OP ED - Comments On Proposed Subdivision Of Gyrodyne Property

The following comments were submitted on January 7th, 2020 to members of the Town of Smithtown’s Planning Board.To the Town of Smithtown Planning Board –

My name is Richard Murdocco, and I am writing to submit public comments in regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed subdivision of the 75-acre Gyrodyne Property.

As part of the research process for its award-winning body of work on Long Island’s environmental and real estate development issues, The Foggiest Idea regularly reviews the policy actions taken by local, state, and federal governments that impact communities throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

Being one of the last large tracts of developable land in western Suffolk County, any development at this particular site is regionally significant.

Upon review, it is clear that Cameron Engineering and Associates has compiled an extensive document that outlines both the history of the Gyrodyne/Flowerfield site, as well as the developmental direction that the applicant is looking to take in the coming years.

However, despite the volume of materials compiled, outsized concerns remain unaddressed by this draft, including a detailed assessment of the collective impacts that the proposed development would have on neighboring municipalities, local watersheds of significance, and the area’s limited transportation network.

As such, the following issues should be more clearly addressed before the DEIS document is accepted by Smithtown officials, including:

1. Inter-municipal concerns. The DEIS should go further in its analysis of the collective impacts of the applicant’s proposal as they relate to neighboring Town of Brookhaven. On multiple occasions in the past, the Town of Brookhaven has expressed concern to both Suffolk County and the Town of Smithtown over ensuing traffic and quality-of-life impacts that would result from development of the Gyrodyne site. The DEIS makes no mention of these inter-municipal concerns, nor does it suggest any mitigative measures to be taken by the applicant that would alleviate Brookhaven’s longstanding fears of growth at the site.

2. Impact on local watersheds. While the DEIS notes how a proposed sewage treatment plant would impact nearby Stony Brook Harbor and other local watersheds, a significant concern first raised by New York State Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-Setauket), the document does not outline specific targeted actions that would reduce nitrogen loadings as the result of development in nearby waterbodies aside from noting all projects would have general compliance with existing environmental guidelines.

3. Collective impacts on regional/local hospitality markets. The collective market impact of the proposed hotel must be more clearly delineated due to a spate of hotels that are either being proposed or have been newly constructed near the Gyrodyne parcel. With additional hotel space being pitched locally at the Watermill site on nearby Nesconset Highway as well as at various locations across western Suffolk and Nassau Counties, the DEIS should address expected changes in market dynamics due to other proposed hospitality projects within reasonable distance to the project site.

4. Further exploration of a scaled-down As-of-Right alternative. The DEIS should engage in a more detailed exploration of the as-of-right development options at the Gyrodyne site. While the document favorably compares the applicant’s proposal with the impacts of a hypothetical 382,500 square foot light-industrial project allowed as-of-right under the parcel’s current zoning, more options that reflect less-than full build-out should be seriously explored and compared.

More broadly, it is concerning to review a DEIS document that editorializes in favor of the applicant’s proposed direction within the narrative. In this draft, such bias is evidenced by the DEIS’ frequent mention of “synergy” with nearby Stony Brook University, the positioning of the proposal as a favorable complement to a lightly-sourced analysis of existing market conditions, as well as the declaration that the proposal is “sustainable” in the document’s opening lines.

Such analyses should let the findings and data speak for themselves. Otherwise, the authors risk eroding their credibility on developmental matters with both policymakers and the public alike.

Sincerely –

Richard Murdocco
Founder/President
The Foggiest Idea Inc.