Gyrodyne FEIS: Key Concerns and Why They Still Matter
•
Sep 26, 2025
•
The developer behind the Gyrodyne subdivision filed its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 2020, the final step in the environmental review process, when the applicant must demonstrate that it has taken a “hard look” at traffic, water, open space, and community character. Even years later, this document continues to shape what the Planning Board reviews today.
But in practice, a “hard look” often turns into a quick glance. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.
I carefully reviewed the FEIS to determine if the developer adequately addressed the concerns raised by neighbors, experts, and local officials. What I found was a pattern of responses that are weak, evasive, or based on technicalities rather than real solutions.
“Open Space”: Green Claims vs. Greenwashed Reality
The Concern
The developer boasts that nearly half of the 75-acre Gyrodyne site will be preserved as "open space." But residents weren't convinced. At the hearing, Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine argued the calculation was misleading, saying: "That's not accurate," pointing out that it included land-banked parking and sewage leaching fields (Vol. 2, OPEN-4, p. C37).
Developer’s Response
In the FEIS, the developer revised its figures: ±35.4 acres (47%) would be preserved, broken down into natural landscape, buffer, and managed landscape. They clarified that the sewage plant's leaching field would not be counted (Vol. 1, Response 4 to OPEN-4, pp. 89–90).
Why It Falls Short
While that sounds better, much of the "open space" is still made up of lawns, buffers, or fragmented patches. As Audubon's Joyann Cirigliano warned, fragmented open space "is not conducive to wildlife and biodiversity" (Vol. 2, OPEN-4, p. C54). The numbers may look cleaner, but the definition is still being stretched.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require a clear map showing only truly preserved natural land, not lawns or future parking areas. Conservation easements should be placed on these lands to ensure permanent protection.
Traffic: A Gridlock Guarantee
The Concern
If you drive Route 25A or Stony Brook Road, you know traffic is already a nightmare. Cindy Smith testified that, according to the traffic consultants Nelson and Pope, in 2017, Stony Brook Road was already 60% over capacity. She also noted that accidents on Stony Brook Road increased 10% between 2018 and 2019, with 124 accidents in 2019 alone (Vol. 2, TR-33, pp. C138–C140).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS relies on traffic counts from 2017, which is now over seven years old. Using "growth factor" projections to estimate current volumes, it proposes mitigation measures such as new traffic signals and turning lanes (Vol. 1, Traffic and Parking, section 2.9, pp. 65–72).
Why It Falls Short
First, the data is seriously outdated. Growth factors are no replacement for actual current traffic counts. Second, while signals and lanes may move cars faster, they also fundamentally change the character of our historic Route 25A corridor.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require a new traffic study with current data and solutions that protect both safety and the historic character of our community.
Soil Contamination: What Lies Beneath?
The Concern
Given Gyrodyne's long history of farming and industrial use, residents are understandably concerned about the presence of pesticides and solvents in the soil. Some pointed to contradictions between a 2004 environmental report and later questionnaires submitted by the developer.
Developer’s Response
The FEIS acknowledges that pesticides were detected but claims all levels are below "Restricted Residential Use" standards (Vol. 1, Response 5 to SOIL-5, pp. 30-31). The developer rejected calls for a comprehensive grid-based soil study, sticking with targeted sampling. They dismissed contradictions between reports as simply reflecting different staff members working years apart (Vol. 1, Response 4 to SOIL-4, p. 30).
Why It Falls Short
The "Restricted Residential" standard may not be protective enough for a senior living facility and public walking trails where vulnerable populations will spend time. Targeted sampling can easily miss contamination hotspots. And brushing off conflicting reports as a paperwork mix-up only deepens community mistrust.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require a comprehensive grid-based soil study and apply stricter cleanup standards for areas where seniors and families will be spending time.
Cumulative Impacts: Ignoring the Bigger Picture
The Concern
Gyrodyne isn't the only major development planned for this area. Other large projects, such as Bull Run Farm and the International Baptist Church property, are also in various stages of planning. Civic leader Herb Mones warned that any environmental review "needs to weigh all future potential developments" and cannot evaluate projects in isolation (Vol. 2, GROW-3, p. C84).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS declined to analyze these other projects, dismissing them by saying "Speculative land use changes which have not been submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction (e.g. Bull Run Farm and BB-GPI Farmland) are not germane to SEQRA" (Vol. 1, Response 3 to GROW-3, p. 96).
