Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have no questions. We have no public hearings tonight, so we're going to start right off with discussion items with Greg Berman for 740 Main Road Professional Office. All right. Thank you. For the record, Greg Berman, Riverhead Planning Department. So this is just a very quick discussion on a request by the applicant to amend the approved lighting plan for the 740 Main Road Professional Office. As you'll recall, the board granted administrative site plan approval back in 2023 to convert the old North Fork Chocolate Building. into a professional medical office. There was an approved lighting plan that showed a proposed lighting fixture on that plan. The applicant submitted a letter which was distributed to the planning board. They basically went to a supply house, and there was an extreme back order on the approved lighting fixtures, as well as a significant cost. The applicant submitted a amended lighting plan that shows revised lighting fixtures. The proposed lighting fixtures do comply with the... town's dark sky compliance the exterior lighting code so i do just have a quick resolution on to approve the amended plan there is also one slight modification if you'll notice i sure i drew in on the plans the approved the originally approved plan had an existing light fixture that was sort of floating in the parking lot in a little kind of dead space so they're just proposing to move that lighting fixture behind the curb line so the resolution before the board today would approve that amended location as well as the revised lighting fixture gentlemen any issues no questions no questions okay moving right along uh 1309 ocr automobile dealership with greg bremen yeah yeah you

all right if you guys could just identify yourselves for the record uh yes i'm christopher kent from feral fritz attorney for the applicant anthony stancanelli for neesis engineering greg ugrin um representing the applicant all right thank you so i'm going to go ahead and introduce the board of trustees so this is a follow-up for a site plan application that's seeking to demolish three existing commercial buildings and redevelop a commercial site with a new approximately 18 000 square foot automobile dealership as the board will recall this is a site that is on the south side of old country road it has frontage on both county route 58 as well as osborne avenue it's presently improved with three uh it used to be used car dealerships used truck dealerships there um when we last brought this application before the board they were waiting on some variances from the zoning board of appeals the applicant did receive those variances by appeal number 2023-48 from the zba since that zba was granted the applicant has performed some revisions to the plans i did submit a letter from chris kent to the board detailing those changes uh the long and short of it is they are now i believe it was previously granted to the board of trustees that the site was going to be a mazda dealership it is now going to be the chevy heavy duty truck dealership so they did some changes to the building they actually shrunk the building slightly they modified the building facade the general layout of the site is still the same still the same general site circulation it's just slightly you know revised for the elevations the proposed site plan still complies with all of the variances that they receive from the zoning board so there's no need to amend any of those variances that they got and as a result of the reconfiguration of the building and the use they actually reduced the amount of required parking on the site so whereas they previously needed i believe it was 15 park install variants i believe it's now just down to one but again it is fully within the zoning the variances that were granted so there's no need to amend it so i do have the revised elevations they're going to go back to the ARB at their meeting next week for their review and comment but being that it is substantially the same site plan and they've received the variances we are ready to move forward and schedule a public hearing on the application

we did shift the curb cut on Osborne North a little bit right so yeah any it didn't it didn't significantly change anything because I know we got to take care of the drainage there that's all taken care of okay the shift was necessary to get to a wider place right on the site so that we could increase the turning areas and the access but they can be what happens is believe me I know I have a building on West Main Street you know play with curb cuts and then there's water and I'm dealing with it good you say it's good all right this is a site that currently has no drainage on it it's just a completely pervious site okay no drainage structures we're gonna be putting in drainage structures on site so they would they will need a SWPPP for this all their stormwater were managed on site you know when we get to the final drainage design that will all need to be approved by the town engineer but beyond that again being that it is substantially the same plan we are ready to move forward in schedule a public hearing on the application okay I believe we have a resolution on for later so yes that's correct today about the driveways this is going to be getting tractor trailers in and out delivering vehicles yes is 15 feet wide enough for a tractor trailer to make a swing into the parking lot without breaking up the the curbs with sidewalks so I can answer that while going into oncoming traffic to to make the eternal it would nobody will be coming into our coming traffic traffic a full track the trailer and a car transporter could maneuver into the site all around and and back out and they would go up to make a right on Osborne and be able to make a left onto 58 to go back onto the LA we also have an approved entrance and curb cut from the county and it's per county spec it's all mountable as well just this ways so if in case the truck does hit the curve it should stay intact I'm just saying because we have the sidewalks also a lot of a lot of our shopping centers you see the sidewalks are busted up and for people in wheelchairs or carriages and things like that it's really defeating the purpose of it understood and yep we're meeting all the county specs and the mountable curb should really help okay help it in case they do it are there any tractor-trailer entrance and exits off of the fear or is it all for us no the truck the track the trailer a fire truck they could all enter off of 58 it's wide enough and they can maneuver around the building and then you know they would probably make the right in right and then come around the building and exit out onto Osborne make the right to go north to get back on the LA you make it left at the light we do have truck turning roads and fire truck runs I was gonna say we did we did have a traffic impact study that was conducted on this application and it was reviewed by LK McLean associates as part of that traffic impact study they did as Anthony said they did run the models for tractor trailer turning and emergency vehicles fire truck turning and navigation throughout the site and the access aisles have actually increased its size by the reconfiguration of the building

