson Village trustee.
WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL
We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation.
Richard Rosenberg, left, and Michael Dubb, attorney and principal respectively at the Jericho-based Beechwood Organization during a May 1 public hearing at Port Jefferson Village Hall. Photo by Raymond Janis
Ten minutes before 6 p.m., every chair in the house was already taken. Behind the gallery, some sat on tables, others on desks. A standing crowd began to form. Younger attendees yielded their seats to their elder counterparts. All were in for a long night.
The board room at Village Hall could not contain the audience gathered on Monday night, May 1, for the Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees public hearing on the Maryhaven Center of Hope property on Myrtle Avenue.
“It’s great to see a full room,” said Mayor Margot Garant. “That means this community is engaged.”
The village board is considering modifying the zoning code and proposing an incentives package to encourage the historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings and structures.
The Maryhaven property is currently zoned as a Professional Office P-O District. Under the existing zoning code, an applicant within the P-O District can request a special-use permit for Moderate-Density Residence R-M District development.
Village attorney Brian Egan explained the motivations guiding these potential code changes.
The Maryhaven “building is certainly worth keeping,” he told the sea of residents in attendance.
Convincing the owners of that building to preserve it, however, represents a quandary for village officials. The existing zoning code lacks a mechanism to sway developers toward historic preservation.
“There is no obligation to save that building,” Egan said.
The proposed code amendment would create such a mechanism — a special permit application. Egan referred to this application process as “another layer of control” for the village board, enabling it to designate specific parcels that contribute to the village’s architectural or aesthetic character.
If a parcel meets these criteria, determined by the Board of Trustees, then the applicant would qualify for “slightly relaxed standards” under the R-M code, Egan stated.
In the previous week’s work session, they agreed those relaxed standards would be allowances for additional height and stories but no additional clearing — a tradeoff of density for historical preservation and conservation.
Developers from the Jericho-based Beechwood Organization, the firm negotiating with Catholic Health to acquire the Maryhaven property, attended the public hearing. Michael Dubb, principal at Beechwood, stated his intention to preserve the historic building on-site.
“It would be easier for me as the developer to knock that building down … but that wouldn’t be the right thing to do,” he said.
Richard Rosenberg, an attorney for Beechwood, expanded upon the firm’s vision for the site.
“The intention is to keep the original part of the structure, which is around 40-45,000 square feet, demolish the rest,” he said. “There is asbestos, there is lead-based paint. We have to clean it up according to regulations.” He added, “It’s a big ticket item.”
Public input
Following the presentations by Egan and Beechwood, the board took comments from the public. During that period, community members expressed a recurring message:
“I think the big problem that many of us have is density,” resident Eric Sackstein told board members. This general sentiment echoed throughout the evening.
Former village trustee Virginia Capon, who had chaired the Comprehensive Plan Committee, expressed her appreciation for the board in its willingness to preserve the historic structure.
But she objected to the board’s proposed remedy to the problem, suggesting that the board consider the village in its entirety before changing the zoning code.
“That building is beautiful, but I don’t think this is the way to preserve it,” she said.
The former trustee added that numerous other factors weigh into the Maryhaven calculation, such as its nearby steep slopes, which can cause issues with flooding. Capon advised the board to explore options that do not incentivize greater density.
“If you can come up with a way of preserving this building that maybe doesn’t overdevelop the parcel, that would be my recommendation,” she said.
Several other differing proposals were offered for the adaptive reuse of the site. Michael Mart, citing the flooding concerns over the Port Jefferson Fire Department building on Maple Place, proposed relocating the fire station to the higher elevation at the Maryhaven property.
Another resident, Steve Velazquez, proposed selling Village Hall and headquartering the village’s municipal operations at Maryhaven.
Discussions over Maryhaven remain ongoing as the board left the public comment period open for 21 days following Monday’s meeting.
