The Hills at Port Jefferson: Possible Seven More Years of Tax Abatement — But Where Is the Village?

 I attended the Brookhaven Industrial Development Agency's (IDA) public hearing today concerning Rail Realty LLC, the developer of The Hills at Port Jefferson.

The issue before the IDA was significant: Rail Realty is requesting up to seven additional years of property-tax abatement on the existing 74-unit apartment complex at 23–25 Texaco Avenue. The property is located within the Village of Port Jefferson.

What caught my attention was not just the request itself.

It was the absence of any Village of Port Jefferson representation.

The Village was specifically notified

The Village's own website posted the public-hearing notice on September 14, 2026.

Rail Realty LLC Public Hearing 9/21/26

But there is an even more important document attached to that notice.

On September 9, 2026, Brookhaven IDA CEO Lisa M.G. Mulligan sent a certified letter directly to Mayor Lauren Sheprow.

The letter states that the IDA would conduct the public hearing concerning Rail Realty on September 21 and says:

"You are welcome to provide comments to present your views with respect to the project to the Agency in writing or electronically."

The letter also explains that the notice was being provided to the Mayor as the chief executive of an affected tax jurisdiction in which the project is located.

In other words, the Village was not unaware of this hearing. The Mayor was specifically notified and invited to provide the Village's views.

I attended today's hearing.

Mayor Sheprow did not attend, and I did not hear or see any comments submitted by her on behalf of the Village.

That raises a question I believe Village residents are entitled to ask:

What is the Village's position on seven more years of tax abatement for The Hills?

I am not suggesting that the Mayor was required to attend the hearing, nor am I suggesting that her absence means she supports or opposes the PILOT extension.

But given the Village's financial situation, I think the public deserves to know what the Village's position is and why.

This isn't a new project

The IDA's September 2026 notice describes The Hills as an existing 74-unit market-rate residential apartment complex. Rail Realty is not proposing to build the 74 units as part of this request. The company is seeking an extension of the existing tax abatement for up to seven additional years.

That distinction matters.

This isn't simply a question of whether the Village should encourage a new development that might otherwise never be built.

The Hills already exists.

The question is whether the public should continue providing a significant property-tax benefit to an existing apartment complex.

What is the financial impact?

The IDA's newly posted September 11, 2026 Cost-Benefit Analysis provides some numbers.

The analysis estimates the property-tax exemption associated with the proposed PILOT at:

$807,141

or $765,283 on a discounted-value basis.

The IDA analysis also says Rail Realty plans to make approximately $600,000 of investment into the facility and surrounding area.

The analysis says the project will set aside 20% of the residential units for residents whose income is at or below 80% of Area Median Income.

The IDA's analysis ultimately calculates a 2:1 overall benefit-to-cost ratio when the various state and local benefits are included.

That is the IDA's analysis.

But there is another question:

What does the Village of Port Jefferson get out of this?

The IDA analysis combines state and local benefits. It does not simply tell a Port Jefferson resident:

"Here is what Port Jefferson Village gives up, and here is exactly what Port Jefferson Village receives in return."

That is the information I would like to see.

If the Village is going through a period in which every source of revenue matters, shouldn't the Village be asking:

• What would the Village receive if the PILOT ended?

• How much Village property-tax revenue is being deferred or reduced by the extension?

• What specific benefit does the Village receive in exchange?

• How much of the proposed $600,000 investment actually benefits Village residents or Village infrastructure?

• Is the affordable-housing component sufficient to justify another seven years of tax assistance?

• And most importantly, why does extending the PILOT serve the Village's financial interests?

The Village has a voice in this discussion

The IDA's letter to Mayor Sheprow makes clear that the Village is an affected taxing jurisdiction.

The IDA invited the Mayor to provide the Village's views.

That doesn't mean the Mayor has to oppose the PILOT.

It doesn't mean she has to support it either.

But residents should reasonably expect the Village to evaluate the proposal from the Village's perspective and explain its position.

Especially when the Village is dealing with its own financial challenges.

I'm not saying the answer is "no"

There may be legitimate reasons for continuing the PILOT.

The IDA says the project is located in a town center and an area it considers to have an inadequate supply of affordable housing. Its analysis also credits the project with economic activity, employment and other benefits.

Those are arguments that should be considered.

But they should be considered against the cost of continuing the tax exemption.

And that is where I think Port Jefferson residents deserve more information from their own Village government.

So, to sum-up lets recap.

I attended the hearing today expecting that this might be an opportunity to hear how the Village views a request for seven additional years of tax abatement on an existing 74-unit apartment complex located within the Village.

The Mayor had received the invitation.

The Village had posted the hearing notice.

And the hearing was held at Port Jefferson Village Hall.

But the Mayor did not appear, and I did not hear a Village comment submitted at the hearing.

So I think it is fair to ask:

Does the Village of Port Jefferson support the seven-year PILOT extension for The Hills at Port Jefferson?

If so, why?

And how does the Village believe the extension benefits Port Jefferson taxpayers at a time when the Village's finances are under pressure?

Those aren't questions about personalities or politics.

They're questions about tax revenue, public benefits and fiscal responsibility.

And I believe Village residents deserve answers.

Should Port Jefferson Have Independent Outside Review Of Certain Ethics Complaints?

Port Jefferson Village adopted a substantially revised Code of Ethics in 2024, replacing an ethics code that dated back to 1970. The new law created a five-member Village Board of Ethics with responsibility for financial disclosures, ethics complaints, investigations, hearings, advisory opinions and ethics training.

I believe having a strong ethics system is important. But there is another question worth considering:

In a small Village like Port Jefferson, should certain ethics matters be reviewed by an independent body outside Village government?

This isn't about whether the current members of the Village Board of Ethics are fair or capable. It is about whether the structure itself provides residents with the greatest possible confidence in the process.

THE CHALLENGE OF A SMALL COMMUNITY

Port Jefferson has a relatively small pool of residents who regularly participate in Village government, serve on committees and boards, attend meetings and become involved in civic affairs.

In a community like ours, people involved in government are naturally likely to know one another. They may serve together on different committees, belong to the same organizations, have social relationships, or have different political views.

None of that means anyone is incapable of acting fairly.

But the Village's own Ethics Code says its purpose includes promoting not only the reality but also the appearance of integrity in government.

That principle should apply to the ethics-review process itself.

If an Ethics Board were asked to consider a complaint involving the Mayor, a Trustee, another Village official, or someone with whom a Board member has a close relationship, would an outside review provide greater public confidence?

I believe it is a question worth asking.

NEW YORK LAW ALREADY CONTEMPLATES OUTSIDE REVIEW

New York General Municipal Law §808 provides for local Boards of Ethics and also recognizes circumstances in which a local Board may refer a matter to a County Board of Ethics.

Suffolk County's own Board of Ethics has previously described this provision as allowing a local municipal Ethics Board to refer a matter to the County.

However, I have not found a publicly documented example of a Suffolk County town or village actually using that procedure.

Suffolk County's current public complaint information primarily describes complaints involving County public servants.

So rather than assume the answer, Port Jefferson should simply ask Suffolk County a straightforward question:

Does the Suffolk County Board of Ethics currently accept referrals from municipal Boards of Ethics, and if so, what procedure applies?

WHY OUTSIDE REVIEW COULD MAKE SENSE

An outside review option could be particularly useful for matters involving:

• the Mayor;
• Village Trustees;
• members of the Board of Ethics;
• multiple Village officials;
• politically sensitive matters; or
• circumstances where a personal, professional or political relationship could create an appearance of a conflict.

This would not mean that the Village's Ethics Board is doing anything wrong.

It would simply recognize a reality of small-community government: sometimes the best way to demonstrate impartiality is to bring in someone who is outside the local circle.