space Are those individual parking lanes? That's the east side.

So those angled parking stalls on the – if you're looking at the plan, Joe, are they on the right side of the plan? Yeah. So, yeah, those are angled-in parking stalls on the east side of the building. But are they not for delivery, though? No, those are for customers and employees.

Everybody good? Okay. We have a resolution on for later, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next is the Marist Farm Minus Subdivision, once again with Greg Berman.

All right. If you could just identify yourself for the record. Charles Cuddy, representing the Marist family. All right. So this is a continued discussion of a minor subdivision application. That was last before the planning board. I believe it was in March. When this is a – this was before the planning board last. It was a four-lot minor subdivision. There's approximately 27 acres on the northwest corner of the intersection of Sound Avenue and Roanoke Avenue, the Marist Farm. The site is improved with the Marist Farm stand and a few agricultural structures. This property of the 27 acres, 22 acres of it is under county development rights program. So there are 22 acres which front on Sound at Roanoke, which will never be developed with any type of residential structure. Within that county development right – deed of development rights, they do have some rights to put up agricultural structures, including farm stands, which are there. And those are in prescribed areas on the plan. When they did the deed of development rights, they specifically carved out approximately five acres in a northeast corner that could be developed pursuant to zoning. When the plan was last before the board, lot number three on this current subdivision map was part of the farm lot. Eileen Powers, the previous planning board attorney, had sort of taken issue with that. So what they've done now is they've kept this as a four residential lots up in the northeast corner, and the farm lot will be its own separate parcel. So technically, while it is five parcels, there is no potential for any development on that fifth lot. So we're not going to be treating it as a major subdivision because there will ultimately only ever be four lots pursuant to zoning. The reason there was a bit of a break in this application. From March up until now was the applicant. They require a extension of the Riverhead Water District. Right now, there is only water along Sound Avenue and to the north on Linda Lane. The applicant had a map and plan prepared by H2M, which is the Riverhead Water District's consulting engineers. They identified that the best method to serve the property with potable water is to perform an extension off of the Linda Lane main. So they will extend. Water from Linda Lane south to the site and then provide each of the new residences with potable water. So they will be served by town water. That will be a separate. The extension will be a separate application that the applicant will need to handle with the town board. So that's why it took a little bit of time before we could get a public hearing. We needed to identify water supply. So that being said, we do have a resolution on to schedule a public hearing for this application. A couple of those buildings. The metal frame and the greenhouse. Are they going to remain? Yes. That's on the development rights old parcel. And those are in the prescribed areas for the deed of development rights. The farm committee told them they could have buildings at that point. But just so you know, the water issue will be before the town board probably within the next month. It's being scheduled now by Mr. Mancini. So we expect to get that approval. And then we can go on and finish up. The map.