You must be very proud of your continued recognition from the New York Press Association’s Better Newspaper Contest from your team’s work by receiving 11 awards this year. This is also a testament to your success as the founder and publisher of a weekly newspaper.
I believe hometown papers are an essential means to keep residents updated on what is happening in their community as they report on local government, schools, sports, entertainment, news and other items of interest.
I join with all of your readers in congratulating you and your staff and look forward to your continued success.
Rob Trotta
Suffolk County Legislator (R-Fort Salonga)
13th Legislative District
Sunrise Wind projections questionable
The Sunrise Wind project, as we were told in a March 23 TBR News Media article, “will use windmills to provide power to about 600,000 homes.” But what does this mean, exactly? It appears that 600,000 may have been selected as an arbitrary number, which may represent the number of homes that will derive 100% of their power requirements when all of the windmills are generating power at their maximum capacity, although this is not specifically stated in the article. But this raises the obvious question: For what percentage of the time will this be the case? We can only guess.
A much more helpful and meaningful terminology, in my opinion, would be to present these concepts in terms of energy, rather than power. Power is the rate at which energy is produced, or expended. To state that a windmill farm can produce a certain amount of power under ideal conditions, but neglect to mention the percentage of time this may be in effect, is to provide a very limited ability to understand the issue. A much more useful characterization would be to specify the total amount of energy generated in a fixed time, such as a year, compared to the total amount of energy required. For example, we might say something like, “The Sunrise Wind project will provide 45,000 MWh per year, which is 22% of the total energy required by Suffolk County.” (These are, of course, made-up numbers.) In this way, the complex variability of the wind strength becomes included in the energy notation, making the whole issue considerably easier to understand and evaluate.
Surely this issue is well understood by Sunrise Wind, and why they would choose to muddy the waters, as they have, is a matter for speculation. As Honest Abe Lincoln would have told us, a windmill farm can provide some of the power some of the time, or possibly all of the power some of the time, but it can provide none of the power most of the time.
George Altemose
Setauket
More Maryhaven discussions needed
We may be missing the forest for the trees in the process by which the Village of Port Jefferson is approaching this initiative to make an amendment to a long-standing village code for the Professional Office (PO)-zoned Maryhaven property. Residents had their first opportunity to hear and provide feedback as to what was being proposed at the standing-room-only public hearing during Monday’s Board of Trustees meeting, May 1.
Comments and concerns ranged from: Do what it takes to preserve the Maryhaven building; and, we need to know exactly what the plan is prior to a zoning change; to, have the Architectural Review Committee and Conservation Advisory Council been involved? Because we’ve known about the sale and vacancy for a very long time as a village; and, questions and concerns over the potential density as permitted via the draft code amendment (192+ units/~19 units per acre), coupled with the lack of a full environmental review (SEQRA) and sewage treatment related to the project. Other questions? Why didn’t we work with the owner of the property to secure an historic landmark designation and has water runoff into the neighborhoods below been considered?
The bottom line is that these questions are just the tip of the iceberg. Engagement with the developer by a select group of village officials had been ongoing, but the announcement of the pending sale (March 6, Deputy Mayor Snaden) followed by the public hearing request (April 3, Mayor Garant) ostensibly came from out of the blue for the rest of us and now we are playing catch up and the residents are as well.
There should have been more discussion about this building in the public sphere — years if not months ago; i.e., the ARC, CAC, Port Jefferson Historical Society, all could have been engaged.
Is it too late? We will see. But because the developer is working within a “timeline” as described by the mayor, this has suddenly become an urgent, time-sensitive matter. The public hearing remains open for three weeks.
I’d like to hear the public’s response to this and encourage feedback. What I heard May 1 was important, if not concerning. Please contact me at [email protected] if you have additional feedback.
Lauren Sheprow, Trustee
Village of Port Jefferson
Maryhaven: a potential spot zoning case
I was surprised to learn at the May 1 standing-room-only public hearing that the mayor, deputy mayor and village attorney have been in discussions with the developer for the proposed Maryhaven project for well over a year. Yet the first time the residents were made aware of this proposal was at a March 6 Port Jefferson Village Board of Trustees meeting.
