11/21 & 25/14 updates are highlighted like this sentence.

Key Facts

Playing fields sought for years, 2002 to 2008.

Pressure for more playing fields in our area had been building for years, at least since 2002 when, it is reported, the Hanley Farm in Manorville was considered.

The County Road 51 Corridor Land Use Plan adopted by the Town Board in 2007 recommended that 10 to 30 acres along Sunrise Service Road in Eastport, and particularly in northern portion of the “Eastport Meadows” site, be used for public recreation (at 53-54). (Note: the project was renamed “Woodland Meadows” in July 2010.) The Plan also recommended

“[there be a] 100-foot wooded buffer . . . to provide screening and buffering from the existing adjacent residential development “(at 53), and

“in order to maintain the existing night-time character of the area, do not install ball field lighting at proposed parks and recreational centers” (at 58).

Various other sites were considered. In 2008, use of 11 acres on Chapman Boulevard in Manorville was assessed, but the idea was abandoned because of restrictions on the land’s use. Expansion of the Moriches Athletic Complex in Center Moriches was looked at, but that did not work out either. Councilman Keith Romaine got behind the idea, and then Legislator Ed Romaine wrote that he supported more athletic facilities “that could be used by the Eastport-South Manor Sports Association”. It is reported that the 2010 Town capital budget included $500,000 for construction of ballfields in Manorville.

Site settled on, 2008 to 2009.

In 2008, the owner of the “Eastport Meadows” site mentioned above submitted a revised subdivision plan that included a 10.35 acre Town recreational facility on the south Sunrise Service Road roughly half way between the Riverhead Road and Eastport Manor Road; that acreage would be donated to the Town. The Town’s Environmental Protection Division commented, however, that, because of the need under the Pine Barrens Act for open space to be contiguous and unbroken, the facility should be located in the northeast corner of the Eastport Meadows site. It further recommended that there be a 100-foot buffer to screen and buffer the facility from adjacent residences.

In April 2009, as it did again in September 2009, Pine Barrens staff objected to the location of the recreation facility because it did not comply with the Pine Barrens Unfragmented Open Space Standard. Having the recreational area separate from the proposed residential development area, it said, broke up the proposed open space unnecessarily.

July of 2009, it was reported that an understanding was reached between Councilman Romaine and the owner of the 98 acre Eastport Meadows site that 10 acres would be donated to the Town for recreational use as part of a subdivision application. At the time Eastport South Manor Sports Association President Ian Kessler said “we'll be highly disappointed if this doesn't go through."

Despite the position of the Pine Barrens Commission staff, the subdivision plans submitted by the property’s owner in June 2009 and August 2009 located the ballfields close to the middle of the service road. This was changed in the plans submitted in October 2009; the owner re-positioned the ballfields in the northeast corner of the site. The proposed open space was no longer fragmented, but there was no buffer between the recreational facility and existing residences.

Most of the "Eastport Meadows" site had once been farmed. Over time, it had filled in some forming a gorgeous meadow.

Planning Board hearings on preliminary approval of the subdivision, 2009.

The “Eastport Meadows” application to subdivide came on for hearing for preliminary approval before the Planning Board in November 2009. The transcript shows there were 16 speakers from the public. Four were with the Eastport South Manor Sports Association or the ESM Little League and supported the ballfields. The remaining speakers had problems and concerns; the possibility of having lights was a principal concern. But the president of the ESM Little League testified:

“And also, as far as lights, we don’t need to have lights at the fields. That’s something that we don’t need.” (Transcript, at 179.)

The hearing was continued on December 21. The transcript reflects that, despite a bad snow storm, there were 7 public speakers, of whom 4 were from the Eastport South Manor Sports Association. Not having lights again was among the concerns expressly raised by the other residents.

At the January 25, 2010 Planning Board meeting, Dan Panico, now our councilman but then a Planning Board member, moved to adopt a SEQRA negative declaration on the application that included the following:

“No significant impact is expected to occur to: air, land resources, aesthetic resources, groundwater of surface water resources, archaeological resources, open space and recreation, transportation, energy, and public health nor is the project expected to generate significant noise and odor levels.

“No significant impacts are expected on the growth and character of the community.”

He then moved to approve the application with conditions. Only Board member Doug Dittko voted “no” on these motions.

Town Board election, 2010.

2010 was an election year, and ballfields were among the hot topics.

Candidate Panico noted that he had voted for the Woodland Meadows project because it would be “providing the town with a 10-acre donation for much desired ballflelds. These are ballfields that are sorely needed for the families of Eastport and Manorville.”

On March 9, 2010, 59 percent of those voting chose Dan Panico as our Town councilman. He resigned from the Planning Board.

Planning Board hearings on final approval of the subdivision, 2011.

The subdivision application was back before the Planning Board on February 7, 2011 for final approval.

The first speaker and her family live next to the proposed ballfield site and in response to her concern about a buffer, she was told:

“MR. DITTKO: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are not going to be any lights on that ballfield.

“[NEARBY RESIDENT]: They'll be no lights?

“MR. DITTKO: No lights.

“[NEARBY RESIDENT]: Okay.

“MR. DITTKO: That's -- that's -- I believe that that's the case. But we can certainly look into it, but I'm almost certain that there's going to be no lights.” (Transcript, at 33.)

Another neighbor raised concerns and was told this:

“MR. DITTKO: From what I understand, Mr. Chairman, the organization that would use those fields is part of the Little League. And since they become part of the Little League, those games cannot last past 8:00 anyway. So they -- they don't need lights and I don't think that they're looking for lights.” (Transcript, at 47.)

The hearing was continued on March 14, 2011. At it, when the prior statements on lights were raised by a resident whose property abuts the ballfield site, the Board Chairman confirmed the prior statements:

“CHAIRMAN PASCALE: . . . . At the last hearing I do believe that it was said that there will be no lighting on those parks.” (Transcript, at 56.)

At the end of the meeting, the Board voted 6 to 1 to approve the final subdivision plat subject to the following covenant and condition, among others:

“4. Subject to the dedication of the 10.0 acre parcel(s) to the Town of Brookhaven for "Active Recreational Parkland" purposes, prior to filing the map.” (Decision Calendar Transcript at 17.)

Board member Dittko again opposed approval.

Four days after the decision, a resident emailed then-Councilman Panico and recounted the councilman’s statement that he “did not want lights on the fields”. She received no denial or retraction in response.

Green light, fall 2011.

The Town was ready to get going on the ballfields. In the fall of 2011, the owner had not filed the required covenants with the County Clerk, and apparently was not ready to commit to subdivision construction. In October 2011, the Town Board authorized leasing the land for the ballfields so construction could get underway. The next month, the Town Board adopted the 2012 budget; it included $125,000 for projects within Council District 6, including the Eastport Complex.

Planning the fields, 2012.

Planning the details of the complex started as early as January 2012.

In April, The Town Board authorized LIPA and SCWA connections for the ballfields; two speakers from Eastport South Manor Sports Association spoke in favor of the resolution. The same month, applications were made to the Suffolk County Water Authority for the water connection and Department of Health Services for the sewage disposal system.

By July 2012, a plan fairly similar to the one now operating had been completed. It had 16 sets of field lights. Of course, this was not known to nearby residents or the general public.

In July, the Town accepted ownership of the site. The Woodland Meadows owner conveyed it by deed even though it had not recorded the covenant requiring dedication of 10 acres for recreational use. No resolution by the Town Board authorizing the acceptance of the land has been found.

Clearing of the site began in October 2012. At that time, Councilman Panico told a resident in an email, “[t]here are no plans to put lights on the field.” A member of his staff made the same statement to a resident by email in December.

In November 2012, the 2013 budget was adopted by the Town Board. In it, $250,000 was appropriated for the Eastport Athletic Complex for 2013.

Construction started and non-disclosure of lights, 2013.

Grading the fields had started by April 2013.

Councilman Panico reported on his Facebook page that the fields would be “the new home for the Eastport South Manor Sports Association (ESMSA)”. In May 2013 on his Facebook page he pointed out “the much anticipated ESM fields which are now under construction” and posted a plan of the fields. He continued “we are planning a ceremony with ESMSA to be announced shortly . . . .”