But again, this is 22 acres that will remain completely in farming. Some of those grades on the lots are pretty steep. Yeah. I believe we did get comments from Vinnie. We will likely, when those lots are developed, we'll likely require grading and drainage plans for each of those specific lots. Because there are some decent grades on each of those lots. We know that. And again, so there will be. Yeah. The. Drive the. Access to the lots will be off of the common driveway. The common driveway is not going to be a town road. It's not. It's not designed to town highway standards. It will essentially be a private driveway over which there will be an easement to the benefit of all four residents. Water district and for access and maintenance for all four owners within the subdivision. Early on, we did bring up with the planning board that lot one, even though it fronts on Roanoke. We're going to have to make sure that the public access to the public access will only have access off of that common driveway. So that that's where the access will be taken to all the four lots. I didn't hear you. Did you say it's going to be serviced by the town? Are they going to do it? It will not. It will not be not. It is not a town highway. Private road. Not designed to the standards will never be accepted into the highway. It's essentially a common. You know, it's it's essentially flag lots with a common access easement over it. Great. Who picks up the cost of bringing down the water? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's fully, fully borne by the applicant. Marists. They've already seen the enormous cost. They're aware. So they required to place a fire hydrant back there also. Yes. Yeah. I believe that is detailed in the map.

Yeah.

So they are proposing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. hydrant sort of it's down the driveway in front a lot for so there will be a hydrant within that subdivision

any other questions thank you mr. Cuddy thank you okay we're moving on to Anderson acres major subdivision with Greg Berman at the last work session

unfortunately was able to see the

yeah I'm just gonna oh certainly I'm sorry man sorry you can bend it my apologies Larry gonna put them up on the screen yeah we'll get to that

to you you you you we'll get to there we'll get there alright so what we have is the initial submission for a major subdivision application major residential subdivision application of a project site which comprises approximately 70 acres out in the hamlet of Laurel the project site is comprised of four separate tax map numbers right now there are two lots which front on main road they're located on the north side of the Long Island railroad tracks and there are two parcels on the south side of the railroad tracks which front on Peconic Bay Boulevard the property for the majority of it is zoned residence B80 which is a minimum 280,000 square foot or two acre zoning district and there is a small section of the project site along Peconic Bay Boulevard and there is a small section of the project site along Peconic Bay Boulevard and there is a small section of the project site along Peconic Bay Boulevard and there is a small section of the project site along Peconic Bay Boulevard which is RB 40 which is a 40,000 square foot or a one acre building which is RB 40 which is a 40,000 square foot or a one acre building being that this is four separate parcels it has historically it was the Zaweski farm it has historically always operated as one farm operation so for the purposes of zoning and subdivision we're going to look at the four parcels as one common site so the applicant has given us three different maps. The first map that we have here is Subdivision Sketch Plan 1. This map effectively serves as the yield map. You know what, Larry, can we go to the cameras in the sky just because I feel like it's going to be tough for them to unfold their plans. So if we can do that, I can sort of point out to where we're at.

There we go. Perfect. Yep. Good. Thank you. All right. So this is Subdivision Sketch 1, which as I said, effectively would serve as a yield map. What it's done is this section right here is, you know, you've got Main Road here, north of the Long Island Railroad tracks. This track shows the yield map of the Subdivision Sketch Plan 1. And this is the yield map of the Subdivision Sketch Plan 2. And this shows the 55-foot wide right-of-way that's required by town code, terminate and cul-de-sac. It does show a stormwater management area of approximately 18,000 square feet. And this portion demonstrates a total of 10 lots that all meet the minimum 80,000 square foot dimensional requirements of the RB80 zoning district. So for yield purposes, I did speak with Vinnie Gordiello, the planning board's consulting engineer. I didn't get a formal letter yet, but he did say that the yield map appears to be, sufficient. So for yield purposes, this does appear to be accurate, that there would be a yield of approximately 10 lots on the north side. On the south side of the tracks, again, this is the property, this is the section of the property where it's split zoned. There are a total of 25 residential lots. Again, you've got six lots down here at 40,000, that meet the 40,000 square foot. And then you've got the remainder up here that meet the 80,000 square foot. And there is a stormwater, area again of approximately two acres. So for treating the overall project site as one project site, you have a residential yield of approximately 35 lots. So that would be considered the as of right development yield of the property. Again, just waiting on formal comments from the consulting engineer to formalize that before we have a resolution put forth. So once we establish the as of right yield of the subject property, we move on to the next step in the subdivision procedure, our sketch plans. What the applicant has submitted, I'll go over each of these sketch plans and sort of describe. Can you just stay on the yield map for a minute? Yes. I'm just wondering on the recharge rate, is that going to be for the whole system or just for the mill? So each section, for the purposes of yield, they sort of separated them by the railroad tracks. So the recharge basin on the north side, and again, this is not what they're building. This is just demonstrating that they have the land yield for yield purposes. Again, Vinny said that those recharge basins appeared to be appropriately sized based on that yield map. But again, this is not what is being constructed. But those stormwater recharge areas... I was just wondering if they would have to be going across the railroad tracks. No. Yeah, no. We're not... As we move towards... Then the south side will be recharge basins. Yeah. So as we move, as I explained, the sketch plans, there is not going to be any crossing of the railroad tracks by any type of residential development. But I'll get into that as I explain the sketch plans. But just... Are we clear? I just want to make sure we're clear on the 35-lot yield that does comply with the town codes requirements. And then we... The plans will evolve and we'll go from there. So now what we've got is sketch plan two. Larry, if we can get the sky camera again. All right. Sorry. Sorry. So this is... It's called sketch plan two, which town code requires the applicant to provide alternative sketch plans. Again, because clustering is required in the residence B8... B8 zoning district. The goal of clustering is to preserve a minimum of 70% of the project site for open space or agricultural production. Sketch plan two, it has the north of the railroad tracks shown as open space, and then it has a small area of open space on the south side of the tracks. This map only serves to preserve 39% based on these calculations, and that's sort of even questionable. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

