Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. sidewalks into the design okay uh site plan dark sky compliant yes sir anybody from the public

he took all my thunder okay i move we close the public hearing from anyone

richard it's a public hearing so you have to state your name for the record uh good afternoon my name is richard israel of richmond realty corp and i represent 27 waves llc as an owner and a consultant for its partners i have submitted to the staff the affidavit of posting and mailing for this hearing our company has developed eight out of the ten lots of this commercial subdivision originally known as warsaw park and is currently known as riverhead commerce park we have purchased the last remaining vacant lot and are proposing to build an 8 775 square foot office building meeting the code for medical occupancy the building has been designed generally to match the existing seven other buildings that we've built this year the park the building frontage on commerce drive which is a public road has the availability of public utility utilities including public water and sewer the intersection of commerce drive and old country road is governed by a traffic light the county dot has requested that we restripe commerce drive at this intersection to create a right-hand turning lane to help the flow of track it traffic and we've agreed to do that and we're going to be doing that in the next few weeks and we're going to be doing that in the next few weeks and we're going to be doing that in the next few weeks and the staff has requested the concept of a cross easement from the adjacent property for our west i'm not a fan of this as it will reduce the parking which will exist on our property and implies that people from the adjacent property have the right to park on our property i would like the board to consider excusing this easement of a cross easement to make it appropriate to the west property um if you know the west property it was an industrial property it's been converted into retail and it doesn't have a lot of parking per se for the public on its front its uses are limited so it it's been working you know it doesn't overflow or this or that um so that was the one question and the other question was the sidewalks it's been 25 years since the I've started building in there and no site plan prior to this has ever asked for sidewalks or required it. Most of the traffic into this park, most of the buildings are medical and the like. Most people travel by car back and forth. The little bit of pedestrian traffic that exists is maybe an employee walking over to Panera Bread for lunch. Panera Bread itself does not have a sidewalk that leads from Route 58. So we're basically going to be building a sidewalk to nowhere because whatever. So I can't tell you the reason why we originally never put in sidewalks or the like, but again, we don't find people walking down this street. Most people do come by car. And that's been pretty much the traffic pattern in there. I've always followed your guys' rules and regs. If it's something that you guys want, of course you can have it. It's just going to kind of look very silly that all the other lawns make it to the curb and the plantings and everything else that we have in there. You know, we try to keep the park as pretty as possible. We always are replacing. Parking lots and landscaping and everything else to keep it nice. To answer Joe's question, that row of Arborvitaes was planted as part of the Panera site plan. And we've tried to melt into that with our site plan. So those are my two questions, which obviously staff has brought up. Rich, the question on the cross easement is not so much for parking. But because of the traffic on 58, if they could at least come out to Commerce Drive, there's a light. There's no light where the commercial place is. Very tough to make a left. You can make a right. So in other words, if they cross easement to go through your property, get on Commerce Drive, you now have a light. Right. That would be the biggest. I do understand the concept of cross easement. Maybe here, maybe we can do it as... A one-way. That maybe I would only lose one spot. Because we're really only trying to direct traffic that will want to go east on 58. Exactly. And possibly if we locate it somewhere, we may only lose one spot that's 10 feet wide. Maybe we can figure that a one-way would take up 12 feet. So if we put it on one of the ends of the curves. The. The other thing you have to look at when you look at this site to the next door neighbor, their building, basically, it's the side yard of their building where this building is. Panera basically uses up their, we'll call it their front lot or where their parking exists. So a person would actually have to pull north to the side of the building to then make a right-hand turn onto our property and then out. But. I was thinking about it that maybe if the easement was a one-way easement, which directs people to go eastbound on 58 to go to the light, maybe that's something. You got to remember that medical and it even shows in your code. They are the most intense use for parking. You know, people