In response, on the Facebook page, 4 residents asked whether there would be lights or commented that they did not want lights. One resident observed that “[a]s of now, there are no plans to light it.” The Councilman commented next, saying “[t]he rendering doesn’t show it.” Unfortunately, that was not true. Magnifying the rendering of the fields he posted shows 7 sets of field lights around 2 of the fields and 6 sets of field lights around the smallest field.

The following month and again in September, a resident emailed the Councilman and asked whether there would be a stipulation that lights would never be put on the fields. She did not get a response.

Disclosure of field lights, sort of, Fall 2013.

On or about September 30, 2013, Supervisor Romaine submitted his 2014 tentative budgets to the Town Board. He listed the Eastport athletic complex as a “key program” being funded. In the capital budget, he asked for an additional $3,400,000, which would bring the total capital cost to $5,328,135. The project description included “a synthetic turf baseball field, synthetic multipurpose field with lighting will be installed”. “Lighting” was budgeted at $800,000. Both the operating budget and the capital budget were approved in November 2013.

So finally, it was public; field lights were planned. But almost no one reads each line of the Town budget except for councilmembers and their staffs and Town officials and employees—and they tend to look mainly at the areas that affect them directly. The budget did not inform residents that, contrary to their understanding, the fields would be fully lit.

Completion and impacts on neighbors, 2014.

By April 2014, the complex was mostly completed, but not yet ready to open. What stood out were the 60 and 70 foot high field light poles. [photos]

In April, Councilman Panico’s office said that all the lights were dark-sky compliant. And he wrote,

“Originally there wasn’t a plan for lights but because of a scarcity of fields and the need for more field space, we put more funding in for turf and lights so that the fields can be used for games in the Spring and Fall. [The Parks Commissioner] is going to put a cut off time and everything he told me is going to be pre-programmed and controlled.”

“Musco Precision lighting, fully shielded and dark sky compliant. Holds light within 30’ of field.”

The field lights went on in May. The immediate reaction of neighbors was horror. Backyards were lit up, bedrooms and living rooms were flooded with light, and the night sky over the fields was dotted with 20 mini-suns. The lights were on for hours into the night.

An EMPOA officer used a light meter to measure the light in residents’ backyards on June 21, 2014. With field lights on, the average illuminance was 0.37 foot-candles. Town Code §85-468(A)(1) allows 0.05 foot-candles, so the light was 7 times as strong as it should have been! A report of this informal measurement was given to the Town.

This photo shows how bright the field lights were outside the area they were supposed to illuminate. The is the end of Head of the Neck Road during a game at 9:30 at night. The distance from the field is about 10' less than the distance from the field to neighbor's backyards.

More than 2 months after EMPOA had asked for it, the Town furnished a copy of lighting plans for the complex. Astonishingly, the Town's own plans also showed projected light levels in neighbors' yards above what is permitted by Town Code.

The lighting problem was compounded by other impacts.

• With no posted directions for driving to the complex, cars were zooming up once little used streets (Old Manor Road and Head of the Neck Road) to get to the fields on time. Some sped back out when they could not get in; others parked at the end. At least once someone unlocked the service gate at the end of Head of the Neck Road to let children in.

From the Riverhead Road near the entrance

to the Sunrise South Service Road

From the Riverhead Road across from the Valero station.

Did the lights distract you from noticing the moon?

The Woodland Meadows site, including the athletic complex is within the area covered by the County Road 51 Land Use Plan. An objective of the plan was to “[m]aintain the rural nature and scenic farmland vista of the corridor.” (At 51.) This was because:

“Scenic vistas are perhaps the most prominent and striking features of the corridor planning area. Along CR 51 there is considerable open space with long views across farmlands, a large horse farm, and successional old fields within the mosaic of small and large tracts of undisturbed pine barrens. The scenic qualities of the corridor planning area provide a unique community character and an open pastoral or bucolic sense of place that is highly valued.”

Here are views within the Meadow looking toward the fields and away from them:

The Planning Board recognized the value of scenic vistas. At the December 21, 2009 Planning Board hearing, Councilman Panico asked for a change to a proposed condition that would move a row of evergreens from the service road to the rear of the proposed houses because "it would, I think, go a great distance in preserving the vista". (Transcript at 105.) Then the change was approved.