we would get into that as we move forward in the subdivision process but yes the purpose and intent is to preserve the land for agricultural production so i will say subdivision sketch plan 2 fails to meet the requirements of the code so you cannot even consider this so the applicant will need to redesign and then we move on to sketch plan three

so sketch plan three what they've done is on the north side of the railroad tracks now there are two existing single-family residences along main road each of those residences and there's some agricultural structures including barns detached garages those are shown as their own individual lots there's approximately 15.6 acres of what's labeled as open space on the north side of the tracks which again would be the area for agricultural production then as we move to the south side of the tracks there's a 26.1 acre open space area which again would be for agricultural production now it does have the bulk of the open space in proximity to the tracks and then there's a approximately 240 foot wide stretch of open space that traverses the west side of the property as you come down to meconic bay boulevard shows a recharge basin and then shows a small area of open space down near the south corner so this plan is a little bit better in terms of preservation this plan currently shows 61.5 percent now again while the the goal for clustering is a minimum of 70 the board does have some discretion can go down to an absolute minimum of 50. um i just when you look at the code and the the purpose is to preserve the agricultural soils um i i would just be hard-pressed to come up with some type of reason or justification why we would go with the 70 percent goal being that this land is either actively farmed or was very recently farmed i agree with you i think we should try to keep it at 70 percent i don't know what members feel right there's no reason that we should go no logical reason to go less than 70. um so just a couple of conceptual you know discussion points on the general idea of the subdivision um i believe being that we are treating the four parcels as one cohesive project site i do believe it is important to you know keep the residential development off of the main roadside you know as you're going through james port and laurel it is very rural open agricultural space so i do think it is important to keep the residential development off that side keep it as is so it does make sense just from a zoning and planning perspective to cluster the new residential development down on the south side along peconic bay boulevard kind of boulevard right now is a more residential area there are agricultural vistas there are farms down there but it is by far has more residential character than main road does so generally you know the concept for sketch three is okay um i think what the applicant would need to do shrink this down you know shrink the actual development footprint down to get to that 70 percent and then i think that could serve as a viable sketch for the board to consider um i did just take a couple of pictures and i do want to before i want the purpose of this is to give the applicant some feedback as to how they're going to redesign sketch plan two so i do larry can we zoom in on these pictures please

