Greenport demands more flexibility in Southold’s CPF spending plan

Greenport officials continued to challenge Southold Town’s proposed rules for how Community Preservation Fund (CPF) money should benefit the village, with Mayor Kevin Stuessi demanding “a piece of the pie.”

The town’s latest draft would presume an open-space purchase benefits Greenport if it is in the 1-square-mile village, within a half-mile of it, or adjacent to open space inside that radius. Greenport wants each project judged by its specific benefits to village residents, not its location.

At an Oct. 6 work session, Land Preservation Coordinator Lilly McCullough reviewed Greenport’s objections and said she would prepare revisions to the draft. She recommended another meeting with village officials before presenting a substantially final version to the Town Board for a public hearing. No hearing date has been set.

Trustee Mary Bess Phillips said Greenport’s needs cannot be measured by the same land-use approach Southold applies elsewhere in town.

“We are not the town of Southold’s stepchild,” she told The Suffolk Times after the Oct. 6 meeting. “They’re trying to fit the Village of Greenport into the same land use model as the town of Southold.”

Mr. Stuessi compared the fund to an apple pie, saying the town had benefited from it for decades while Greenport waited for money to address its needs.

“If you were to ask me about an apple pie representing CPF, I would say to you that the town has been enjoying apple pie for over 30 years now, and we’ve not yet been given a slice of it,” he said.

State law requires at least 10% of annual CPF proceeds to benefit disadvantaged communities. Greenport is the only state-designated disadvantaged community in Southold. The fund is financed by a 2% real estate transfer tax paid by buyers, with revenue going to the town where the property is located. The town and village have been at odds over how to apply the requirement for more than a year, as The Suffolk Times previously reported.

In a Sept. 18 letter to Ms. McCullough, Greenport’s attorneys called for a flexible, project-by-project test based on the project, its cost, the CPF purpose it serves and its measurable benefit to the village. They argued that a project outside the half-mile radius could still benefit Greenport, while a nearby acquisition might not.

“A nearby acquisition should not be credited merely because it falls within a mapped radius, while a project outside that radius should not be excluded if it produces demonstrable water-quality, shoreline-access, flood-resilience, recreational, habitat, fisheries, maritime-heritage, historic-preservation, or quality-of-life benefits for Greenport,” attorneys Jared Kasschau and Brian Stolar wrote.

Greenport identified water quality as its top priority, including sewer infrastructure, stormwater collection and drainage, and wetlands restoration.

“That’s really important because we continue to lose time on needs for the village,” Mr. Stuessi said. “The problems increase with our existing sewer system, runoff into the bays and all kinds of climate issues.”

The next top priorities are historic preservation, followed by open-space protection, according to the Greenport officials.

The village also asked for clearer accounting of CPF spending, regular check-ins with town officials and a timeline for adding water-quality and historic-preservation projects to the plan.

Ms. McCullough said she was willing to hold more discussions with Greenport. The current update focuses on open-space preservation. The town has said it will take up a separate water-quality plan after completing this phase.

“We are applying that to a standard, but we have to define what that benefit is,” she said. “The town needs to have a framework for deciding when something is a benefit, rather than making case-by-case determinations.”

Greenport also asked Southold to remove all but two village properties from its list of parcels eligible for CPF funding: Greenport Yacht & Shipbuilding and the former Sweet Indulgences property at Front and Main streets. The shop closed in 2021. The village’s letter said the other parcels are developed, devoted or planned for municipal or community use, or do not fit the village’s land-use goals.

Supervisor Al Krupski said the town would continue working with Greenport as it updates the plan.

“Of course we want to work with [Greenport],” Mr. Krupski said. “Whenever they’re ready to work with us, we’ll be happy to include parcels in their preservation plan.”