The story hits the press, August and September, 2014.

The Southampton Press says it does not cover East Moriches. But somehow it was persuaded to run an article on August 7 about the ballfields--which it reported were in East Moriches rather than Eastport. The article rightly praised the fields, but only minimally described the complaints of nearby residents.

Three weeks later, the Press followed up with the article "Not Everyone's a Fan of Complex". This generated a letter to the editor on September 4 taking issues with Councilman Panico's quote in the article "[i]n this case, the needs of many outweighed the needs of the few." The writer questioned whether the need for recreational facilities outweighs the need to comply with law.

Assessments, September 2014.

After new shields were put on some, but not all, of the field lights, in early September, an EMPOA officer measured the light spillage from the fields again. Improvements were found, but at 2 locations the light spillage was 3 times what is permitted under the Town lighting code. The measurements were given to the Town.

This prompted a response on September 11 from Councilman Panico, who focused on the improvements and not the continuing improper spillage. He continued with the canard that the existence of nearby NHH zoning meant that a nursing home or hospital could have been built there. Here's why this was a "canard"?

• The Draft CR 51 Corridor Land Use Plan and GEIS said that a recommendation for 30 acres of recreational use would reduce the owner's yield from 85 to 55 houses (at 53, 61, 86). There was no evidence that the owner would even consider the reduced profits from selling 35% fewer houses. Why would he? Or any other developer?
• And that's the way it worked out. The NHH zoning was approved by the Town Board in 1995. It was not used. In 2004 the owner, Eastport Manor Development Co. submitted an application to subdivide the parcels that came to be known as "Woodland Meadows". It never indicated any desire to build a nursing home or hospital on the 10 acres of NHH, but instead pursued its plan to build homes (with no nursing home or hospital) until the Town agreed to buy the site for open space.

xxxxThe possibility of a nearby nursing home or hospital was at best a theoretical one, and no more than that. So arguing that the ballfields saved the nearby residents from a nursing home or hospital was a false argument; there was no real chance of the NHH parcel being used for that purpose.

In his September 11 email, the Councilman made another specious argument. He wrote "[t]he CR 51 Land Use Plan which EMPOA was instrumental in helping shape and pass, calls for the entire northern portion of this property to be utilized for recreational purposes." The councilman overstates EMPOA's involvement; it was only one of many who commented on the draft plan. And it neither supported nor opposed this particular recommendation. Even worse, however, the Councilman failed to accurately describe the recommendation he highlighted, and he neglected to disclose other Plan recommendations that affected it:

• The CR 51 Plan did not recommend recreational use on the "entire north portion" of the Woodland Meadows site, but it recommended that "[o]n between ten and thirty acres" of the site along the service road there be "a public recreation center or park" and it mentioned "preserved natural open space with hiking trails" as part of what could be there (at 53).
• Significant buffering was part of the recommendation. The Plan called for "[a] 100-foot wide buffer along the Sunrise Highway ramp" and said "[a] 100-foot wooded buffer should be established along the northeastern boundary of the park or recreational use to provide screening and buffering from the existing adjacent residential development" (at 53).
• And most significantly, among a series of strong recommendations to prevent light pollution from destroying the rural CR 51 study area, the Plan recommended "in order to maintain the existing night-time character of the area, do not install ball field lighting at proposed parks and recreational centers" (at 57). (And this recommendation and the one in the preceding subparagraph had already been described on this webpage before September 11--see the section of 2002-2008 at the top of this page!)

So it was not correct to write that the CR51 Plan "calls for the entire northern portion of this property to be utilized for recreational purposes". What it recommended was a buffered 10 to 30 acre recreation/park area with no lights.

Town agrees to more improvements, October 2014

EMPOA representatives met with the Park Commissioner, at his request, on October 22, 2014 to discuss additional steps the Town should take to reduce impacts on nearby residents. The Commissioner agreed to 9 specific steps, including additional signage to reduce traffic on nearby streets, improved netting to prevent foul balls from landing in backyards, more evergreens, turning off lights on time and when not needed, attempts to redirect and shield lights to reduce glare and light trespass, better control of the parking lot lights, and investigation of sound barriers. The Town Assessor visited nearby residences and then notified the owners that their appraisals were being reduced. The details of items agreed to were set out in a table, Actions to be Taken by the Town.