Why It Falls Short
This is classic "segmentation," breaking projects apart to minimize their apparent total impact. But New York's environmental law (SEQRA) requires a "hard look" at reasonably foreseeable impacts, not convenient excuses to ignore them.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require a cumulative impact study that examines Gyrodyne in conjunction with other foreseeable projects along the Route 25A corridor.
The Sewage Treatment Plant (STP): Is it “Regional” or Not?
The Concern
Many residents worry that the proposed sewage treatment plant won't just serve the Gyrodyne development, but will eventually expand to handle wastewater from the St. James Business District and other areas. Michael Kaufman of Suffolk County's Council on Environmental Quality raised detailed concerns about nitrogen impacts and the regional implications of the plant during extensive testimony (Vol. 2, GW-38, pp. C119–C123).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS insists the plant is not "regional," defining that term narrowly to apply only to large county facilities. Yet in the same document, they admit: "At the request from the Town of Smithtown, Gyrodyne analyzed potentially adding the flow from this business corridor" (Vol. 1, GW-3, p. 48).
Why It Falls Short
This is contradictory. The developer dismisses “regional” as a definition, while admitting the plant could accept outside flows. If it’s designed with capacity beyond Gyrodyne, the impacts of that expansion must be studied. You can't have it both ways. If the developer is already analyzing connections to outside areas, then the environmental impacts of that expanded capacity need to be studied now, not later.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require either a binding legal covenant limiting the STP strictly to Gyrodyne or a new environmental analysis of its maximum potential capacity, including all possible future connections.
Inter-Municipal Coordination: A Plan Made in a Vacuum
The Concern
This project doesn't stop at Smithtown's borders. Brookhaven Township, which lies directly east of the property, will feel the impacts on its roads, water systems, and environment. Yet Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine testified: "No one ever talked to me about it. Think about that. Put yourself in my place" (Vol. 2, SEQRA-1, p. C30).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS notes that Brookhaven was listed as an "Interested Agency," was mailed notices, and participated in the scoping process (Vol. 1, SEQRA-1, pp. 100–102).
Why It Falls Short
Mailing notices is not the same as true collaboration. Supervisor Romaine wasn't complaining about paperwork; he was pointing to the lack of real coordination on shared infrastructure and environmental concerns that cross municipal boundaries.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require formal, documented planning sessions between the developer, Brookhaven, and the Village of Head of the Harbor before any approvals move forward.
The Bottom Line: What This Means for Our Community
After reviewing hundreds of pages of technical documents, a clear pattern emerges. The developer consistently responds with procedure rather than substance:
•Notices instead of collaboration with neighboring communities
•Creative accounting that redefines "open space" to include lawns and buffers
•Outdated traffic data from 2017 instead of current conditions
•Minimal soil testing instead of comprehensive contamination studies
•Dismissing cumulative impacts as "speculative" rather than foreseeable
•Contradictory statements about the sewage plant's regional capacity
Bottom line: The FEIS checks the boxes but dodges the substance. Smithtown’s Planning Board should demand real answers before this project moves forward.
What Happens Next
The good news? This process isn't over. The Smithtown Planning Board still has a decision to make, and they have the power to demand better answers. As residents, we have the power to keep speaking up, asking tough questions, and holding both the developer and our elected officials accountable.
Here's how you can stay involved:
1. Attend Planning Board meetings when Gyrodyne is on the agenda
2. Contact Planning Board members with your specific concerns
3 . Stay informed about the project's progress through local civic associations
4 . Encourage neighbors to learn about the issues and get involved
If we push for stronger environmental protections, transparent planning, and real solutions to traffic and infrastructure concerns, this project doesn't have to be "business as usual." Together, we can ensure that any development in our community happens in a way that truly protects our water, roads, environment, and quality of life. That's worth fighting for, and it's not too late to make our voices heard.