An independent finding could also protect the person being accused. If an outside reviewer determines that a complaint has no merit, that conclusion may be more readily accepted by residents who might otherwise question the independence of a purely local investigation.

A HYBRID APPROACH MAY BE BEST

I'm not suggesting that Port Jefferson needs to eliminate its local Board of Ethics.

The Village Board of Ethics could continue handling routine ethics matters, financial disclosures, training, advisory opinions and other responsibilities assigned to it by Chapter 41.

But the Village could establish a policy allowing particularly sensitive complaints to be referred to an independent outside body.

Suffolk County may be able to provide that service. If not, the Village could explore another independent arrangement.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS

I want to be clear about something.

This proposal should not depend on who occupies the Mayor's office or which Trustees are in the majority.

The system should be designed to work fairly regardless of who is in power.

Today it might benefit one side. Tomorrow it might benefit the other.

That is precisely why I believe this should be viewed as a government-structure issue rather than a political issue.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Port Jefferson was right to modernize its Ethics Code.

But the Village should consider one additional question:

How can we make sure that ethics complaints are not only handled fairly, but are also seen by residents as being handled independently?

New York law provides a possible mechanism for local ethics matters to be referred to a County Ethics Board. The Village should ask Suffolk County whether that mechanism is available to Port Jefferson and, if so, establish clear procedures for using it when appropriate.

In a small community, independence isn't an accusation.

It's a safeguard.

And a strong ethics system should protect everyone—elected officials, employees, volunteers, complainants and taxpayers—by making the process as impartial and transparent as possible.

The Apartment Invasion: Coming Soon to a Street Near You

 

It appears that the construction of apartment buildings is spreading through Port Jefferson Village like an aggressive cancer — metastasizing from Main Street to, now, Oakland Avenue.

None of the proposed new apartment buildings on Upper Port’s Main Street have even broken ground yet, and already, at last night’s Planning Board Meeting, we learned that this multi-family housing fever has found a new host.

A developer introduced his plan to demolish the existing building on Oakland Avenue and replace it with a three-story, 16-unit apartment complex. Because apparently, nothing says “quaint seaside village” quite like another stack of apartments.

And here’s the scariest part — yes, it gets worse. During his presentation, the developer casually mentioned that, while chatting with other property owners on Oakland, he discovered they too have “future desires” to redevelop their properties. (Translation: it’s spreading.)

Village Director of Building, Planning and Environmental Services, Andrew Freleng, said the proposed project would be “a good fit” for the Village — with a few modifications, of course — and encouraged the developer to keep moving forward. (Of course he did.)

Project Details Worth Losing Sleep Over:

• The lot is sloped, but the proposed building will still stand 48 feet on one side and 43 feet on the other — well above the 35-foot maximum height limit. The developer claims this extra height is necessary to meet the required 15-foot ceiling on the first floor — just in case retail space is ever “in demand.” Because who doesn’t love planning future retail around imaginary customers?

• Parking: Only 20 spaces are planned, though 24 are required. Not to worry — if the developer adds a bike rack, the Village allows a four-space reduction. (Yes, really. Because Long Islanders are famous for ditching their cars and biking to work year-round.)

• Rooftop deck: complete with a fire pit and BBQ — perfect for those city-style vibes.

• Lobby monitors will display transportation schedules. (You can almost picture the stampede of eager renters fighting for the privilege of checking when the next train leaves.)

• The developer requested permission to install a construction fence, required by both his insurance company and the Village Code Enforcement Office. The Planning Board granted it — but made sure to note it was allowed only because the project is “in process.” (That’s reassuring... sort of.)

Blogger’s Opinion:

When will the Village finally say “enough” to the endless march of apartment buildings? At this rate, once all the proposed projects on Main Street and now Oakland Avenue are completed, crossing the railroad tracks into Port Jefferson won’t feel like entering a charming seaside village — it’ll look more like stepping into an urban redevelopment zone.

Did you know that about one-third of Port Jefferson Village residents already live in apartments — and that’s without counting all the projects still in planning?

