Public hearing for Town of Huntington zoning law canceled, but dozens of residents still sound off

At yesterday’s Town of Huntington board meeting, Councilman Mark Cuthbertson, along with Councilman Eugene Cook, rescinded the resolution to schedule a public hearing for local law introduction 42-2021. The proposed zoning law amendment, which would allow the planning board to grant permits under limited conditions for residential apartment developments, has generated much attention since it was added to the agenda for a public hearing. Despite the hearing on this particular law being formally canceled at the onset of the July 13 TOH board meeting, residents still showed up – and stayed – to voice their feelings during the meeting’s public participation portion.

The amendment, as proposed, would have authorized apartment buildings to be constructed but only under certain conditions: the buildings must be within the C-6 General Business District, no further than 1,500 feet from a hamlet’s outer boundary center, and they must abut residentially zoned property or contain a residential zoning classification.

Canceling the public hearing was also an issue of debate among board members. In response to inquiries on this issue, Councilman Cuthbertson wrote in an email to the Journal, “The resolution passed unanimously, evidencing all town board members were also open to a public hearing. Very often, town board members vote to schedule a public hearing in favor of hearing public feedback on a given matter even if they do not necessarily favor the matter itself.” He added that the proposed law was drafted by the planning department and put before the town board for consideration of a public hearing. “I did not initiate the resolution, nor did I ask that it be placed onto our agenda. After receiving significant feedback on this proposal, as sponsor of the resolution to schedule a public hearing, I decided I was no longer interested in advancing it any further as it would not be a productive use of anyone’s time.”

Councilman Cutherberton also suggested that moving forward with the public hearing as scheduled would leave an opening, however remote, for the legislation to be enacted. During the meeting, Councilman Cook spoke directly to the constituents in attendance. “You actually sent hundreds of emails to all of us, and many phone calls, so it was quite obvious that this public hearing should not be done,” he said. “We want to hear from you, we have heard from you, and that’s why we closed this down.” Councilwoman Joan Cergol also supported the rescinding of the resolution. She expressed her apologies to residents over the confusion and concern on this issue, saying, “There were people who really lost a lot of sleep about this and I know that myself, Councilman Cuthbertson and Councilman Cook all understood immediately that this was not to go forward.”

But some members of the board voted against canceling the hearing. At the meeting, Councilman (and candidate for town supervisor) Ed Smyth said, “I don’t see the purpose of withdrawing this public hearing at this late moment. You can see we have a packed house here, people came to speak on this.” Met with applause, Councilman Smyth added that residents should wait and voice their concerns regarding development in town during the public session.

Supervisor Chad Lupinacci had similar sentiments to those of Councilman Smyth, stating that he did not want to cancel the public hearing because it was advertised and he thinks allowing people to speak on a law introduction is productive discourse in a democracy. “Just because we allow the public hearing to go forward doesn’t mean that we agree with the resolution as is,” he said.

Political football aside, community members used the public session to overwhelmingly oppose the law proposal, citing the dangers of excessive development and traffic to the town. There were dozens of speakers using their three minutes at the pulpit to voice their concerns.

Bill Dewitt, an East Northport resident for over 22 years, expressed his issues with the proposed zoning law. He noted that adding apartments to his neighborhood would cause much more traffic, on top of the problematic traffic issues that already exist. He suggested that crossing Larkfield Road is dangerous and the town board should be more concerned about the safety issues of increased traffic than local development. “Keep Huntington as protected as you can against development,” he said.

Eleanor Minnock has lived in East Northport for almost 70 years. She said “I have seen so much change, but what I am concerned about is what will stop builders from building in the midst of private family homes if a piece of property large enough becomes available.” She noted that cesspools and septic systems are not handling waste as it is now, so she doesn’t know how they’d be able to compete with even more housing.

Joan James has lived in Northport with her husband since 1950. “You can imagine what I’ve seen change all those years,” she said. She explained that she’s terrified to think about apartment buildings going up in her community and pleaded with the board to think carefully about what they are proposing.

But not every speaker opposed the proposal. Steve Vitoff, who worked as an economic development official for the state of New York and has lived in Huntington for 17 years, presented his reasons for being in favor of the law proposal. He explained that young people cannot afford to live in Huntington, or Long Island in general. “The choice is clear, Long Island must either accept some added apartments, or we will watch our beautiful island deteriorate into a ghost town, a 100-mile long senior center, an economic development dead-end, an aging, barren place,” he said.