Community Planning Should Not Be Forgotten - St. Ursula Center

Plenty has been said and written regarding the proposed purchase of the St. Ursula Center in Blue Point by Seafield Inc. In light of the current media coverage, we, the Blue Point Community Coalition (BPCC), are writing this article to state our position and rationale on this subject. To be clear, it was never our intent to manage this discussion through the media, opinion pieces, or interviews. We planned to voice our concerns at the public and open forum on Dec. 7th, which, unfortunately, was cancelled by Seafield.

The BPCC would like to state the important overlooked fact that the proposed land where Seafield wishes to open their facility is zoned an A1 residence district. To utilize the land for the proposed 76 bed inpatient treatment center would require a zone change to NH-H (commercial health facility). This is a permanent change. The BPCC opposes the zoning change as we view it as irresponsible development. The fact that Seafield wants to open an inpatient drug treatment facility is irrelevant. We would be equally opposed to a hospital, bank, gas station or retail facility opening in the same area. If the permanent zone change is granted, all of the uses indicated above would be allowable. Additionally, the most recent proposed 100 bed sober home alternative would also require a zone change and the BPCC is likewise opposed to that change for the same reasons.

Overall, there is a fundamental lack of understanding and misrepresentation of the community’s concerns. The community is being called “ignorant,” “unaware,” and of having a “Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)” mentality. This is unfair and false. Currently, the community supports 3 operating sober homes and multiple HA, AA, and NA meetings, all in a less than 1.8 square mile town. For reference, Suffolk County maintained a law from 2003-2010 to limit the number of sober homes to 4 in 2 square miles. As a community, we understand there is an opioid crisis and we all have a burden to bear. We are more than willing to share our part within the ability of our town, but we cannot ignore the traffic hazards, infrastructure issues, and undue burden on our support services that irresponsible development would create.

To that point, the community asks: Why not have more beds operational in a shorter amount of time? There is a proposed location, among others, that is available at the John J Foley Building in Yaphank, as proposed to Seafield by the Town of Brookhaven representatives. It is currently zoned appropriately, can fit approximately 3 times the number of beds (200-250), and be operational in one third of the time (7-8 months). Are the hurdles too large that cannot be overcome to help more people? Members of the hospital board have encouraged Seafield multiple times to partner with them, but the answer they have received from Seafield is no. If Seafield is willing to put 18 months or more worth of work into a facility with significantly less beds(St. Ursula), why would they not being willing to apply the same effort and help more people? We cannot answer for Seafield, but we encourage you to ask them.

In conclusion, as supported by Councilman Neil Foley’s and Town Supervisor Ed Romaine’s public statements, the BPCC understands the need for treatment centers, but this is an inappropriate site for one to be located based on existing zoning and community planning.

Sincerely,

Blue Point Community Coalition

______________________________________

To contact the Blue Point Community Coalition, please visit our website at www.bpcoalition.com