The Southold and Riverhead town boards held a joint work session Tuesday to discuss key issues important to both towns, including the Suffolk County Water Authority’s North Fork pipeline project, an agritourism inn and resort proposal from Riverhead, and other issues of mutual concern such as traffic and short-term rentals.

Southold Town Board member Greg Doroski kicked things off by asking about the motivation behind and potential impact of a proposed Riverhead code-change that would allow agritourism inns and resorts along Sound Avenue, the main thoroughfare connecting the towns. He asked specifically if Riverhead officials viewed the proposal as a preservation effort or as an economic development opportunity.

“It’s a little bit of both,” Riverhead Supervisor Tim Hubbard said before deferring to fellow board member Ken Rothwell.

“We are overburdened by the tax bill,” Mr. Rothwell said. “We need to find ways in which not only can we preserve land but increase our tax base at the same time.”

Riverhead’s proposal would allow development across 100 acres of land located in its RA80 zoning district on the north side of Sound Avenue. That zoning allows low- to medium-density residential development while requiring the preservation of agricultural parcels, natural features and historic character. The proposal would divide each affected parcel, making 30% available for development and preserving 70% for agricultural use. 

The proposal also establishes setbacks for the resorts, with a minimum setback of 200 feet from Sound Avenue and 500 feet from the bluffs at the rear.

Asked by Southold Town Supervisor Al Krupski asked if the if the proposed zoning change would apply to the “whole length of Sound Avenue,” Mr. Rothwell clarified that it would only apply to “approximately six parcels.” 

Mr. Rothwell described the legislation as a “tool for farming” and said a priority of the project is to retain the “agricultural, historical view and aesthetics.

“The developer must engage with a local farming operation — it could be farming of any type — meaning that they utilize these soils,” Mr. Rothwell said. “It could be a vineyard there, it could be farm-to-table ready, vegetables, anything in which they want to engage. This is an opportunity; it’s a tool for land preservation, for farmers … they can choose to use it or not use it.”

Southold Town Board member Brian Mealy asked if Riverhead has studied the potential traffic impacts of resort development. Mr. Rothwell replied that Riverhead would be required to do that only if a developer sought to create more than 250 rooms, and noted that, as written, the proposed legislation limits each resort to 150 rooms.

Mr. Doroski offered to share information with Riverhead officials about prior preservation initiatives within Southold Town and touting Southold’s “very successful land preservation program,” which he said has preserved more than 10,000 acres of land through the Community Preservation Fund.

Mr. Doroski also noted that he’d spoken with Riverhead’s agricultural advisory committee and noticed a lack of consensus on the proposal — and some opposition. Mr. Hubbard responded that some farmers felt the legislation was too restrictive.

“It’s not that,” Mr. Doroski countered. “It’s the fear that this doesn’t actually benefit small-scale agriculture. This is big-ag and more big development and really looking at the shift, the pressures of agriculture on small-scale producers are even greater than someone that can afford to go in and farm 70 acres.”

Riverhead has shelved the resort proposal multiple times due to disagreements with farmers and officials are still discussing the best way to refine the proposed legislation. “It isn’t done yet by any means,” Mr. Hubbard said.

“There’s a whole other side to this agritourism, and it’s a side that, if I were to discuss it, I would play devil’s advocate and counter a lot of things that [Mr. Rothwell] has said, because there’s a lot of the opposition we have in town and for various reasons, I tend to agree with a lot of those reasons,” the supervisor continued. “Farmers aren’t 100% on board with it for various reasons, the people don’t seem to be on board with it and you have to then weigh the negatives versus the positives and right now, I see a lot more negatives than any positives.”

The discussion then moved on to the SCWA’s North Fork pipeline plan, a $35 million project that would link the Pine Barrens aquifer to Southold Town. 

The pipeline is intended to reduce SCWA’s reliance on wells affected by salt-water intrusion and reduce capital outlays for construction of new well fields in the region.

Officials expect the project to be completed by 2030. However, officials from both Riverhead and Southold agree they want more information on this project before moving ahead.

“We have to be convinced here, from a quantity and quality standpoint — do we need this water coming from Flanders at great expense to the taxpayer,” Mr. Krupski said. “That pipeline’s not going to be free.”

Mr. Krupski asked Mr. Hubbard for Riverhead’s stance on the project.

“We know Suffolk County Water Authority would love to just march right on through Riverhead and come out here and take over your water and our water,” Mr. Hubbard said. “We have no desire whatsoever to ever give up our water district. Utilities like that are too precious to have in your hometown and have your own control with, and we can offer water at a cheaper rate than Suffolk County Water Authority does now.”

Mr. Hubbard said the original route the SCWA wanted to use for the pipeline — which he said would run through Peconic Bay Boulevard, Hubbard Avenue, Meeting House Creek Road — was unacceptable. 

“That just can’t happen,” he said. “[It would cause] too much disruption by the estuaries and everything close to the bay and all the estuaries they come off of, so we indicated to them that the only way we would even entertain this is if it went down [Route] 105 to Main Road/Route 25 and then came down Main Road out to here.”

But beyond the route itself, Mr. Hubbard also expressed skepticism about the overall project.

“Ultimately, [if] you don’t have the need for it out here, I don’t understand why they would invest that much money in it — or if [Southold doesn’t] want it out here, why they would invest so much money to try to come out and do this,” Mr. Hubbard said.

The board members also discussed holding a similar joint meeting again early next year. 

“I think this is a great idea,” Mr. Hubbard said. “I think Riverhead and Southold are kind of one and the same when it comes to a lot of issues.”

Mr. Krupski echoed Mr. Hubbard’s comments.

“It helps to talk,” he said. “We might have different paths on some things, but it’s good because [we have] so many different, common challenges.”