subscribe to current local breaking news The News Review
Serving Riverhead Since 1868
For SUBSCRIBERS:
  Top Stories  
  Business
  Police Reports
  Sports  
  Education
  Editorials
  Columns
  Letters to the Editor
  Community News
  Calendar  
  Real Estate
  Health
  Food & Wine
  Back Issues
  Digital Edition

FREE CONTENT:
  Graduation
  Obituaries
  Slideshows
  Movie Listings
  Community Links
  Classifieds
  Legal Notices  
  Public Meetings  
  Service Directory
  Antiques & Such
  Local Businesses

BLOGS:
  Denise Civiletti's blog
  News Room

FORUMS:
  Community
   Bulletin Board

  All Boards

  Email us
  Subscribe Now
  News Tips
  Site Help

times/review online

  Contact/About

  Staff Roster

  Rates/Circulation


  The Suffolk Times

  Shelter Island
  Reporter

  The North Shore Sun

  The Wine Press

Updated: 10/16/2008 - 4:07 AM



Pine Barrens battle continues
Judge calls town's paperwork 'defective' and says state can appeal
  0 comments below

The battle over jurisdiction at Riverhead Town's 2,900-acre Calverton Enterprise Park (EPCAL) may not be over yet.

A state Supreme Court justice this week recommended against the town in its battle with New York State over control of development at EPCAL -- former U.S. Navy property that is located within the state's limited development Central Pine Barrens area.

The recommendation, if upheld, could allow the state to appeal a January ruling that said the Pine Barrens Commission, a state agency, had no jurisdiction over development at EPCAL. Judge Paul Baisley's decision this week is technically a recommendation to the state appellate court, which makes the official ruling.

However, town officials say there are mistakes in the judge's argument that would affect the final verdict, and that they plan to ask that the issue be reargued.

The verdict could impact a number of large projects planned for EPCAL -- the site of a former weapons plant -- including Riverhead Resorts' proposed 755-acre recreation and resort complex, which proposes an indoor ski mountain and a man-made lake; and Rechler Equity Partners' proposed 300-acre light industrial park.

Both developers are in contract to buy land at EPCAL from the town.

At issue over the Pine Barrens Commission's too-late attempt at an appeal is whether or not the town sent the required legal paperwork to the state. The documents would have signaled to the commission that it had 30 days to appeal the judge's January ruling.

The state attorney general's office, which represented the commission, claimed the paperwork was never served. Town officials say they sent the documents on April 11, and that the state lost them.

Nevertheless, Judge Baisley, who also issued the January ruling in favor of the town, wrote this week after reviewing copies of the documents in question, that they were "defective" and contained an incorrectly stamped date. The town disagrees with both of his points and plans to challenge the judge's recommendation, officials said.


Notice about comments:
The Riverhead News-Review is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Riverhead News-Review does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Riverhead News-Review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Service and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.




Add your comments below:










captcha 789d07aea9574f18b8dd664f88c79db8





0 comments found!






Search Current Week
Search Back Issues
 







Most Popular



Voice your opinion

Start a discussion, join a discussion or make a comment.

Click "Community Bulletin Board" link on the left or "Discuss this story" link at the top of every story to get started.



Results from last week:
"What would you like to see on the south side of East Main Street in downtown Riverhead?"

22 % A town square with a park, fountain and small shops, though taxpayers would have to foot most all of the bill for condemnation, demolition and construction.
25 % A mixed-use workforce housing and retail complex with some green space on the river, with developers paying for much of the project, but the town having to condemn the vacant buildings there.
35 % Indoor markets and other shops in the existing building stock, which won't cost taxpayers a thing, but may not be as pretty as redevelopment.
17 % I'm rooting for redevelopment, but the town should not be involved at all.
Enter city or US Zip

summer wine press 2007

© Times-Review Newspapers
Terms of Service - Privacy Policy