thank you all right so i took i went out and took a drive past the site uh this vantage point right here was taken from pekambay boulevard i was standing east of the project site looking to the west so this batch of trees here there are some wetlands up in this area so the vantage point as you're standing on pekambay boulevard as you're driving west you don't really get the view of the farm field it's about a fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist fist you with a farm field it's obscured by trees wetland vegetation and then there's a row of large arborvitaes along here so you don't really get that scenic vista as you're traveling westbound on pecanic bay boulevard this picture was taken basically looking to the north across the farm field from pecanic bay boulevard so that's where you get that big expansive scenic vista and then this picture was taken on pecanic bay boulevard standing to the west of the site looking east so that being said when you look at sketch plan three here the intent and i can understand the intent to keep the open space vista here so that way as you're driving along you still do get some of that farm view you know as you're looking north on the site you do retain some of the farm space space space space space space space space space space space space space space space arm view. That being said, I did have a conversation with Mr. Zelnicki about the just the viability of the soils and just the general layout of the site. What I did in my mind, I kind of thought might make sense to have it when they come in for a redesign. Rather than just a straight shot here, if they could come in with a redesigned sketch plan that sort of has like a neighborhood that has a loop to it. What that would do is that would serve to push the development closer to the Peconic Bay Boulevard, which as Mr. Zelnicki said, as you get closer to Peconic Bay Boulevard, the aggregate, the quality of the soils isn't really as good as it is on the northern parts of the farm. So it would allow the board to sort of retain a more contiguous block of farmland going from main road to the northern limits of the project site. It could also if there was a loop here, you might only have five or six houses along the northern end of the development. So you might minimize any type of conflicts between residents and agricultural activities. That being said, I wanted to get the board's feel for what you think about sketch plan three and if you have any suggestions for a revised sketch plan two. Greg, how much farmland is to the west of where the house is? That one strip? So this entire, the western property boundary is about 3,000 feet from the train tracks to Peconic Bay Boulevard. And it's about 240 feet wide. Alright, so if you moved that north and moved the housing closer south, I think that would be a better idea. You know, take that and bring... So like in other words, so like if you were to like sort of if this was going to be the limit of the development come in this way and sort of have a... and again I'm not saying hard and fast but that way you'd be able to keep this block contiguous to the south. farmland that does that make more sense you know and again I understand the planning board's responsibility here is to try to balance the preservation I do understand that there are scenic vistas along Peconic Bay Boulevard that being said there are subdivisions I mean the high metal lane subdivision just to the west of this property you know when you drive by it that subdivision is pretty well screened I mean you don't really see that so there could be a revised plan where it's clustered closer to Peconic Bay Boulevard they include a planting scenic buffer along the south side which would help screen the residential development really a matter of does this say revised no if I may but I don't want to comment when I should be waiting but I could comment now having done this for years one of the things that you have obviously agricultural open space it comes does two things it provides for the preservation of actual active agriculture but I don't think anyone's kidding anybody that part of it also is to maintain sense of place and open space vistas so when we were last before the board this sketch plans I don't know if you can see this sort of looked the lots were indeed clustered down towards Peconic Bay yeah sure excuse my very crude attempt to draw what I heard from the staff at the meeting thank God I never went into any sort of design but the whole idea is as Greg said this area approaching from this area it's what it you don't get any opportunities for Vista but the whole idea we had lots down here and we shifted them here for the very purpose of being able to have that very lovely continuous Vista down looking from Peconic Bay to main road so we have I think we have some competing um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! um! I wasn't scaling anything out. This is, now this map actually, I mean, I've never, we've never seen this before. Eric Greenstein, No, this map was at a discussion. Greg Schleusner, We've never, this, I mean, at least since my tenure, we've never discussed this application with the board. Eric Greenstein, Greg, we discussed this, we discussed this maybe not with the board, but with the staff who were there. Because the whole idea was, the indication was to try to get these lots elongated. I didn't dream this up. I wouldn't have, I don't have enough design expertise to know. But there was discussion with the staff, and the whole idea was to create a viewshed corridor through here, which is why we went through this redesign. I'm not suggesting that, I'll take your word, you hadn't seen it, but I know it was at a planning board discussion about it. Forgive me, it was last year. And this was, these were my notes from the, and it made a lot of sense to me, because you have the goal of trying to maintain an open space VISTA. But I think what we can do is look at Greg's report, take some of the board's comments, and try to juggle and come back, and try to make those two goals. I think we're probably going to try to push a little bit to try to keep some of a continuous open space ban, because I do think that makes sense. I mean, you get, I can understand, you know, you have a wetlands area here. We've been very close, we've been very sure to maintain the setbacks, so soils should get sort of punky when you're in a wetlands area. But you do get away from that. So let's take a look at the, I'll have the team take a look at the site, very appreciative of all the board's comments and Greg's comments, and see if we can come back to something. The other thing I think I did want to mention, though, is this is about eight acres here, 33 and 34. It eats up a lot. So I just wanted to make sure that I understood your comment. While a development area could be reserved for farm structures, residential structures must be retained. That's assuming they were going to be retained. That was on sketch plan two where this entire, the entirety of the northern piece was shown as open space. Okay. But presumably if these were removed, they would all count towards open space, the residential structures. Correct. So I think there may be some, my direction to the surveyor and the design folks would be look at tightening this up. There may be something we can draw from Peter to pay Paul down here. I don't know that these lots, since they're going to be married to open space and any of that, need to be, the residential part of them needs to be that large. Just get them up to 70% also, please. We're going to try to do that. I mean, so just this plan right here, the board, Larry, can we zoom in a little more on this just so they can see in a little greater detail what that cluster looks like? Excuse me. I've sort of stepped on that. And I did not mean to indicate, Mr. Bennett, was not being truthful. I don't think you were. All right. So this would have a roadway coming here with two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten acres. All right. So this would have a roadway coming here with two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten acres. And then you would have two separate roads coming off. I mean, shorter roads, you know, maybe this is the way to go. I mean, I just, I thought the idea was to try to, I mean, just having driven down there today, the whole idea was to try to keep that straight shot of a vista. I think if something like this could get to a 70, again, I don't know exactly what the preservation, but if this can get to a 70%, I think that could be one viable sketch plan. And then I think, again, this plan right here, if this was just a one-way plan, I think that would be a good idea. I mean, I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. Really, if there were two blocks in there,

And if you look at there's a subdivision of off-Harris called Bay run has a little meander to it Not a lot, but when you drive down the road It doesn't look like Exactly so that's that's all

Just to the West What's that did I mean yeah high meadow high meadow is much much wider This site's only about six hundred Six hundred and ninety maybe about seven hundred feet wide So it does not necessarily lend itself to the high meadow Lane Configuration Greg the only the only thing that What I was saying instead of this open space if we move Which one are you talking to the west of this? All right this tracked up here, right if you kept that wall for farming Because no one's gonna farm that that strip it just not conducive to foreign Okay, if you move it up bring the building lots down To take over that area and keep forming to the north so more along the lines of this Of that's right. Yeah, okay. That's well. That's extremely helpful. That's the way that we originally drew it I agree

That's very very very helpful And again the reason we elongated is I don't know maybe I read the cards wrong I thought that was what the correction, but this is fine because this is still ring hearing is similar to what the the engineer and the surveyor

Yeah, and it's probably it's probably a tighter subdivision probably less roads probably let's drink Win-win yeah, and you and I understand I mean, you know, it's Your chart you're trying to balance the Yeah, all interests you're trying to preserve the Vista as much as you can if that's you know, right We did have some lots on the is that to achieve this we had some lots right on the conic Bay Avenue So it sounds to me like that's not necessarily viable Farm of course is viable What what type of agricultural soils it is but in terms of the more productive farmland it's clearly to the north so Great one other question. There's the boy. I thought you said the other question is that you're talking about the land that's being used as a farmland? I mean, there's the support have any any concern about One of the reasons we were able to do this is to loop rose to cul-de-sacs. We had some lots down right on the conic They have it. I mean we've certainly put buffers there. Yes, so he's referring to these lots along Peconic Bay Boulevard I mean there could be a you know, see, you know planting buffer required along here to sort of clearly Do they intend to dedicate the roads they would be designed to town specifications so they could So it is located within a water district extension They have not engaged with the water district yet before they do that They really need to understand how the subdivision is going to be laid out before they can go and get a map and plan done You might know this There is a main on Peconic Bay Boulevard Yeah, yeah, I just don't know what it will take, you know, I don't know anything about pressure anything like that, so that's some consult but I think what we have, you know, I Think again if the I think the water authorities and the health department So if sketch 3 was Plus, you know if they reduce the footprint of the development got it to 70 I think that's a viable option for the board to consider