If we keep approving more of these “multi-family masterpieces,” the character and charm that make Port Jeff so special will be replaced with concrete, traffic, and the faint echo of developers saying, “It’s a good fit for the Village.”

---

Proposed Re-Zoning of Maryhaven Property to Build a Condominiem Complex

Last Wednesday night, at the Board of Trustees Public Meeting, both the Board and the public were presented with a developer’s plan to build a condominium project on the Maryhaven property.

On the surface, it sounds like a win-win: the blighted old building would be demolished and replaced with 79 one- and two-story, taxpaying condominiums.

But the plan comes with major caveats:

1. A zoning change for this single parcel—from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (which allows condos and apartments). This looks like spot zoning, which is not a good precedent.

2. The developer is also seeking at least seven variances in order to build the project.

---

The Positives

• Homeownership over rentals: This project would bring homeowners into the Village instead of more renters. Currently, 33% of homes are rentals (not counting other proposed apartment buildings already in the pipeline).

• Developer’s reputation: The developer is well-regarded and has shown willingness to work with the Village.

• Tax revenue: The project would generate new tax revenue.

• Property transfer: Catholic Charities has made clear they cannot maintain the site any longer and want to sell.

• Not historic: The existing building has no historic designation—it’s simply an old structure.

• Environmental care: The developer says they will preserve all existing trees on the property.

---

The Concerns

• Spot zoning precedent: Allowing this could open the door for other owners of unused professional offices to demand the same treatment, potentially converting them into small apartment buildings.

• Rushed process: The zoning change is being pushed through quickly. A decision of this scale should involve a thorough review by the Zoning Board, Planning Board, and a careful study of the Village Comprehensive Plan. Public comment time was shortened.

• Congested development: While density mainly impacts residents of the complex, it sets a precedent for future high-density projects.

• Codes and planning: Village codes exist for good reason. A spot change undermines the Village’s Master Plan.

• Limited community benefit: Condos bring reduced property tax rates compared to townhomes. The project is unlikely to bring children into the school system, raising questions about long-term community balance.

• Walkability: The plan does not appear to support the Village’s walkability goals.

• Seven variances: The combination of a zoning change plus multiple variances significantly alters established code protections.

• Senior housing mismatch: The developer argues older residents will downsize into these condos, freeing up larger homes for young families. But many of the condos will have stairs—something downsizing seniors often avoid. Meanwhile, home prices remain too high for most young couples.

---

What Is Spot Zoning?

Spot zoning is the reclassification of a small parcel of land for a use inconsistent with surrounding zoning, often benefiting a private owner rather than serving the community’s long-term planning goals. Courts generally frown on it, especially when:

• It benefits one property owner disproportionately.

• It conflicts with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.

• It undermines community character and development patterns.

Potential negative effects of spot zoning include:

• Inconsistent development that clashes with community character.

• Erosion of carefully planned growth strategies.

• Loss of Village identity through a “hodgepodge” of building types.

• Favoritism toward a few property owners at the expense of neighbors.

---

Blogger’s Take

I don’t believe the Maryhaven property should be rezoned for a project that conflicts with existing Village codes. Why the rush to push the zoning change through, bypassing the normal process  (the developer presents the entire plan to the Planning Board, THEN to the Zoning Board)? This would ensure that a workable plan, which fits the Village's Comprehensive Plan, is agreed upon before an official zone change takes place.  While the developer promises a lot, once rezoning is granted, the leverage shifts in their favor. The seven requested variances already show how far this project strays from the Village’s planning goals.

My research indicates that demand for small, independent medical offices is low—but approving this rezoning could encourage other vacant offices to push for similar treatment, paving the way for more apartments.

---

What You Can Do

Whether you support the project or oppose it, now is the time to make your voice heard.

👉 Email or write to the Village Clerk, with a copy to each Board member, to express your opinion on the rezoning and proposed complex.

The window for public input is short—so act today. This is your Village, and your voice matters.

