Legacy Village Update

January 2011 Update: On January 19, 2011 both the Council on Environmental Quality and the Carman’s River Study Group met to discuss properties in Yaphank that will have an impact on the future of the Carman’s River.

IR 2236-10 was approved at CEQ and was given a negative declaration. This is Presiding Officer Bill Lindsay’s resolution that seeks to kill the Legacy Village project and instead auction 221 acres in Yaphank to the highest bidder. This resolution is not tied to any developer or project and will not require an environmental review before passage at the legislature.

The Carman’s River study group met to work on finalizing the Carman’s River protection plan. One of the issues being debated is the inclusion of certain Legacy Village Parcels on the protected properties list slated to be preserved. As of January 19, 2011, two of the parcels have been left off this list and would not be recommended for protection. These include both industrial and residentially zoned land and are within the 50 year groundwater contributing area.

11/17/10
The legislature approved the final scoping document for Legacy Village’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on November 17th  at its legislative meeting. The vote passed 13-4-1 (Cooper not present).

Legislator’s Browning, Eddington, Kennedy, and Romaine voted against the bill. Earlier this year County Executive Levy funded $435,000 for Cameron Engineering to conduct the EIS. The EIS was started in the summer and has been worked on while public comment was still being collected.

Now that the scoping document has been approved the Levy administration is fast tracking this to be finalized. The legislature was told by Levy’s deputy that they expect the EIS to be before CEQ in February 2011 and before the legislature in March 2011.

Please keep your calendars on notice because a strong turnout at CEQ and the legislature early next year is going to be very important. I will let you know as soon as we have more detailed information.

12/15/09As reported to us by ABCO

1st the Legislature announced there would be no action today as much more information was needed re: the CEQ's decisions...all the opponents spoke at the public portion and then left believing there would be no action today. Then at about 3:30 the Legislature took up 1922-2009 and discussed tabling with no action and then, well let's just say what happened might have been worth sticking around for...we'll not get fooled agian...

The Suffolk County Legislature then tabled a local law determination at this, the very last session of the present legislative body to a date certain next year after another elected legislature takes office, all to avoid new public hearings. The 1st business meeting in January will again have the Legacy Village local law matter on the agenda. Apparently, never before has the out-going legislature voted to keep alive a local law that failed to achieve passage during the legislative session for consideration by the new in-coming body....Mr. Lindsey introduced the motion and Leg. Browning withdrew her tabling motion which would have allowed the matter to die a quiet death at the close of this legislative session....just another trick up the CE sleeve ....at least for now.

The vote was 14-4. Guess we get to do it again in January. The counsel for the County Executive advised the legislature and labeled the matter a simple proprietary action rather than governmental...we think wrongly. Local laws are clearly governmental and we question the legality for an out-going legislature to bind over action on local laws to an in-coming legislature. Just in case the County Executive labeled the CEQ determination flawed and defective in that it failed to name a lead agency or even dictate a coordinated review be undertaken. Lindsey did not want to have everything done over....but just fine for the citizens to have to undertake the matter again and for the two in-coming legislators to be deprived of the public hearings that would have been required (and should be to their benefits and enlightment) to have to be rescheduled?