Gyrodyne FEIS: Key Concerns and Why They Still Matter
•
Sep 26, 2025
•
The developer behind the Gyrodyne subdivision filed its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 2020, the final step in the environmental review process, when the applicant must demonstrate that it has taken a “hard look” at traffic, water, open space, and community character. Even years later, this document continues to shape what the Planning Board reviews today.
But in practice, a “hard look” often turns into a quick glance. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.
I carefully reviewed the FEIS to determine if the developer adequately addressed the concerns raised by neighbors, experts, and local officials. What I found was a pattern of responses that are weak, evasive, or based on technicalities rather than real solutions.
“Open Space”: Green Claims vs. Greenwashed Reality
The Concern
The developer boasts that nearly half of the 75-acre Gyrodyne site will be preserved as "open space." But residents weren't convinced. At the hearing, Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine argued the calculation was misleading, saying: "That's not accurate," pointing out that it included land-banked parking and sewage leaching fields (Vol. 2, OPEN-4, p. C37).
Developer’s Response
In the FEIS, the developer revised its figures: ±35.4 acres (47%) would be preserved, broken down into natural landscape, buffer, and managed landscape. They clarified that the sewage plant's leaching field would not be counted (Vol. 1, Response 4 to OPEN-4, pp. 89–90).
Why It Falls Short
While that sounds better, much of the "open space" is still made up of lawns, buffers, or fragmented patches. As Audubon's Joyann Cirigliano warned, fragmented open space "is not conducive to wildlife and biodiversity" (Vol. 2, OPEN-4, p. C54). The numbers may look cleaner, but the definition is still being stretched.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require a clear map showing only truly preserved natural land, not lawns or future parking areas. Conservation easements should be placed on these lands to ensure permanent protection.
Traffic: A Gridlock Guarantee
The Concern
If you drive Route 25A or Stony Brook Road, you know traffic is already a nightmare. Cindy Smith testified that, according to the traffic consultants Nelson and Pope, in 2017, Stony Brook Road was already 60% over capacity. She also noted that accidents on Stony Brook Road increased 10% between 2018 and 2019, with 124 accidents in 2019 alone (Vol. 2, TR-33, pp. C138–C140).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS relies on traffic counts from 2017, which is now over seven years old. Using "growth factor" projections to estimate current volumes, it proposes mitigation measures such as new traffic signals and turning lanes (Vol. 1, Traffic and Parking, section 2.9, pp. 65–72).
Why It Falls Short
First, the data is seriously outdated. Growth factors are no replacement for actual current traffic counts. Second, while signals and lanes may move cars faster, they also fundamentally change the character of our historic Route 25A corridor.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require a new traffic study with current data and solutions that protect both safety and the historic character of our community.
Soil Contamination: What Lies Beneath?
The Concern
Given Gyrodyne's long history of farming and industrial use, residents are understandably concerned about the presence of pesticides and solvents in the soil. Some pointed to contradictions between a 2004 environmental report and later questionnaires submitted by the developer.
Developer’s Response
The FEIS acknowledges that pesticides were detected but claims all levels are below "Restricted Residential Use" standards (Vol. 1, Response 5 to SOIL-5, pp. 30-31). The developer rejected calls for a comprehensive grid-based soil study, sticking with targeted sampling. They dismissed contradictions between reports as simply reflecting different staff members working years apart (Vol. 1, Response 4 to SOIL-4, p. 30).
Why It Falls Short
The "Restricted Residential" standard may not be protective enough for a senior living facility and public walking trails where vulnerable populations will spend time. Targeted sampling can easily miss contamination hotspots. And brushing off conflicting reports as a paperwork mix-up only deepens community mistrust.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require a comprehensive grid-based soil study and apply stricter cleanup standards for areas where seniors and families will be spending time.
Cumulative Impacts: Ignoring the Bigger Picture
The Concern
Gyrodyne isn't the only major development planned for this area. Other large projects, such as Bull Run Farm and the International Baptist Church property, are also in various stages of planning. Civic leader Herb Mones warned that any environmental review "needs to weigh all future potential developments" and cannot evaluate projects in isolation (Vol. 2, GROW-3, p. C84).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS declined to analyze these other projects, dismissing them by saying "Speculative land use changes which have not been submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction (e.g. Bull Run Farm and BB-GPI Farmland) are not germane to SEQRA" (Vol. 1, Response 3 to GROW-3, p. 96).
