Ruling clears way for vote on new Mastic Beach village

A State Supreme Court justice has tossed out a challenge to a proposal for a new incorporated village in Mastic Beach, meaning residents could vote as early as this summer on the creation of the new government.

Brookhaven Supervisor Mark Lesko ruled in March that voters in the 11,500-resident hamlet should be allowed to vote on the issue after members of a citizens group submitted a petition for incorporation.

But opponents - who contend that another layer of government will add unnecessary taxes - quickly filed a court challenge in Riverhead, citing technical flaws in the petition.

In a July 13 ruling, Justice Thomas F. Whelan dismissed the challenge, court records state. An election must be held within 40 days of a judge's order sustaining the petition, according to state law.

Joseph Prokop, an attorney representing the pro-village advocates, said the clock will start ticking as soon as his clients submit a copy of Whelan's decision to Brookhaven Town, which he expects to happen soon.

Having a village government would give residents more control of housing and code enforcement issues, said Paul Breschard, chairman of the Mastic Beach Village Exploratory Committee.

"We're confident we'll win in the vote. It's a good idea because the people of Mastic Beach are going to decide what's going to happen to them," he said.

John Leo, a lawyer for the Mastic Beach Property Owners Association, which opposes the village, said his clients are "mulling over an appeal" of Whelan's decision.

The property owners' group will mount a campaign about "how much more [residents] will be paying in taxes" if the incorporation comes to a vote, said Maura Spery, a member of the group. Village advocates say a tax increase would be minimal or even nonexistent.

Spery said Whelan should grant an appeal based on the property owners' concerns about the incorporation petition. Opponents have said its flaws include the proposed village boundaries, which do not line up with a local fire department's.

Whelan's ruling was based on the appeal's technical flaws, and not on the substance of the complaint, according to court papers. Attempts to reach Whelan were not successful.