---

Learn More

• You can watch the Public Hearing here (discussion begins at 01:04:44):
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rnrehp7B6A
  
  Prior to the hearing, the Planning Board reviewed the application in a work session. That discussion begins at 00:05:14:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsjdxNIuOGY
  All the documents about Maryhaven that were referenced in both hearings can be found here:

  Maryhaven Historical Documents: 

  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gZZQUHCbg9daBZcXx6iq5FijHgdau9j5
  

  
  

  Maryhaven Zone Change Application:

  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LaOEuOdiZfnIybDYs8bTq2DM7Dz33TvL
  
• 
  

📧 Village Clerk Email: clerk@portjeff.com

Simple Beautification or Major Project? You Be the Judge

 At the August 28 Board of Trustees meeting, Trustee Franco raised serious concerns about the work being done at the Village Country Club, specifically on the site where the old tennis courts once stood (left-hand side of the building).

Here’s what’s been happening on that property:

• The tennis courts were removed

• A fence was installed

• An irrigation system was put in place

• The ground was prepped for sod

• Sod was (or soon will be) laid down

• Lighting will either be removed or retrofitted

Franco’s Concerns

Trustee Franco said he has asked for three things:

1. A copy of the project plans

2. The permit for doing work on a protected bluff

3. A breakdown of costs and who paid them

So far, he says he’s received no response from the Village Clerk.

Franco’s position is clear: this looks less like a “touch-up project” and more like a major undertaking that should have required Board review and approval. When he pressed for a project plan at the last Work Group meeting, the Mayor, Trustee Urginsky, and the Village Attorney all said they didn’t know if one even existed. After repeated questioning, the Mayor finally admitted that she personally approved the work.

The Mayor defended her decision, calling the work a “beautification project” to improve a blighted area and stating it was her responsibility to ensure Village property was maintained. She also said that much of the cost was covered by Lessings’s, the catering company that leases the Country Club facilities. She later confirmed—via cellphone during the meeting—that a permit had been obtained.

Trustee Urginsky added that “no decisions have been made” on how the new space will be used. Trustee Hill, meanwhile, cut the discussion short, saying it wasn’t relevant to the resolution at hand.

Blogger’s Take

Here’s where I see some red flags.

1. Use of the space.
Why would a private lessee (Lessings) spend money on a project like this without some clear benefit promised in return? While the Mayor has repeatedly said the new “Meadow” will be open to residents (not just Country Club members) for relaxation and family games, Lessings has already advertised a Labor Day BBQ on The Meadow—charging the public for entry. That doesn’t line up with Trustee Urginsky’s statement that “no decision has been made” on use of the space. Clearly, one has.

2. The MOU and “free perks.”
The resolution under discussion that night was about an MOU allowing Lessings to use a lower-level Village room as an office—at no cost. On top of that, it appears Lessen’s can use The Meadow for its own events, also at no cost. Why is the Village giving away both office space and event space to a private vendor without broader discussion or safeguards in place?

3. Transparency and oversight.
This feels backwards. Shouldn’t the Village first clarify ownership, oversight, and use of public property before allowing a private vendor to co-invest and co-use it?

What AI Research Turned Up

To better understand Franco’s concerns, I ran a quick check. While I’m not a lawyer (and AI isn’t a substitute for legal advice), here’s a summary:

“A mayor cannot legally commit public property to a joint venture without contracts, engineering oversight, and a formal board resolution. Doing so could expose the municipality to lawsuits, state audits, or intervention from the Comptroller or Attorney General.”

Final Thoughts

To me, Trustee Franco’s concerns are not only valid, they’re essential. Residents deserve transparency, clear answers, and assurance that Village property is being managed legally and in the public’s best interest. Hopefully, he receives the documentation he’s requested—because without it, this looks a lot less like “beautification” and a lot more like backdoor deal-making.