Why It Falls Short
This is classic "segmentation," breaking projects apart to minimize their apparent total impact. But New York's environmental law (SEQRA) requires a "hard look" at reasonably foreseeable impacts, not convenient excuses to ignore them.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require a cumulative impact study that examines Gyrodyne in conjunction with other foreseeable projects along the Route 25A corridor.
The Sewage Treatment Plant (STP): Is it “Regional” or Not?
The Concern
Many residents worry that the proposed sewage treatment plant won't just serve the Gyrodyne development, but will eventually expand to handle wastewater from the St. James Business District and other areas. Michael Kaufman of Suffolk County's Council on Environmental Quality raised detailed concerns about nitrogen impacts and the regional implications of the plant during extensive testimony (Vol. 2, GW-38, pp. C119–C123).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS insists the plant is not "regional," defining that term narrowly to apply only to large county facilities. Yet in the same document, they admit: "At the request from the Town of Smithtown, Gyrodyne analyzed potentially adding the flow from this business corridor" (Vol. 1, GW-3, p. 48).
Why It Falls Short
This is contradictory. The developer dismisses “regional” as a definition, while admitting the plant could accept outside flows. If it’s designed with capacity beyond Gyrodyne, the impacts of that expansion must be studied. You can't have it both ways. If the developer is already analyzing connections to outside areas, then the environmental impacts of that expanded capacity need to be studied now, not later.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require either a binding legal covenant limiting the STP strictly to Gyrodyne or a new environmental analysis of its maximum potential capacity, including all possible future connections.
Inter-Municipal Coordination: A Plan Made in a Vacuum
The Concern
This project doesn't stop at Smithtown's borders. Brookhaven Township, which lies directly east of the property, will feel the impacts on its roads, water systems, and environment. Yet Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine testified: "No one ever talked to me about it. Think about that. Put yourself in my place" (Vol. 2, SEQRA-1, p. C30).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS notes that Brookhaven was listed as an "Interested Agency," was mailed notices, and participated in the scoping process (Vol. 1, SEQRA-1, pp. 100–102).
Why It Falls Short
Mailing notices is not the same as true collaboration. Supervisor Romaine wasn't complaining about paperwork; he was pointing to the lack of real coordination on shared infrastructure and environmental concerns that cross municipal boundaries.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require formal, documented planning sessions between the developer, Brookhaven, and the Village of Head of the Harbor before any approvals move forward.
The Bottom Line: What This Means for Our Community
After reviewing hundreds of pages of technical documents, a clear pattern emerges. The developer consistently responds with procedure rather than substance:
•Notices instead of collaboration with neighboring communities
•Creative accounting that redefines "open space" to include lawns and buffers
•Outdated traffic data from 2017 instead of current conditions
•Minimal soil testing instead of comprehensive contamination studies
•Dismissing cumulative impacts as "speculative" rather than foreseeable
•Contradictory statements about the sewage plant's regional capacity
Bottom line: The FEIS checks the boxes but dodges the substance. Smithtown’s Planning Board should demand real answers before this project moves forward.
What Happens Next
The good news? This process isn't over. The Smithtown Planning Board still has a decision to make, and they have the power to demand better answers. As residents, we have the power to keep speaking up, asking tough questions, and holding both the developer and our elected officials accountable.
Here's how you can stay involved:
1. Attend Planning Board meetings when Gyrodyne is on the agenda
2. Contact Planning Board members with your specific concerns
3 . Stay informed about the project's progress through local civic associations
4 . Encourage neighbors to learn about the issues and get involved
If we push for stronger environmental protections, transparent planning, and real solutions to traffic and infrastructure concerns, this project doesn't have to be "business as usual." Together, we can ensure that any development in our community happens in a way that truly protects our water, roads, environment, and quality of life. That's worth fighting for, and it's not too late to make our voices heard.