While I applaud the Board of Trustees for their interest in preserving the historic Maryhaven building, their solution — changing the village code to achieve this goal — seems like the classic definition of spot zoning. This is the practice of singling out a specific property for a special zoning designation that differs from surrounding properties — an approach that is controversial and subject to challenge. During the hearing, the village attorney and mayor repeatedly said the purpose of the zone change was to preserve this historic building.
Significant concerns were raised about the scope and scale of the Maryhaven redevelopment that would be facilitated by the “relaxing” of existing limits in our code. Many good alternatives to the proposed code change were offered both by residents and trustees Lauren Sheprow and Rebecca Kassay. But there was near universal opposition to changing the village code to accommodate this project because of its potential for adverse impacts to this property and for other parts of the village.
If the village is serious about historic preservation, we need to explore code changes that would apply to more than just a single property. Also, funding opportunities for historic preservation should be vigorously researched and a report issued so that the village can make fully informed land use decisions.
Virginia Capon
Port Jefferson
Editor’s note: The writer formerly served as Port Jefferson Village trustee and chair of the Comprehensive Plan Committee.
Character assassination in PJ mayoral race
I came home from the May 1 Village of Port Jefferson public hearing elated. Village Hall was packed with residents who were there to weigh in on a code change that would affect the development of the Maryhaven building, encompassing people from all political stripes. Yet, here we were engaging in civil discourse and united in the goal of trying to find the best solutions for our community.
So I was stunned when I received a letter, the very next day, which can only be described as a character assassination on one of our mayoral candidates. The unsigned letter, which had no return address, purported to be from a “concerned villager,” and proceeded to attack trustee Lauren Sheprow in a vile manner.
I have the pleasure of knowing both candidates and refuse to believe either of them would ever condone such ugly politicking.
Last year, when we had an unusually competitive trustee campaign, the candidates remained civil. I trust Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden to maintain an even higher level of courtesy and respect, and am confident she will publicly condemn this offensive attack on her colleague.
Going forward, I hope all candidates will urge over-ardent supporters to refrain from personal assaults and focus on issues villagers care about.
Kathleen McLane
Port Jefferson
Snaden: a seasoned leader
It has recently come to my attention that we have an open mayor’s seat in the Village of Port Jefferson’s election taking place this June. Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden is running for the open seat, as well as newly elected trustee Lauren Sheprow.
We need to be mindful that the mayor’s office is no longer a place where a neophyte can just step in. The village is a small city, with two major hospitals, a train station, deep water harbor, school district, two business districts, large federal FEMA grants and major redevelopment projects underway uptown. It takes a seasoned, experienced person to be able to run this village and the $11.37 million budget in place.
Having been a trustee for less than one year, Sheprow does not bring experience to the table. She is rather in the middle of a very large learning curve, seeing to the day-to-day “ins and outs” of village policies, New York State law and municipal government — never mind the obligations of the mayor’s office. She has in fact, confessed herself on many occasions in public meetings that she hasn’t done a budget before and hasn’t run a public hearing.
On the other hand, you have Deputy Mayor Snaden, who has been working for years under the tutelage of Mayor Margot Garant. Snaden is a seasoned, experienced proven leader, with her own perspective and innovative ideas who is ready to take control.
In this election cycle, Sheprow would keep her seat if she loses her bid for mayor and would remain a trustee. If, on the other hand, Sheprow is elected we will have in office a neophyte mayor, and we will lose Snaden as she gives up her trustee position to run for mayor.
So, I ask you: Why would we vote for a rookie and lose the lead pitcher, when we can have them both on our team? Don’t forget, the last time a Garant [Jeanne] left office to an inexperienced mayor, our taxes went up. Let’s not let history repeat itself.