The Town's positions on SEQRA and Dark Skies code violations, November 2014

On October 1, 2014, EMPOA's President prepared a report on the violations of the Town's Exterior Lighting Standards, which are in Section 85-862 through 873 of the Town Code. He submitted it to the Town's Building Inspector, who took no action and did not even respond. On November 2, 2014, he raised the same issues and also the need for a SEQRA review of the field lights with the Town Supervisor in an email. At the November 6, 2014 Town Board meeting on the Town's 2015 budgets, EMPOA representatives raised more questions on SEQRA, the Exterior Lighting Standards, inclusion of funds in the capital budget for an expansion of the Complex and other process and lighting issues (see more on the budget below). The following day, the Supervisor responded by letter.

In his letter, the Supervisor argued that there had been SEQRA reviews of the Complex.

• He pointed to the SEQRA process in 2007 for the CR 51 Corridor Land Use Plan, omitting, however, findings in that process that would have required a supplemental Environmental Impacts Statement be prepared for the Complex.
• He pointed to the SEQRA process for the Eastport Meadows subdivision (later called Woodland Meadows) which included a separate lot for recreational use consisting of the 10 acres on which the Complex sits. But he did not explain how review of a subdivision of lots is review of a construction plan that did not even exist when the subdivision was finally approved.
• He also pointed to a 2011 Town Board resolution and a negative declaration for it (copies of which were not furnished) that authorized the issuance of $250,000 in bonds "for installation of lighting on ball fields in the town". But the field lights at the Complex cost $800,000 and were in the 2014 capital budget.

The Supervisor recognized the possibility of violations of the Exterior Lighting Code and said he would work to ensure compliance.

EMPOA has responded by letter to point out the errors in the Supervisor's argument. The letter concludes that the Town did not follow the required review process under SEQRA, did not follow its own recommendations in the CR 51 Corridor Land Use Plan, and violated its own Town Code Exterior Lighting Standards.

EMPOA’s FOIL requests, and what's shown by the records and the absence of records

EMPOA requested records under the State Freedom of Information Law from the Suffolk County Health Services Department and the Pine Barrens Commission. By reviewing the records provided, an EMPOA officer concluded that DoHS did not have any document showing compliance with SEQRA before it acted on the Town’s application for a sewage permit, and that the Pine Barrens Commission was not even advised of the construction of the complex or the lights poles sticking up into the sky before construction was virtually completed.

To understand how the field lights came to be after the public understood that there would not be any, EMPOA submitted a request to the Town under the Freedom of Information Law on May 16, 2014. Documents were furnished in over 10 batches during an extended period during which EMPOA had to complain frequently about the delay and the Town's duties under the State m of Information Law. It was not until six months after the request, on November 7, 2014, that the Town Clerk advised EMPOA by letter that all records requested that could be found had been made available. Even then, however, missing pages from some documents furnished had not been supplied, as pointed out in EMPOA's reply letter.

The documents made available and those which were said to not exist or not be locatable demonstrate, in EMPOA's view, the Town's failure to seek community input on planning the Complex, the Town's failure to comply with SEQRA and its violation of its own Exterior Lighting (dark sky) Standards. The conclusions to be drawn are spelled out in EMPOA's November 11, 2014, letter to the Town Clerk.

The future: it may grow!

On April 8, 2014, the Town Board passed a resolution authorizing the purchase of the remainder of the Woodland Meadows site, saying:

“acquisition is hereby authorized for dedication as an open space acquisition and 5 acres dedicated for active parkland”

The purchase has not closed yet to our knowledge, but the resolution calls for increasing the size of the complex by one-half in 2016, and there is talk of even tripling its size. Would that mean significantly increasing, even tripling, the number and luminescence of the field lights, the noise, and the traffic?

The 2015 capital budget proposed by the Supervisor and approved by the Town Board includes $2.5 million for expansion, although not until 2016 through 2018. At the November 6, 2014 budget hearing, EMPOA argued that those funds should not be included so long as the Town did not have a procedure set up for getting community input and complying with SEQRA and the Town Exterior Lighting Standards.