come, they stay sometimes, you know, whatever. So we believe that. We. Have. We have. We have to create as much parking as we physically can. So as you try to steal one, two, possibly three spaces, it does affect the people utilizing the building. And, you know, so those are my concerns as an owner, as an operator, to keep everybody happy. So. We can gladly discuss it, figure it out, and the like. Whether these easements ever get opened is a whole other issue. Right. You know, depending. Depending on changes of uses and things of the future, which is all these things are directed. Understood. Thank you. All right. Any other speakers? I have another question. It just came up. Greg. Yes. On Panera's lot, the south side, is that curb? Meaning Panera's frontage on 58? On Route 58, yes. Yeah. I mean, there's curbing and sidewalks on the 58 frontage. Again, to Mr. Rizzo's point, I can't explain why none of the other sites had sidewalks. I understand it may not be pedestrian friendly, but, I mean, I'll defer to the board. Regarding the one-way cross-access, I mean, as I detailed in my report, that was really the concern is that people coming from that commercial shopping center have no signal. So if they are going eastbound on 58, you know, you're essentially crossing over three or four lanes. There's a traffic to try to make a left. So I would have no objection to a one-way cross-access from that commercial site. That way it's not a lot of back and forth, but at least that would allow someone to access a light. The parking lot could be easily signed with, you know, parking for medical office tenants only. I would have no objection to that one-way just to allow it. This is really our last opportunity to allow for that cross-access, so I would have no objection to that. Compromise. Yeah. Thank you, Greg. Gentlemen, anything else? Move the public hearing. We'll move we close the public hearing. I'll second it. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenaro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. Moving on. Another public hearing. So speakers would recommend that you give state your name and address. Project 58. Restaurant conversion. Public hearing. With Heather. Good afternoon, members of the board. For the record, Heather Trojanowski, planner for the town of Riverhead. This is a public hearing for a site plan application entitled Project 58. Restaurant conversion. It's a site plan application seeking approval to convert an existing vacant 5,233 square foot building into a restaurant with 56 seats. Along with site improvements including facade changes. Upgraded site lighting and landscaping. Restriping. Grease trap installation. And seven new parking stalls. On a parcel of land located at 1199 Old Country Road in Riverhead. Within the business center zoning use district. And I will note for the board that we received the affidavit of posting and mailing. The mailing receipts and pictures of the posters on the property. So I'll hand it off to the applicant and their representatives. If the board has any questions. Thank you. Good afternoon. Charles Cuddy for the applicant. Mr. Astor is also here. He's the owner of this property. Heather has prepared a significant report that I think is part of your papers that you have in front of you. Yes. Just to recap. We had discussed the staff report and the site plan at the September 19th meeting. I had an approval resolution on which was subsequently tabled. And we moved a resolution to schedule this public hearing. And I think that covers in great detail all of the elements of this application. I would like to say that the Department of Public Works responded. And the engineer for this project is taking care of their concerns. Which basically had to do with ADA parking and ADA handicap ramps. And we're going to take care of that. I think that at this point in time, if there are any questions, both of us are here to answer them. But I think it's been covered, as I say, with our report. I have no questions. Gentlemen, anybody? Just the fence that's along the east side of the building. Is that your fence? With the bomb wire? Yeah. [transcription gap] Yeah. [transcription gap] This is a public hearing. You have to say it on the record.

Yeah. Hi. The owner's name is Tony Asta. We haven't really figured out if that's our fence or the Fortunoff property's fence. I mean, if it's mine, yeah. So we'll take out the bomb wire. I don't think it's a jail. Right. Because you have the one tree right in the middle of it. We're going to remove that when we do the prepave, move the tree for sure, because that is on my property. The fence, we don't know yet. So once we figure that out, if it's theirs, I can't touch it, obviously. If it's ours, then we'll give it a barbed wire. And you're taking away that small part of the building in the back? Correct. That thing only houses an oil tank. They used to heat with oil. The heat and oil and the meters around it? Well, we're going to have to move those to the, close to, I guess, Harrison Avenue. You know, the nutrition said they're not a problem. And you're going to natural gas instead of the fuel? Correct.

Anybody? Anybody from the audience like to comment? We've got a motion, gentlemen? I will close the public hearing for Project 58. So moved. Moved and seconded. Gentlemen, may we have a vote? Mr. Zelnicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nannaro. Yes. Mr. Bair. Yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries.

All right. Moving on to discussion items. Heather, we need you up again. Kent Animal Shelter Site Plan Amendment. Do we have anyone here for Kent?

I will try to be brief with this. As the majority of the board is aware, Kent Animal Shelter received final site plan approval for a site plan application proposing to demolish and reconstruct two of the buildings on the site along with site improvements back in September of 2023 by resolution number 2023-080. Since then, some changes have occurred. Kent was unable to fully reconstruct the kennel building, so they are doing renovations to the building. They also are no longer safe. They are no longer able to return the house. [transcription gap] So they have to do an on-site hydrant. And because of that, some of the utility locations and the water lines had to change. Between the fire marshal, the water district, the applicant's design professionals, the plan that you have before you today satisfies fire code requirements, water district requirements. So with that, I have an approval resolution on to amend the existing site plan subject to a few conditions. The water district superintendent did ask that an RPZ either be confirmed or installed on the cat cottage. That's on the eastern, the building on the eastern side of the property. It's not being renovated as part of this site plan application, but he wants to ensure that there's backflow prevention there. In addition, the architectural review board did review the revised elevations. They're actually as-built because during the time of when the initial site plan was approved, building permits were issued. And again, we've been going back and forth for a few months trying to satisfy the conditions, you know, to make the site as safe and efficient as possible. The construction continued, so the elevations did change. The architectural review board had asked that there be an overhang or some sort of designation for the entryway to the kennel building. I'm comfortable with them making that recommendation. They do have a meeting next week, a surrealist. We would want the applicant design professional to bring the revisions back to the board. The planning board's approval would be subject to that. In addition to anything that the water district needs in terms of applicable fees, letter of water availability, and they have to update their fire marshal and building permits to reflect these up-to-date site plans that will be signed by the planning board chair. Other than that, all of the original conditions and restrictions in resolution 2022, the construction of the building, the construction of the building, and the construction of the building, would remain in full force in effect. So this is just to get them up-to-date in terms of planning, site plan approval, and let them continue with their construction. Okay. Any questions? Quick question. Why did they discontinue the sprinkler use? I don't know, to be honest, without representation here. I don't know if it was an issue of funding, if they couldn't, you know, complete the entire demolition and reconstruction. You know, because they were originally sprinkling the building, they didn't have to have a private hydrant on site. The alternative, if you don't sprinkle their building, is to have a private hydrant within a certain distance pursuant to fire code. I don't know if that's a cheaper option for them or what the exact reasoning was, but they decided to do a significant renovation rather than a total demo and rebuild of the kennel building. Heather, is all your changes, are they all part of the amendment? Yes. So the plans that you have before you reflect the new hydrant location, any utilities that needed to be moved, the only things, it's the elevations that would need to be reviewed and approved by the Architecture Review Board, and the confirmation that there's an RPZ either already at the Cat Cottage building or needs to be installed. And Arthur Rast, who works for Marty Zalewski's office, he's been working with Frank Mancini, and they're, you know, on the same page as far as what's needed for that. The plan shows a significant amount of... sewage work. Yes, so they're installing, as part of the original site plan approval, they're doing a large amount of sanitary work, because for the kennel you need to have separate sanitary systems for human versus animal waste. That was all part of the initial approval. I think because they had to put the on-site hydrant, some of those lines may have changed, but the Health Department update approval is on your site plans that you have. Yeah. And in addition, all of the drainage work that was proposed as a part of the original plan, that's not changing. They have to do a significant amount of work. I'm just wondering whether... is the site going to continue to operate or are they going to have to close? They've been operating, and that's one of the things... I know a lot of the animals that were housed in the kennel are being temporarily relocated right now, but there are people on site. I know the gentleman who's doing the work on all of the drainage infrastructure has said that it's, you know, in order to keep it safe, he's doing it a little bit at a time. Which has resulted in, you know, numerous inspection requests, but he's, you know, doing it per the approved plans. And again, little by little, as opposed to having to shut the whole thing down. Because they do have the veterinary clinic there that's still in operation. Again, the cat cottage is not being touched, and they have other, you know, the cat retirement home where they have older animals that can't really be rehoused. So, you know, they're trying to make it work as best as they can and as safe as they can. Okay. And I... Joe, there really... There's a lot of work being done there, and only a little bit at a time, because there are people walking around, and workers, and people that are attending the shelter. And the gentleman's doing a tremendous job, doing a great job, you know, with the trees and the five houses that are there. It's not an easy... Yeah. So, I mean, in terms of the site changes, I mean, they are... They had to come back for an amended site plan, but, you know, it wasn't easy. I mean, they've done a significant deviation, so no public hearing necessary. I have the resolution on to approve it subject to the conditions that we spoke about, and the ARB meeting is next week, so hopefully they'll get that taken care of, and they can get everything up to date and hopefully not change it again. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you, Janet. Let's go on to discussion item number two, TGOC Real Estate Holdings, LLC, with Greg.

Thank you. So this is just an update on the secret status for a proposed development out in Calverton. It is between J&R's Steakhouse and Miloski's Poultry Farm. As the Board will recall, this is a two-part application. There is a major subdivision application as well as a site plan that proposed to develop a currently vacant 15.8 parcel of land, which would result in seven new residential, single-family residential, lots, creation of a stormwater management parcel, an onsite sewage treatment plant, as well as a mixed-use parcel, which would be developed with approximately 30,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 36 one-bedroom apartments on the upper floors. The Board classified it as a Type I action-initiated coordinated review. We've since received comments back from involved agencies. The next step is a determination of significance. So the resolution that's before us. The resolution that's before the Board currently, which includes the Part II and the Part III of the full environmental assessment form, for this Board would assume lead agency and issue a positive declaration requiring the formal preparation of an environmental impact statement. I'll just go over very briefly. I did post the Part II and the Part III on the website yesterday, but just for any members of the public who wish to see the video at a later date, I'll just briefly go over the Part III, which is the evaluation and magnitude of the project. The ! ! ! ! ! !

of section 7 for the full EIF impacts on plants and animals the site is identified as potentially containing habitat conducive to the northern long-eared bat tiger salamander coastal Barrens buck moth again this is just based on the full EIF part 1 which is populated by the EIF mapping tool and it may result in the elimination of said habitats and would ultimately result in the removal of approximately of 14 acres removal of 14 acres of wooded forest and lands section 10 of the EIF impact on historic and archaeological resources the project site is located within potentially archaeologically sensitive area consultations with the New York State Office of Parks recreation and historic preservation are being undertaken and a phase 1a and 1b archaeological surveys have been recommended by SHPO and then section 13 impact on transportation the proposed development based on the size and the uses has potential for significant impacts to existing traffic patterns along middle country road based on trip generation and potential conflicts with existing traffic levels and patterns so for those reasons we're recommending a POSDEC which would require again formal EIS process the next step in the secret process would be for the applicant to prepare a draft scope we would then hold a scoping on that document at the board's discretion there can either be a public meeting for that or a public meeting for the public meeting for the public or that can be done by written comment I leave that to the board's discretion I think we're gonna probably sure I'm speaking for myself but these fellows may agree that we'll have a public all right public scoping because it's a big project all right a sensitive area yes all right so beyond that pretty straightforward resolution next step in the process nothing we have not seen before they still under work stop order so I did be I have gotten a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a you brought to my attention that there was some work out there I want to stop short of saying they were clear and they were removing some scrub brush in order to conduct the phase 1a and 1b archaeological surveys SHPO has certain requirements in terms of where they need to start digging test pits so they are preparing a map there is an exemption in our code that allows for limited clearing we understand that in order to analyze and develop these types of projects they need to be able to get the ! to access the site they may need to do test holes they may need to do these archaeological surveys they can access it now that's for sure I mean previously they would have no access to that site I tried tried to walk through there when I did my initial site assessment very thick brush really was not lending itself to do any of these required analyses in order to understand potential impacts so they will be providing a plan identifying the limited areas that were cleared and it would just be for the conduction of that the phase 1a and 1b surveys anybody nope that's enough thank you sir okay public comments on all resolutions anybody you have one more discussion no do you I don't yeah the amendment that we added 408 middle road change did I get that that's the one I gave you okay okay so I'm going to go to the third discussion item which is 408 middle road zone change application good Greg all right thank you so this was a change of zone application that was submitted for a piece of property located on the north side of middle road located at 408 middle road it's currently located within the retirement community the RC zoning district zoning use district the applicant is seeking a change of zone to residents a 40 now a change of zone application is a action of the town board town code requires a referral and a recommendation of the planning board the long and short of it is that the entire block of properties on the north side of middle road in this area are all zone retirement community sort of the result of painting kind of a broad stroke when a point of point of stroke when creating zoning maps. Maybe there was some thought initially that this site may have been picked up by one of those developments and incorporated into a retirement community. That's never happened. So I did discuss this with the town board this morning at a work session. The property is improved with a one-story single family residence with a basement as well as a detached accessory structure, which was previously a garage. The property owner did some illegal improvements to that detached structure and created two accessory apartments. They're currently in justice court facing those violations. They made an application to the building department to create one legal accessory apartment, but based on our current code for the accessory apartments, accessory apartments are not permitted in the retirement community zoning district. So they're seeking a change of zone to residence A40. It would not result in any change to the character of the area. It would not result in a change to the character of the area. It would not result in a change to the character of the area. The property is still in the existing development, aside from the proposed improvements to the detached garage. All of the properties to the east are all zone residence A40. Direct on the south side of Middle Road, it's all residence A40. So it's not something that would be at all out of character with the area. It really would allow the building department, if the town board grants a change of zone, would allow the building department to actually issue a permit for one legal accessory apartment that complies with the law. So that's something that we're looking at right now. so that's something that we're looking at right now. would allow for inspections to ensure safety and conformance with the town code. So this morning, the town board generally seemed supportive of the change of zone. They wanted them to get through justice court and clear up those existing violations before they took any formal action. But we're just here as a requirement of the code to refer the application to the planning board. If the board has any comments, concerns, recommendations, we would then transmit them back to the town board for their consideration. And we'll have to wait. For a while until we see an actual resolution for us to do. So what I would recommend, if you have concerns, comments, questions, let me know. And what I can do is I can, for the next meeting, I can prepare a resolution that sort of summarizes the planning board's position on it that would then transmit that recommendation to the town board. This is honestly the first change of zone application that I've worked on since I've been, you know, a little plus, a little over eight years. We typically don't entertain them because a lot of times they're not going to be able to do it. But we do have a lot of time to do it. And a lot of times people will come to the counter and they obviously want to change the zone to intensify the use. This is actually accomplishing the opposite. It's sort of reducing in intensity. Which comes first? In other words, the town board still has to act. So the planning board, we will, the town board wanted justice court to be cleared up before they take any formal action. In the meantime, the board, if I could get your recommendations, general support, comments, we can adopt a plan. So the planning board resolution to transmit those recommendations back to the town board, which they would ultimately consider prior to taking any action. Okay. Yeah. Certainly would like to see it legalized for sure. So Greg, all you want, all they want to do is go back to R40. So they want to, they want to convert it to residence A40, which is a one acre residential zone. Is that, is that what it was before the, the adult community came in? I have, I'd have to. I'd have to double check the, the old zoning maps. It, I, I, I don't want to misspeak, so I'm not sure. I mean, I'm sure it was a residential zone. Right, right. But you know, the, the town had half acre and one acre zoning, so I don't know off the top of my head what the old zoning was. So is it, is it fair to say the planning board generally supports the change of zone? Yeah. I mean, we can keep it pretty, pretty narrowly tailored to that. Everything else in that area is that, yeah, so it was. Yeah. I mean, you know, the, the. The, the property owner directly to the east with a single family residence could create an accessory apartment, but based on the zoning, this property owner could. So if the general sentiment of the board is for support for the change of zone, I can just draft up a very quick resolution. And transmit that to the town board. Okay. Thank you. Good. Okay. Now we're going to go to public comments on resolutions. Anybody? I don't stand up for one. Okay. Let's do resolutions, gentlemen. I'll move resolution number 77, assumes lead agency and adopts the negative declaration on site plan for Riverhead Mazda. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I'll move resolution 78 for Riverhead Mazda to schedule a public hearing for the site plan application. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move resolution number 2024-79, Delalio Sod Farm LLC, minor subdivision resolution granting an extension of minor subdivision approval for the subdivision application entitled Delalio Sod Farm LLC. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Resolution 2024-79. Resolution 2024-80, Kent Animal Shelter Site Plan Amendment, resulting granted approval for the amendment site plan application of Kent Animal Shelter, previously approved by resolution 2023-80, dated September 21, 2023. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Second. Moved and seconded. Resolution 2024-081, TJOC Real Estate Holding, to assume the lead agency status and issue a positive deck. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Okay. I'll move resolution number 82, grants approval of the minor subdivision entitled Manor Lane Subdivision. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move resolution number 2024-083, JETS 139, LLC, minor subdivision resolution granting approval for a minor subdivision application entitled JETS 139, LLC. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Yes. Mr. Baer. Yes. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Yes. Mr. Baer. Yes. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Before we go into public comments, I'd like somebody to make a motion to take resolution number 72 off the table, which grants administrative appeal for project 58, the old mattress store. I'll make a motion. Second. Move it. Moved and seconded to take it off the table. Mr. Zornicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. All right. Next on the table, can we get somebody to move resolution number 72? Before we vote on it, I just wanted to say if we could adopt as amended. So I'd like to strike the fifth whereas on page two, where it said that we waived the public hearing requirement. Since we had the public hearing, that would be taken out. Okay. And then we would add the planning board scheduled a public hearing on the site plan application. By resolution number 2024-073, dated September 19th, 2024. And then whereas a public hearing on the site plan application was held and closed on October 17th, 2024. And then I would like to add one condition to the plan revisions and 5B of conditions. So it would be number five, changes required by Suffolk County Department of Public Works letter dated September 23rd, 2024. Which might be the most important. And then I would like to ask Mr. Cuddy to discuss their working on it already. So if we could adopt as amended. Okay. I'll move 72 as amended. Okay. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenaro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. Can I vote aye? And the motion carries. Thank you, Heather. Good luck to you, my friend. Thank you very much. I'll move the minutes of sub- Hold on, George. Public comments on all matters. Okay, George. Okay, George. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll move the minutes of September 19th, 2024. I'll move. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I'll move resolution. I'll move. I'm sorry. I'll move the minutes of October 3rd, 2024. I'll second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Staff, any other business? No. Okay. Thank you. [transcription gap] Any other business? Okay. Okay. Good job. Again as usual. Correspondence? Any correspondence? No hate mail? Good. Not today. Not today. Good. Our next meeting date is Thursday, November 7th at 6 o'clock. Have a great week, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Enjoy your vacation. Yeah. Thank you. Do you want me to close? No. I'll be back. Aye. Aye. Motion to close. Motion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All in favor? Thank you.