Gyrodyne FEIS: Key Concerns and Why They Still Matter
•
Sep 26, 2025
•
The developer behind the Gyrodyne subdivision filed its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 2020, the final step in the environmental review process, when the applicant must demonstrate that it has taken a “hard look” at traffic, water, open space, and community character. Even years later, this document continues to shape what the Planning Board reviews today.
But in practice, a “hard look” often turns into a quick glance. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.
I carefully reviewed the FEIS to determine if the developer adequately addressed the concerns raised by neighbors, experts, and local officials. What I found was a pattern of responses that are weak, evasive, or based on technicalities rather than real solutions.
“Open Space”: Green Claims vs. Greenwashed Reality
The Concern
The developer boasts that nearly half of the 75-acre Gyrodyne site will be preserved as "open space." But residents weren't convinced. At the hearing, Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine argued the calculation was misleading, saying: "That's not accurate," pointing out that it included land-banked parking and sewage leaching fields (Vol. 2, OPEN-4, p. C37).
Developer’s Response
In the FEIS, the developer revised its figures: ±35.4 acres (47%) would be preserved, broken down into natural landscape, buffer, and managed landscape. They clarified that the sewage plant's leaching field would not be counted (Vol. 1, Response 4 to OPEN-4, pp. 89–90).
Why It Falls Short
While that sounds better, much of the "open space" is still made up of lawns, buffers, or fragmented patches. As Audubon's Joyann Cirigliano warned, fragmented open space "is not conducive to wildlife and biodiversity" (Vol. 2, OPEN-4, p. C54). The numbers may look cleaner, but the definition is still being stretched.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require a clear map showing only truly preserved natural land, not lawns or future parking areas. Conservation easements should be placed on these lands to ensure permanent protection.
Traffic: A Gridlock Guarantee
The Concern
If you drive Route 25A or Stony Brook Road, you know traffic is already a nightmare. Cindy Smith testified that, according to the traffic consultants Nelson and Pope, in 2017, Stony Brook Road was already 60% over capacity. She also noted that accidents on Stony Brook Road increased 10% between 2018 and 2019, with 124 accidents in 2019 alone (Vol. 2, TR-33, pp. C138–C140).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS relies on traffic counts from 2017, which is now over seven years old. Using "growth factor" projections to estimate current volumes, it proposes mitigation measures such as new traffic signals and turning lanes (Vol. 1, Traffic and Parking, section 2.9, pp. 65–72).
Why It Falls Short
First, the data is seriously outdated. Growth factors are no replacement for actual current traffic counts. Second, while signals and lanes may move cars faster, they also fundamentally change the character of our historic Route 25A corridor.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require a new traffic study with current data and solutions that protect both safety and the historic character of our community.
Soil Contamination: What Lies Beneath?
The Concern
Given Gyrodyne's long history of farming and industrial use, residents are understandably concerned about the presence of pesticides and solvents in the soil. Some pointed to contradictions between a 2004 environmental report and later questionnaires submitted by the developer.
Developer’s Response
The FEIS acknowledges that pesticides were detected but claims all levels are below "Restricted Residential Use" standards (Vol. 1, Response 5 to SOIL-5, pp. 30-31). The developer rejected calls for a comprehensive grid-based soil study, sticking with targeted sampling. They dismissed contradictions between reports as simply reflecting different staff members working years apart (Vol. 1, Response 4 to SOIL-4, p. 30).
Why It Falls Short
The "Restricted Residential" standard may not be protective enough for a senior living facility and public walking trails where vulnerable populations will spend time. Targeted sampling can easily miss contamination hotspots. And brushing off conflicting reports as a paperwork mix-up only deepens community mistrust.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require a comprehensive grid-based soil study and apply stricter cleanup standards for areas where seniors and families will be spending time.
Cumulative Impacts: Ignoring the Bigger Picture
The Concern
Gyrodyne isn't the only major development planned for this area. Other large projects, such as Bull Run Farm and the International Baptist Church property, are also in various stages of planning. Civic leader Herb Mones warned that any environmental review "needs to weigh all future potential developments" and cannot evaluate projects in isolation (Vol. 2, GROW-3, p. C84).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS declined to analyze these other projects, dismissing them by saying "Speculative land use changes which have not been submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction (e.g. Bull Run Farm and BB-GPI Farmland) are not germane to SEQRA" (Vol. 1, Response 3 to GROW-3, p. 96).