Wow! What a Night -Recap of the August 27 Board of Trustee Meeting

This discussion will be in two posts. The first deals with the disorderly groups that have been congregating in and around Village parking lots during late-night hours. And the second post will deal with the Trustee’s concerns with the creation of “The Meadow”.

If you missed last night’s Board of Trustees meeting and plan to watch the replay, here’s a little warning:

As Bette Davis once said, “Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

The Mayor kicked things off by reading a post from the Code Enforcement Department that went up on Facebook:

“The Village is aware of and very concerned about the disorderly groups that have been congregating in and around Village parking lots during late-night hours. Please be assured that the Village is working with SCPD 6th Precinct personnel to ensure that proper enforcement measures are taken if these groups continue to disturb the peace and compromise public safety and welfare of the Village.
The matter will be further discussed at tonight’s Board of Trustees meeting.
Please continue to call 911 for all police matters that require emergency response and enforcement.”

From there, the Board and other officials laid out some possible steps to deal with what’s been happening downtown late at night. These included:

• Increasing Suffolk County Police presence in the areas where people are gathering and breaking laws
  
  

• Adjusting Village Codes tied to the issues at hand
  
  

• Raising fines for violations — anywhere from $500 to $5,000
  
  

• Hiring an additional Code Officer for weekend nights
  
  

• Using photos and videos from residents as evidence to pursue enforcement
  
  

Several residents spoke, sharing just how disruptive the situation has been — affecting their sleep, peace of mind, and quality of life.

Blogger’s thoughts:
It’s hard not to notice that the Village only seemed to take stronger action once residents started posting videos of what’s really happening downtown late at night. Like it or not, the local Facebook groups clearly play a big role in making sure residents’ voices get heard. That said, we all need to keep calling Code Enforcement and the Suffolk County Police when we see laws being broken. Keep documenting with photos and videos — they make a difference.

One resident pointed out online that this problem seems to have gotten worse since the Village stopped arming Code Enforcement and reduced their authority. I understand why that decision was made, but I don’t think the Mayor and Board fully considered the consequences.

Hopefully, the proposed actions — from more police presence to tougher fines — will finally send the message that this behavior won’t be tolerated. With any luck, it will either push the troublemakers to move on or, better yet, convince them to change their behavior.

Mayor Keeps Information From The CCE and Trustees

 At last Thursday’s Board of Trustees Work Group Meeting, Mayor Sheprow stated that the Village has received the draft of the GEI Drainage Plan and that she was not going to share it with the Trustees or her commission (Citizen Commission on Erosion). She stated that once the Village receives the engineer’s finalized, signed, and stamped version, it will be shared.

For those who may not be too familiar with this plan or process, this may sound insignificant, but in my opinion, this is a very big deal. Here is why:

1. The Drainage Plan is an integral part of the Bluff Restoration Stabilization Project. It appears that improper drainage could have been the major cause of the partial failure of Phase 1 of the bluff restoration. 

2. Transparency and informed decision-making: Sharing the draft report allows the trustees and commission to be aware of the ongoing work and initial findings of the engineer. This can contribute to a more timely and informed decision-making process. 

3. Early identification of concerns: Reviewing the draft allows trustees and the commission to identify any potential issues, ask questions, or provide feedback before the report is finalized, potentially preventing delays or rework later.

4. Facilitating discussion: A draft report can serve as a valuable starting point for discussions and deliberations amongst the trustees and the commission, fostering collaborative governance. 

5. Once the Village receives a signed and sealed document is it is not easy for the Village to raise concerns or ask for changes. It could be costly and time-consuming. 

This is so odd, especially since The Citizens Commission of Erosion has proved to be very helpful by raising legitimate concerns and suggestions over the past year. The Mayor has frequently stated how beneficial this group has been to her. Why is she now shutting them out? Since millions of dollars have been spent and continue to be spent trying to save a failing bluff, the Village should utilize every available resource promptly to ensure the project's success. It seems to me that the Mayor, once again, is engaging in Selective Transparency, where she releases information only on matters favorable to her or when it is too late to influence the outcome.