I mean, they're gonna yeah, they probably would get down under 20,000 But I mean again, that's still a half acre lot. I mean, that's a still a pretty decent sized piece of property Greg on a large subdivision like this Are they required to do any affordable housing? So the Workforce Housing Act would come into play the Long Island Workforce Housing Act the way it's written in our code is based off your yield map, so if we Accept that 35 lot yield map the way the codes written if the developer comes in with a reduced yield so for example If they came in with a 34 lot subdivisions, they are out. They are basically out They do not have to provide workforce housing on-site. That's the way they wrote it I know it seems and that's so that's the way that's the way the state law was written to Reduced yield is reduced yield, but they don't have any definition. So it's That said if you if they came in and did a like a full full build out They would get a 10% density bonus that could either be the way the car codes written Could either be provided on-site Could be provided off-site or they get a payment in lieu of But we would get to addressing the Workforce Housing Act once we approve a yield and get to a sketch plan So for the board to get the applicant I think we do have two plans that the board could consider as long as we get to the 70% And then the board just really has to you know, wait this project is as of right I'm sorry, it's just required No variances. It's all just based on as of right. It is a residential zone It is an act agricultural production, but it is a residence zone

Any information that the board would charge any any any any information or anything that I could give the board There's no I think we're gonna any question for your great. So I think something like this I'm gonna go on the south side Southside you but you got that R40 Well, yeah, so yeah the split zone and they did take that into account on the yield map as you recall the six lots that front along Pecan Bay Boulevard were at the 40,000 square feet, so I think The direction would be something like this with a buffer Again, very important for both maps 70% preservation And then I think the board can then select its preferred preferred map Okay, let's see what comes in. Okay All right, thanks a lot. Thanks for being good my senior All right, it was time we'll take the comments on resolutions

The resolutions

First resolution I got 2005 the Agenda is correct. I do apologize. So the agenda is correct Resolution 2024 06 is the resolution of a seven correct. The agenda is correct Okay, no public comments, let's move forward with their resolutions I'll move resolution 2024 0 0 5 for 740 main road professional as an amendment to the previously approved Siding lighting plan so I moved in second Alright moved in second. Let's go to a vote Mister Zelnicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. De Niro. Hi, mr. Bear. Yes, and I vote aye motion passes

I moved twenty twenty four zero zero six thirteen. Oh nine years yourself. Sorry I'm sorry. Yeah, we're going we're going off the agenda. Oh Mine says six two one says six the agenda. Yeah. Yes. Yes. I said six I got lucky I got lucky. Yeah, you got the good one. What did you ask for? Six. Six, seven, eight. One, two, six, two, seven, eight. Six, seven, eight. Okay.

Okay. So, I'll move 2024-007. I'll second it. Okay, we've got a motion in. By the way, let me finish it. Discussion. Go ahead, Joe. We're going to schedule a public hearing for a site plan. Application. So moved. Second. Did you have a discussion, Joe? Yeah. I just wanted to know on the resolution 007, has there been a secret? Yes, we did. We wrapped secret up, I believe, in November. Either October or November. I know, the reason I know that is because the ZBA would not have been able to act. Right. So, I'm going to move it. Yes, we did. How about the same thing with eight? Yeah, Marist Farm is a type two. There's no secret involved. It's a type two action. All right, so resolution seven has been moved and seconded. Let's go to a vote. Mr. Zornicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nannaro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. Can I vote aye? The motion carries. I'll move resolution number 2024-008, scheduling public. Second. Moved and seconded. May we have a vote, please? Mr. Zornicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nannaro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. At this time, we'd like to open it up for public comment on any matter. All right, can we get somebody to move the minutes? All right, Mr. Zornicki? Yes. All right, Mr. Zornicki? Yes. All right, Mr. Zornicki? to December 21st? I move the minutes of December 21st, 2023. I'll second. Moved and seconded. May we have a vote? Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nannero? Aye. Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The vote carries. Any other business? 2004.

What is it? 2004. I saw that. Okay, no other business? Any discussion items, gentlemen? No. We have a motion to close. Motion. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everybody. Our next meeting is February 1st at 6 o'clock. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Yeah, I did get a question. Did I quote the chairwoman? Yes.