Why It Falls Short
This is classic "segmentation," breaking projects apart to minimize their apparent total impact. But New York's environmental law (SEQRA) requires a "hard look" at reasonably foreseeable impacts, not convenient excuses to ignore them.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require a cumulative impact study that examines Gyrodyne in conjunction with other foreseeable projects along the Route 25A corridor.
The Sewage Treatment Plant (STP): Is it “Regional” or Not?
The Concern
Many residents worry that the proposed sewage treatment plant won't just serve the Gyrodyne development, but will eventually expand to handle wastewater from the St. James Business District and other areas. Michael Kaufman of Suffolk County's Council on Environmental Quality raised detailed concerns about nitrogen impacts and the regional implications of the plant during extensive testimony (Vol. 2, GW-38, pp. C119–C123).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS insists the plant is not "regional," defining that term narrowly to apply only to large county facilities. Yet in the same document, they admit: "At the request from the Town of Smithtown, Gyrodyne analyzed potentially adding the flow from this business corridor" (Vol. 1, GW-3, p. 48).
Why It Falls Short
This is contradictory. The developer dismisses “regional” as a definition, while admitting the plant could accept outside flows. If it’s designed with capacity beyond Gyrodyne, the impacts of that expansion must be studied. You can't have it both ways. If the developer is already analyzing connections to outside areas, then the environmental impacts of that expanded capacity need to be studied now, not later.
What Should Happen NowThe Planning Board should require either a binding legal covenant limiting the STP strictly to Gyrodyne or a new environmental analysis of its maximum potential capacity, including all possible future connections.
Inter-Municipal Coordination: A Plan Made in a Vacuum
The Concern
This project doesn't stop at Smithtown's borders. Brookhaven Township, which lies directly east of the property, will feel the impacts on its roads, water systems, and environment. Yet Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine testified: "No one ever talked to me about it. Think about that. Put yourself in my place" (Vol. 2, SEQRA-1, p. C30).
Developer’s Response
The FEIS notes that Brookhaven was listed as an "Interested Agency," was mailed notices, and participated in the scoping process (Vol. 1, SEQRA-1, pp. 100–102).
Why It Falls Short
Mailing notices is not the same as true collaboration. Supervisor Romaine wasn't complaining about paperwork; he was pointing to the lack of real coordination on shared infrastructure and environmental concerns that cross municipal boundaries.
What Should Happen Now
The Planning Board should require formal, documented planning sessions between the developer, Brookhaven, and the Village of Head of the Harbor before any approvals move forward.
The Bottom Line: What This Means for Our Community
After reviewing hundreds of pages of technical documents, a clear pattern emerges. The developer consistently responds with procedure rather than substance:
•Notices instead of collaboration with neighboring communities
•Creative accounting that redefines "open space" to include lawns and buffers
•Outdated traffic data from 2017 instead of current conditions
•Minimal soil testing instead of comprehensive contamination studies
•Dismissing cumulative impacts as "speculative" rather than foreseeable
•Contradictory statements about the sewage plant's regional capacity
Bottom line: The FEIS checks the boxes but dodges the substance. Smithtown’s Planning Board should demand real answers before this project moves forward.
What Happens Next
The good news? This process isn't over. The Smithtown Planning Board still has a decision to make, and they have the power to demand better answers. As residents, we have the power to keep speaking up, asking tough questions, and holding both the developer and our elected officials accountable.
Here's how you can stay involved:
1. Attend Planning Board meetings when Gyrodyne is on the agenda
2. Contact Planning Board members with your specific concerns
3 . Stay informed about the project's progress through local civic associations
4 . Encourage neighbors to learn about the issues and get involved
If we push for stronger environmental protections, transparent planning, and real solutions to traffic and infrastructure concerns, this project doesn't have to be "business as usual." Together, we can ensure that any development in our community happens in a way that truly protects our water, roads, environment, and quality of life. That's worth fighting for, and it's not too late to make our voices heard.