Tags Posts tagged with "Vineyard Bay Estates"

Vineyard Bay Estates

Huntington Town Hall

By Rokah Sejour 

Overdevelopment was one of the main concerns throughout the meeting for several residents of the Town of Huntington who joined the Town Hall meeting on Tuesday, March 12, sharing their concerns on the plans to develop the Vineyard Bay Estates property, located at 78 Bay Ave. and 211 Vineyard Road, Halesite. 

“This is not a request, but a plea on behalf of a neighborhood, on behalf of the conservation of wildlife, and the history of Huntington,” said Karen Witkowski, a Huntington resident.

Residents worried that the aftermath of this project would lead to extensive traffic in the area, more parking needs and more exhaust in the air, in a space already limited to handling these increases.

“Both of the roads that I use to leave the neighborhood would be impacted by this because they both would be developed,” said Gillian Inglis Glaser, a new resident of Huntington Bay Village.

Glaser spoke on the lack of notifying the residents on the proposed development, having spoken on the restrictions that would be put on their community not just after but also during the construction process of this project. 

“I think that’s what we are looking for, transparency,” Glaser said. “In general, we need more information and transparency about the process and what’s happening.”

Other residents addressed that only a few members of the community received notification of the plans for development, with some expressing that even with the notification, there was a lack of transparency in the impact that this development would have on the community.

Construction for the development is expected to last at least two years, with the developers intending to build eight homes in the area.

There were further concerns about the outcome of the future on displaced wildlife. Some feared that wildlife would be pushed into the community, into residents’ homes and yards, after being displaced from their natural environment. One resident explained that this is already an issue, which he attributed to past developments.

The Nathan Hale Nature Preserve Committee has requested that the Town of Huntington favorably considers and records a motion to order the Planning Board to vacate its findings that the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act has been met with this subdivision. Furthermore, that there be no significant environmental impacts and the issuance of a negative declaration pursuant to the Planning Board’s review of the environmental assessment data and the regulations as set forth in the resolution filed with the Town Clerk’s office on Feb 6.

There is a call from NHNPC for the Planning Board to undertake a comprehensive assessment of environmental, wildlife, safety, traffic, flora, fauna, water and air issues associated with the development. 

The committee is requesting that the Town Board requires the Planning Board to instruct the developers to immediately stop any further development and create architectural renderings of the project, with detailed depictions of the proposed homes, as situated on the proposed sites, along with the true heights of the 200-foot-long walls that are calculated to be 10 feet high and possibly 20 feet high to hold back the slope. 

“There are countless reasons that this development should be halted,” said Denise Goodwin Pace, a 44-year resident of Huntington and a member of the Nathan Hale committee.

File photo

By Rokah Sejour

The Town of Huntington Planning Board unanimously voted Feb. 21 on the preliminary approval of the Vineyard Bay Estates proposed subdivision at 78 Bay Ave. and 211 Vineyard Road, Halesite.

This project has been planned for years and all of the proper analysis has been done. Improvements have been made to the plans as a result of some of the grievances brought by members of the community, the board said. 

A map detailing the proposed plans for the development showed plans for one flag lot, a widening of Bay Avenue, a proposed 1.84-acre open-space dedication to the Town of Huntington, and a 4-plus acre of hillside to be preserved within the subject lots. 

“You don’t have the right to make a determination tonight,” said Lawrence Kelly, a Bayport attorney present at the meeting. “You have a lot of procedural infirmities and you should just take the time to look at those.” He implored the board to take time to review the SEQRA determination.

This comes after a coalition was formed, The Nathan Hale Nature Preserve Committee, consisting of neighbors and residents surrounding the proposed Vineyard Bay Estates development.

The committee’s concerns focused on the preservation of the plot’s environment and ecosystem, especially with regards to the town’s steep slope law which sought to protect and safeguard scenic landscapes and the vegetative features of steeply sloped lands throughout the town. The committee worries that the statuesque specimen trees, rare and lush flora and fauna that the property preserved and protected will be at risk. 

It was brought up by NHNPC that the town should purchase the area to ensure that it would remain a preserved and protected mark for Huntington. However, Vineyard Estates said that the property was not for sale.

A lawyer was formally retained by the committee for expert counsel in respect of the concerns of the committee ahead of the Feb. 21 meeting.

In a letter dated Feb. 20, the committee wrote to the town Planning Board detailing their interest in the property as well as their mission purpose.

The committee hoped that any further approvals would be suspended for the Vineyard Bay Estates development until reports from independent experts on the environmental impact of this proposed project are completed through the SEQRA process. 

It was also requested by the committee’s lawyers in a Feb. 20 email to the Planning Board that “the public hearing be reopened so that the public may comment on the plans, as revised, and in response to any SEQRA determination this board, as lead agency, may be issuing.”

It was explained that this particular meeting was not a public hearing and that the other party was not present to counter any claims made against them.