Lauren Auerbach
Port Jefferson
Vote ‘no’ on the May 16 school bond vote
My name is Teri Powers. I’m 63 years old, widowed, a resident and homeowner for 37 years.
Currently, we are on the LIPA tax burden (glide path), in which we have experienced increases in our tax bill, but the lion’s share of this burden is a result of that settlement, which will increase our current taxes by over 35% by the year 2027.
The Port Jefferson School District Board of Education is proposing a $15.9 million capital bond vote on Tuesday, May 16, at the high school between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. A similar bond vote was defeated in December 2022. Please renew your enthusiasm and defeat this bond again.
Teri Powers
Port Jefferson
WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL
We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation.
Village attorney Brian Egan, above, during a Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees work session on Tuesday, April 25. Photo by Raymond Janis
Conversations on the Maryhaven Center of Hope property at Myrtle Avenue picked up on Tuesday, April 25, to be followed by a public hearing scheduled for next week on Monday, May 1.
During a work session of the Port Jefferson Village Board of Trustees, the Maryhaven debate evolved into a game of tradeoffs and compromises, the board working to encourage the preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic building on-site through incentives.
Among the agreed-upon incentives package to preserve the structure, the board settled upon allowing for additional stories and height. The board, primarily at the direction of trustee Rebecca Kassay, remained unwilling to allow for further clearing of woodlands on the property.
The building “has a lot of meaning to the community, the Maryhaven complex,” said Mayor Margot Garant in an interview. She added the board’s current direction represents “an effort to give incentives so that the Planning Board can do their job with the applicant while preserving a historic building.”
The board is working on revising Section 250-15 of the Village Code. Village attorney Brian Egan clarified the proposed code changes. While Maryhaven is currently zoned as a Professional Office P-O District, the existing zoning code enables applicants within the P-O district to apply for rezoning for Moderate-Density Residence R-M District development through a special-use permit.
The proposed new section of the code aims to encourage applicants to preserve historic buildings and structures on their properties.
The Maryhaven “building is pretty special with the red and the views and the copper — it’s a special place,” Egan said. “But developers don’t care about that. Developers don’t care about special, so how do you give them an idea to motivate them to be special?”
To do that, the village attorney proposed a modification to the zoning code that covers the conditions of the special-use permit for parcels that contribute to the architectural or aesthetic character of the village.
“It’s kind of giving a tradeoff,” he said. “We say that if you have a contributing, architecturally and aesthetically important parcel or building … then you can have a proposed loosening of some of the standards that would normally apply in R-M.”
The loosening of those standards went under scrutiny during the meeting, with board members going back and forth over which incentives are permissible.
“If we don’t provide enough of an incentive, they’re just going to take this building down,” Garant said. “And if not this applicant, the next one.”
Going through each of the zoning parameters under the code, the board fixed its attention on clearing permits in particular.
Throughout the exchanges, the trustees wrestled with establishing a coherent policy that accounts for the competing values of preserving historic structures, limiting clearing and making such redevelopment initiatives cost-effective for developers.
The current P-O limit for clearing is 65%. Noting some of the general trends on clearing allowances as well as the recent village history, Kassay remained firm on not granting developers any additional allowances on clearing.
“This is something that we’ve seen our community get very upset over,” the trustee said, expressing zero tolerance for additional clearing “because we are offering these other incentives.”
Those perks would be an extra story and added height on the property, a tradeoff of density for environmental conservation and historic preservation. The board agreed to change the maximum number of stories to four and the maximum height of the structure to 47 feet.
Following the meeting, Garant summarized the conclusions of the work session. “We did not permit additional clearing” under the new incentives package, the mayor said. “If you can’t give more clearing and you want to have something built there, another tradeoff instead of sprawling it is making it more dense, giving it height.”
The mayor added that the incentives allow for “something that conforms to the preexisting building.”
The board will continue this conversation in just days with a scheduled public hearing on the matter on Monday, May 1. The general meeting of the board will begin at 6 p.m.
