Is Multifamily Housing a Concern in Three Village?

Under the proposed Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan, two sites in East Setauket could be on the receiving end of development credits for multifamily housing.

A plan that would preserve the Carmans River and transfer development rights elsewhere in the Town of Brookhaven has caused controversy in nearby communities like and . But it's starting to be talked about in Three Village, too, where two sites are on the list of potential receiving zones of development credits for multifamily housing – something that has been identified as a need on Long Island in the movement to stop young families from leaving the area. What's your take on it? How do you think the creation of multifamily housing would affect the Three Village community? Log in to Patch and add your thoughts as a comment below.

Denise Longh March 14, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Rich, so why did Supervisor Lesko originally allow only Builders to go out pick the areas for these projects? None of the areas they picked were in their school districts. If it weren't for the public coming out, he would have sneaked them all into the same areas as usual and not spread them out as you are suggesting. I can't get my head around where these people are going to be coming from that are going to rent in all these units. All the apartments in our area are not filled now and they are going to be the same price anyway. The builders are telling us we need them. I think we need to look at this more first before building them all. They can turn into blight real quick if the builders are wrong.
Rich Murdocco March 14, 2012 at 03:02 PM
Hello Denise! Thanks for responding. It seems to me that the receiving areas chosen were based upon a rubric that scored the sites according to how appropriate they would be for MF housing (i.e. taking into account the site's proximity to transit nodes, neighborhood services like laundromats etc). What is being misunderstood about the plan is that these parcels of land identified as potential receiving areas are in no way guaranteed to be developed...they were labeled as appropriate sites for future growth. With the way the economy currently is, I'd be surprised if many of them are built on. You're right- the apartments in our area should be filled first, than we should construct new units. You're also correct in saying that we need a stronger assessment of what existing units we have. That is sound planning. What is important is ensuring that growth is based upon sound data, and a comprehensive inventory of existing community resources. Thanks! RJM
Denise Longh March 15, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Rich, with all due respect. If we make mf housing in areas where there are is no transportation and neighborhood services, like food shopping, laundry etc, that would actually be good. Maybe it would create more businesses to open up in other areas as well instead of burdening the same old areas. This would create jobs which is what we really need here. However, let's face it, some areas don't want density and they can fight it while other areas have it forced upon them.
Rich Murdocco March 15, 2012 at 04:14 PM
Denise- you take an interesting stance on the issue. While you may be right in saying that growth in undeveloped areas would help spur further growth, this is actually the opposite of what Long Island can handle. With so many blighted sites, it would be redundant to create new urban centers, where there are ample areas ready for redevelopment. That aside, you raise a very important point- “some areas don’t want density and they can fight it while other areas have it forced upon them”. If I may, I am going to take your statement and alter it a bit: some areas aren’t appropriate for density, while others must anticipate future growth. On Long Island, development and growth is limited by environmental factors. Our Island has a carrying capacity, and this capacity dictates the amount of developed land that we can sustain until our drinking water becomes threatened. My goal as a policy and planning professional is to not debate or chastise, or to criticize one’s point of view, but to use my academic and professional background to help citizens in areas make informed land use decisions across Long Island. I appreciate you entering into a dialogue with me, and I hope that your friends and neighbors can become engaged in these very important discussions as well. Thanks- RJM
Jane Fasullo March 16, 2012 at 09:59 PM
The exchange is for housing from 1085 acres of 5 acre zoned lands (i.e. 1 house per 5 acres) area along the Carmans, to densities up to 12 housing units per acre elsewhere. Something is very wrong. and Rich M is correct in saying "AFFORDABLE" is 80% to 120% of median income but does that apply to all the new units that would be constructed or only 105 to 20% of them, and do you know median income in Suffolk is $103,000 for a family of 4 as of 2010 when the last census was taken? also, is there a guarantee that the "affordability" will remain after the initial sales or will the unit be able to have prices that fluctuate with the market after a few years? Finally, such dense housing puts a strain on all of us. The taxes that come in do NOT PAY FOR THE COSTS associated withthe higher population as id proven by looking at the taxes in any densely populated area of the US compared to the taxes in the less populated areas. If people want to live in a densely populated area for less money, they may move here for a while, but then as time goes on, as it is doing now, the costs place them out of the area. No one complained about the costs here before the population explosion of the 1970's.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »