Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you, Matt. Would anybody like to speak? We do have the applicant here, Paul Pulaski, if the board has any questions. Come on up. Sure.

How are you? Paul Pulaski, owner of 1107 Old Country Road, and happy to answer any questions. Any questions you may have? I'm familiar with it. I really don't have any questions, but I would like to congratulate you on the fine job that you did on that project. It really made a big difference. Thank you. Appreciate that. Board, any questions? No. I just have to second that also, Paul. I've driven past there at least ten times, gone in the back, and I know what your plans now will be just as good. Yeah, no, we look forward to it. Planning has helped us a lot during this process of the renovation and also hopefully this proposed addition to the back of the property. Now it's going to be pretty much the same color? Everything will mirror the front building. Front building. That elevation kind of mirrors the back of the current building. It's just a smaller version. So I met with ARB, and we're basically going to match the front building. Okay. The rear of the existing is nicer looking than the roadside. We only could do so much because it was a cinder block building. But so, yes, that is the goal to match it. And, you know, even though the tenants that are there are happy, the new tenants coming in are happy, and it's just a better, even the cross-connect has worked out pretty well. Any zoomers? No one with their hand raised. Okay. Anybody else for the general public? Gentleman, could we get a motion? Go ahead. Close. Move to close the public hearing. Second. Thanks. Have a good night. Thank you. Good luck. Close and second. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nannaro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote aye. The meeting is closed. Public hearing is closed. Public hearing number two, Lism Associates, LLC, with Greg.

Thank you. For the record, Greg Bergman, senior planner with the Riverhead Planning Department. What we have is a two-lot minor subdivision application, which is seeking approval to subdivide an existing vacant 111.38-acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Middle Country Road and Fresh Pond Avenue in Calverton. The proposed minor subdivision, and I'll say this, is a two-lot minor subdivision. The proposed minor subdivision is a two-lot minor subdivision. The proposed minor subdivision is a two-lot minor subdivision. The property seeks to create two lots, one being 14.554 acres, the other being 96.831 acres. The property is currently split-zoned. The southernmost portion of the property, the front side of Middle Country Road, approximately 500 feet deep, is located within the Rural Corridor Zoning Use District, or the RLC Zoning Use District, with the remainder of the property being located in the Agricultural Protection Zone, or APZ Zoning Use District. The applicant is a senior planner with the Riverhead Planning Department, and is essentially looking to subdivide the property roughly along that zoning district boundary line to sort of separate the, I don't want to call it a commercial zoning district, but the RLC Zoning District from the APZ portion. They are proposing that 30-foot, they are proposing the subdivision boundary just 30 feet north of that existing zoning district boundary line that would allow basically the less restrictive zone to utilize 30 feet into the more restrictive zone. So, that's the proposed minor subdivision. The RLC Zoning District would be the less restrictive zone. From a planning point, that makes sense. There is currently no development applications pending on the subject property. So, the subdivision line is not the same as the zoning line? No, it's just 30 feet north of that zoning district line, but there is a provision in the code which, again, allows a less restrictive zone, which in this case, the RLC Zoning District would be the less restrictive zone. You can essentially utilize 30 feet of the property in the more restrictive zone. You can essentially utilize that under the RLC Zoning. So, just from a land use perspective, it would make sense to have that zoning district boundary line, you know, the 30-foot north, it would make sense. Thank you. We do have Chris Kent, the attorney for the applicant here. If the board has any questions, I believe he may have a presentation for you if you want. Thank you, Greg. Thank you. [transcription gap] One's for Danielle and one's for you. Thank you. I just have a very brief presentation. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Christopher Kent. I'm a partner of Farrell Fritz, 100 Motor Parkway, Suite 300, Hoppog, New York, 11788. I hand up the books so that you can take a look. First of all, I wanted to state that I am a member of the board. I am a member of the board. [transcription gap] 111.38 acre split zone parcel to be divided along the zoning district boundary line. The parcel is located at the northeast corner of Middle Country Road and Fresh Pond Avenue in Calverton. It has 1,192 feet of frontage on the north side of Middle Country Road and runs north from Middle Country Road approximately 4,177 feet along the east side of Fresh Pond Avenue and it's designated as Suffolk County tax map number of 0600 section 98 block 1 lot 1.1. The proposed minor subdivision will create a 14.55 acre lot zoned RLC that fronts on Middle Country Road and a 96.83 acre lot located in the APZ Agricultural Protection Zone District that fronts on Fresh Pond Avenue. If you take a look in the booklet that I handed out exhibit 1 helps you locate help 1, 2, and 3 all help you locate the property that's on the north side of Middle Country Road. It's directly across from Calverton Industries property and the recently constructed tractor supply company store. It's just east of J&R Steakhouse and the Bean and Bagel Cafe. If you take a look at exhibit 4 that includes photos with visual of the property as you travel east on the Middle Country Road. A view of the surrounding properties to the south across Middle Country Road as you travel north on Fresh Pond Avenue you'll see the property is to the right and as you travel west on Middle Country Road towards Molesky Farm you can see the those are the surrounding that's the surrounding area. Exhibit 5 includes the two sheets that comprise the proposed two lot minor subdivision. It depicts lot 1. which is the 14.5540 acre RLC parcel and lot 2 which is the 98.8315 APZ parcel. Tom Wolpert from Young Associates is also here. He prepared the he's the engineer on the project. He prepared the application to the town and also the application to the Health Department which is pending approval only for the only thing left is a secret determination. from this board. So if there any questions from the board. Chris we did not do secret yet? Would you did a coordinated review but you haven't adopted a determination yet. Chris can can lot 1 be subdivided again? If it could be it could be subdivided again but right now it's in front of the board again. Yeah we have to come back to the board. just doing a land division along the zoning to create two lots. We're not looking to subdivide it any further. Both of these Lots are oversized for this zoning district. Are there any plans to do something with the backlog? There are no plans to do anything for the backlog. In fact the county has expressed interest in preserving it. All right. Thank you Mr. Kent. Anybody for abges? I'll head over to Judge the zoning to create two lots that's we're not looking to subdivide it any further both of these lots are oversized for the zoning district there any plans to do something with the backlog there are no plans to do anything for the backlog in fact the county has expressed interest in preserving it all right Thank You mr. Kent anybody from the audience anybody on June yes what was that I missed that I'm sorry okay hello hi are you acknowledging me yes we hear you now hello Hi there. Thanks very much. Kathy Turchin with Greater Calvary Civic Association. Just to your point, it looks like Suffolk County is interested in the 111-acre parcel. There are grants secured, according to the Pine Barren Society and John Turner, to acquire the entire parcel. So that's just a little bit misleading that they're just interested in the north parcel. And also, I'm not sure if it's been said yet. I missed the first couple of seconds of this meeting. From the December 11th Board of Education for the Riverhead Charter School minutes, they have a contract to purchase, and they've hired an attorney. So they are very interested in this front parcel, and I wonder if that's the design. And if that could be admitted into the record, please. I don't believe there's anything in Town Hall from the charter school. Is that correct, Greg? That's correct. Okay, so that might be coming down in the future, but as of this moment, there is nothing from the charter school here. Okay, so from their December minutes, they have a motion that they approve the motion to accept and approve the purchase of the 14.54 or 73 acres located... Well, there? Yeah. Okay, so I could submit that to you if that's going to help. Sure. If that's acceptable. Okay. Just so you know, there's interest. This is, you know, the subdivision isn't being done just randomly, right? There's a purpose.

Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with the planning board. We don't decide what people use it properly. I just wanted to point it out there because, you know, it's a very big purpose, and it has quite a big... I think it's a big impact, and I think that people paying attention to the planning board and this public hearing would want to know about that versus it just being this bland subdivision for some unknown reason for the future. It is important that that information gets shared. Okay, so noted. Thank you. Thank you. That's it? Yep. Okay, have a good night. You too. Any other Zoomers on there? No one that has their hand raised. I asked if just, I can see if anyone else wants to... Okay, if anybody else wants... wants to participate in the public hearing, please raise your hand, and Heather will acknowledge you.

Mr. Kent, anything else? No, that's it. Staff, board? No, I'm good. I move. I move we close the hearing on Leeson Associates LLC. So moved. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The public hearing is closed. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have several discussion items tonight. Let's go into number one with Greg Berman, Summer Wind Farm Major Subdivision.

Here's the sketch. So just very briefly, this is a follow-up to our last discussion on the proposed major subdivision of Summer Wind Farm located at 200 Conakry Boulevard. The applicant, Vincent Calbosa, has prepared a revised sketch plan. He's calling it 3A. He's also prepared a safety analysis for sightline distance and traffic safety. I believe he has a presentation. I'm going to let him. So to present it to the board and take over from here. Thanks, Greg. Hello, sir. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Vincent Calbosa, and I'm here this evening on behalf of Reds Adventure. The applicant with an office located at 250 David Court in Calverton. The purpose of my presentation tonight is to discuss the sketch plans for our Summer Wind Farm Subdivision and give detailed overview on how the proposal has been refined. I'll head over to head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head was submitted on August 2nd of 2024 accompanied by a comprehensive subdivision package containing all of the documents necessary for the subdivision application. On February 6th of 2025 this board reviewed our yield plan submission and formally approved a maximum yield of 19 lots. Concurrently we had submitted three distinct sketch plans for the board's consideration. While the board did not select a specific plan at that hearing the feedback was that additional refinements were necessary to address certain concerns. It's important at this point to clarify the reason for the time period between the submission in August and the February 6th hearing. This interval was dedicated to conducting extensive environmental and archaeological studies to ensure a responsible well-documented and legally compliant approach to development. These efforts in ! Included a phase one and phase two environmental study. Both of which confirmed that the site is clean of any environmental concerns. Given that AkwaBog is considered an archaeological sensitive area. We undertook comprehensive archaeological studies including a phase one A, one B and phase two studies. These reports have been formally submitted to the New York State Historic Preservation In response to the feedback received in a subdivision memo dated October 14th of 24 from Vincent Gordiello, the consulting engineer with the Raina Group, Sketch Plan 3 was developed as an alternative to previous versions to ensure that concerns related to the access, safety, subdivision layout, and the preservation were fully addressed. Mr. Gordiello's memo specifically stated that while Sketch Plan 3 could be considered, the applicant's design professional must provide calculations verifying that a minimum of 70% of the prime agricultural soils within the RB80 zone portion of the site will be preserved. In response to this concern, Sketch Plan 3A in front of you now includes detailed calculations verifying that the preservation of prime agricultural soils meets or exceeds the 70% requirement within the RB80 district as well as across the entire subdivision. Additionally, Mr. Gordiello recommended that efforts be made to minimize the number of curb cuts along Peconic Bay Boulevard, particularly along its southerly portion. Specifically he suggested that vehicle access for Lot 15 could be proposed from the subdivision roadway rather than Peconic Bay Boulevard and that Lot 16 could share a common access point with Lots 1 through 4 to reduce the number of curb cuts. We have carefully evaluated these recommendations. In response, we fully support the recommendation to minimize curb cuts and are willing to eliminate and abandon the existing 16-foot right-of-way on the east side of the property. Lot 16 will now be accessed via the shared common driveway with Lots 1 through 4, thereby consolidating access and reducing curb cuts along Peconic Bay Boulevard. However, Lot 15 must retain its own separate access due to the separate ownership of the house and the barn. We have accordingly appreciated the clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear [transcription gap] clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear turnaround at the end of the proposed common driveway to meet fire code requirements and enhance emergency access and to optimize the lot layouts to improve the traffic circulation and ingress and egress efficiently. In response to certain concerns raised by Mr. Gordiello and members of the board at the February 6, 2025 hearing regarding the position of the common driveway on the southerly portion of the property, we engaged Barrett, Bonacci, and VanWheel, a highly regarded engineering firm, to conduct a comprehensive sightline analysis and intersecting sight distance reports. This study was undertaken to thoroughly evaluate the safety and feasibility of the proposed access location and to ensure that the driveway placement meets or exceeds all applicable safety standards. These reports were formally submitted to the board and confirmed the following. That the proposed access location meets or exceeds the required stopping distance known as SSD, or intersecting site distance ISD based on the AASHTO standards. AASHTO stands for the américan association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The methodology used in the analysis has been fully documented and submitted to provide the board with a clear understanding of the traffic engineering principles applied. As part of the findings, Barapanachi VanWiel recommended preserving a small sliver of land around the turn radius that would be protective from development and vegetation. This measure will increase the sight lines from both directions and exceeds the AASHTO safety standards for roadway visibility and stopping distances. These findings and recommendations underscore the comprehensive safety measures that have been incorporated into our Sketch Plan 3A. As previously stated, Sketch Plan 3A represents a deliberate and significant preservation effort, with over 70% of the property being permanently preserved rather than developed. This voluntary reduction in buildable lots demonstrates our commitment to a responsible and balanced approach to land use. In particular, our plan aligns with the Town's cluster subdivision objectives, which emphasize preserving the scenic vistas and maintaining the rural character of the area. Also, protecting prime agricultural soils, ensuring that productive land remains undisturbed, and minimizing the environmental and neighborhood impacts, which is striking a balance between necessary development and conservation. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this project also represents a $25 million investment into the Town of Riverhead and Aqabagh, generating significant economic benefits, including the creation of construction jobs, directly supporting local workers and businesses during the development and construction phases, the generation of new tax revenue, benefiting the Town, school district, and municipal services. Increased permit fees, inspection. And administrative revenue for the Town's building department. And also, long-term economic growth as new residents contribute to the local economy, businesses, and community service. This project is an investment not only in responsible development, but also in the long-term economic health and vitality of the Town of Riverhead. In conclusion, I'd just like to add that each of us has a responsibility to get this right. Historically, developers have approached projects like this seeking to maximize the density. And overdeveloped sensitive parcels. Often without regard to the long-term environmental infrastructure and community consequences. This is not the case here. We're here today to demonstrate that preservation and development can both happen in the Town of Riverhead. This project has been carefully designed to strike a delicate but necessary balance, ensuring that responsible land use planning serves both current residents and future generations. For these reasons, we respond. We respectfully request that the Board review and approve Sketch Plan 3 this evening to allow us to move forward to the next phase of engineering and permitting. And at this time, I'm available to answer any questions or concerns the Board may have. Thank you. Thank you. What was the date of this report? I don't see a date on it. It was October.

The site line analysis has been... Which report are you talking about? I'm sorry? Which report are you referring to? The site line analysis? Those reports were prepared in the month of February 2025. The difference between February and all summer in the site line is there's a lot of trees, bushes, shrubs, and all kinds of greenery that reduces visibility around corners and on that particular corner. Also, I have some drainage questions. You have four individual flag lots here. Is there drainage on them? Is everybody responsible for their own drainage? Because I know where that water is going to go. It's going to go right down on Peconic Bay Boulevard. The cutout where you cut the site line out on the corner, how are you going to make that blend into the landscape and also drain the water? So if I could address one question at a time? Sure. So with regards to the radius around the bend, the principles that were applied here, the methodology, was strictly site line distance. Distance from the intersection where the car stops at the common driveway and has to make a left-hand turn. Based on the speed of the roadway, it's a posted 20 mile an hour posted speedway. They apply a safety factor to that. So they use the 85 percentile to use the calculations and get a site line distance. So the blue lines and the red lines represent the 25 mile an hour. And the 30 mile an hour distances. Those are the requirements under the AASHTO standard. Now, the reason why we were thinking about the preservation of that area, because there is actually quite a difference in grade change between the property and Peconic Bay Boulevard. It's much higher. So where that sliver is positioned on that map, there really aren't a lot of trees in most of it right now. Most of it is cleared right now. Where you see the open space preservation in the back, that little triangle in the back, that's actually where the trees need to be cleared. I think, Greg, do you have the aerial view also? So there would be a permanent conservation easement placed on there that it couldn't be developed or planted. So in perpetuity, it would need to stay cleared. With regards to the drainage question. The drainage question you mentioned. We have not got into the engineering of the plan yet. This is purely planning from a site plan layout with regards to the lots. But from my past experience with these type of configurations, we contain all of the water on our property. So each of those lots, one through four, will have each have its own drainage system. And the common driveway will also have drains to capture the water. To prevent it from going out onto Peconic Bay Boulevard. So most likely, just looking at the plan, there will be a drain that would be at the entrance to the common driveway. That would stop the water from going out to Peconic Bay Boulevard. And then each of the homes would have its own drainage system. Mr. Chairman, I just have to make full disclosure. I met with Mr. Goodell about two weeks ago. Because he called and he said, I don't know if you know. Because he called and he was not able to attend the last meeting that we had. And I told him our concerns that were said at the meeting. That exit and entrance off the southern part onto the boulevard was just extremely dangerous at that particular point. And I told him that had he been able to use the entrance as far east as possible. Or to make another circular drive and going back to the boulevard off the other cul-de-sac. The problem I have with what you're saying is to remove the trees. It's not just the trees. It's the berm. The berm is, I've been there like two and a half, three times in the last several days. It's almost three and a half feet higher than the road. You would have to remove that also as a stop. Also as a sideline. Correct. That's correct. Who maintains it after you clear it? Most of it is in the town right of way. Believe it or not. Most of it is town right of way. We have to go a sliver onto our property to go beyond the AASHTO standard by a little bit to give it a safety factor. And now just bringing that private drive down to a level to get onto the boulevard. It has to be graded. A lot. Right. That's why drainage is necessary. And the problem I have is that rain is going to run from north to south and it's going to end up on the boulevard. But for the purpose of this hearing tonight, we're just trying to demonstrate the lot layouts. We have not got into the engineering yet. But there is talk about how to control water on site. From a global standpoint, the whole entire development needs to be handled. We have not gotten into that yet. We haven't spent any time doing that. We have been doing drainage calculations. Because if this plan was not to be approved, we're just going to be continuing designing. So. But my point is, on the town road that you have to the north, it all has to be curved. And collection of water goes into drains. But on the private road here, are there still going to be curves and drainage and everything and catch basins. There is catch basins and drainage on a private road. Yes. All right. But. And then the water goes into the recharge basin. Could you repeat that? Could you repeat that question? On the four lot, the minor subdivision, you're going to, they're just going to have their own individual basins? Every home will have its own individual basin. And the common driveway will also have a drainage system to capture the water before it goes out to Peconic Bay Boulevard. We'll capture our own water on site. That's the way we design sites, yes. And then the. The private drive goes all the way out to the buildable lot on 16? So that lot is also going to be preserved as open space. Right. Lot 16. And that's the area that's designated as the developable area. So a house, a barn in that area. Currently there's a 16 foot right of way that exists on the easterly portion or the bottom of that plan. That's a farm access road. That's in the title report and the deed. That we would be willing to give up because that actually has frontage to Peconic Bay Boulevard right now. That's access to that property. To eliminate that access, because that was originally in sketch plan three that was before this board as part of the yield plan. That was the access to lot 16. So we're giving up one access point and combining it onto the common drive and also creating the hammerhead territory. At the end to give access to fire trucks, garbage trucks to be able to turn and delivery trucks as well. So they don't have to back out. Just a quick question. Has this been discussed with the highway department as them maintaining it in such a way that it will give people visibility when they're coming around that bend? That they're going to be willing to do the proper maintenance on it? I believe the application has made its way around to all of the departments. And this was the. The letter that we received to respond to. This appears by looking at it quickly like it's almost two different site plans. The four lot flag lot looks entirely different than the with the town road, the proposed road and lots off that. I have a serious problem with four flag lots on that corner. I think there's going to be serious safety issues. There's going to be drainage issues. I think a better layout would be the one entrance exit on the north side of the property. This isn't working for me. This is no planning genius document right here. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 of these configurations that exist along Peconic Bay Boulevard. If you drive up and down Peconic Bay Boulevard. You'll see that these flag lot configurations exist. Many of them have flag lots. Four lots or better. None of them have curbs, sidewalks or any public infrastructure. They're all private driveways. They have signs out at the front that say do not enter. Private driveway. Right. Those lots probably had to have flag lots. This parcel doesn't need flag lots. It can all come off the northern road there. Just because there are flag lots around doesn't mean that we should continue to practice if it's bad planning. I don't want to take words out of Greg's mouth. It's just good planning or bad planning. I have my own opinion. I have a question with regards to the lots one through four. What is that dotted line there for you? What is that? Limit of disturbance. Are we talking about this line? Yeah. So this line when you have a preservation, you know, a preserved area, this would be the preservation area and this would be where you could construct a house. So the open space area would be about. So about half of that lot or even more can't be developed. Is that it? So you essentially have, you could put a house here. You could develop this with the residential property. There could be agricultural structures in this area because our. No, I'm talking about one through four. The line that you've actually. This line? Highlighted, yes. So that's just, I do apologize I didn't have the aerial, but this is the existing limit of the, you know, big tract of trees around that bend. So I just did that to sort of depict the site triangle that Mr. Talbosa is proposing. Right. It would appear that. In relation to that. That's not going to be developed. Correct. You can't put a swimming pool in there or anything like that. Correct. That is a limited disturbance of this entire tract with the exception of the area. So that's the one. [transcription gap] So that's the middle part. The middle part. [transcription gap] Unfortunately, I sort of agree with the Chairman. I'm not very happy with the way this is proposed. In fact, and I know this is your yield plan, that showed a great line, not including this, but you could run off here. We could absolutely do what's on that yield plan. There is no question about it. But if you saw that piece of property and you knew that you could have a goal in preserving a beautiful piece of property, that piece, lot 16, is going to be preserved. It's going to be farmed. Any other version of the plan, because I've been at this eight months now with the planning staff, any other version involves roads coming in with cul-de-sacs and it does not do the intent of preserving the property. That I can tell you. We've played with this, multiple versions of it, and this here accomplishes the goal of preserving the property. We've played with this, multiple versions of it, and this here accomplishes the goal of preserving the property. But also, if the concern was the safety, we've demonstrated that we can meet the concerns. I was tasked with concerns, and we've given a report that provides how we meet those concerns.

Other than that, it becomes a traditional subdivision with roads cutting through it, and we have all versions of that connecting to Sunup Trail, and it's not what we want to do. It's not. We're looking to preserve. We're looking to preserve this property. We went into this with the intention of a preservation plan. Like I said in my presentation, developers would come in here and look to go straight across the property with roads. We have a version of it. It's not what we want.

And Vinny, I can appreciate the open space. The land there, it is beautiful. But speaking from experience, there's been... A lot of other beautiful farmland that's been... You know, houses put on it also. My concern is strictly safety and the water runoff going north to south onto the boulevard. And I understand that you would cut down some trees. But my, you know, just my question is, who's going to maintain that corner? Is it... Are you putting the onus on the highway department now? And I just think there are... There still could be other alternatives with that setup. Well, again, just to speak to the point of the drainage, I mean, I was not tasked with creating an engineered drainage plan at this point. So, you know, that's really not fair to say that I can't deal or address the drainage just yet because I wasn't asked to. This is a sketch plan review, right? Beyond that, we were provided a set of comments from the town engineer who said his concerns or the town's consulting engineer. And we provided both the report with the calculations on what a federal standard is for highways and also the methodology on how it was done. And I don't think that that's being taken into account here because we've met the standard. Greg, did we get a... Did we get a follow-up? Because we did get a memo from Vinny. Did we get a follow-up? No, I did forward to this. I do expect a comment back. I just haven't received it yet. I forwarded this to Vinny. It was copied on the same email when you all received both the revised 3A plan as well as the supplemental methodology for the report. Anybody want to add anything else? Not at this time. I think we're done for the evening.

Not yet. Sure. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Moving on to discussion item number two, Gouda, LLC. Thank you.

Go on.

Yes. I don't know. They told us. [transcription gap] They told us. [transcription gap] All right. Sightseeing for Buddha LLC. This is 365 Harrison Avenue in Riverhead. If the board is familiar, parcel just to the east of Taco Bell, West Street and Walgreens. It's a small pie-shaped parcel right in the corner of kind of Route 58. About 13,600 square feet. We're looking to construct a 1,496-square-foot medical office building. Sorry, not medical office, just traditional office building with on-site parking related. Okay. Improvement. This is a Type 2 action pursuant to SICRA. Due to its size, it's under 4,000 square feet, so no further environmental review is required. Moving into the meats and potatoes of my staff report, page 2. Nice little area so everyone can get themselves familiar. Parcel is currently wooded. This is in a B.C. zone use district where office uses are allowed. In terms of conformance with the dimensional regulations of B.C., this plant does require variances. So if you see on this setback here, they're showing five feet from property line where 25 feet is required. And then also in terms of the buffering requirement, I'm going to move it over here. Point it where nobody can see it. Show a five-foot setback here. Twenty-five feet is required. The reason being so all the other yard setbacks are conforming except for this. This is the Taco Bell drive-through if everyone's familiar. So least impactful. Okay. All right. [transcription gap] All right. [transcription gap] From a setback point. And then also the buffering requirement. On 58 is 35 feet. They're asking 25 feet. So they'll need to go to the ZBA for those things. As part of the application. The applicant will also need to demonstrate conformance with the maximum FAR calculation for the code. It's 20%. They're just a little over. This past December we changed the definition of FAR in the town for commercial properties. Used to have a lot of exclusions. Now it is everything that's within your four. four walls so probably because he has a basement he's about 1.7 percent over there is a provision in the code that allows you to redeem development rights but due to the scale of this property and what they're building I can't see that anybody would sever the amount of rights that they would need it would be like a percentage of the percentage so small it's like less than 200 square feet although I'd love to see it happen it's not really realistic in terms of a landscaping plan it's pretty good that's on the second page just watch that a lot of good new plantings along the building and in the right of way here some good evidence being on this side this is pretty good now won't be with any more but there's a fence that separates the two dumpster is enclosed as required by the code the parking calculations right on the money only requires eight spaces what they do need to change is they show them as nine by twenty they have to be ten by twenty so that's a revision that needs to take place in the building and then the parking space is a little bit smaller so that's a little bit smaller so that's a little bit smaller so that's a little bit lighter so that's a little bit lighter so that's a little bit lighter so that's a little head head the one space pretty simple access to your enough room for that for a DA I think for the you know for the end by 20 I think so right there they're over landscape right now you can't really ever be over landscape like I said but they have their have an excess amount so they might have to eat in just some things around but they can make it up they only require one a DA space which they show here I'll actually have to get a little bit bigger also pretty easy access you so you're coming in from the northern part of Harrison and you're exiting on to the southern part very close to the light lighting plan conforms to the code everything's 3,000 Kelvin or less showing the conforming height it's going to be referred to the air be on the 26th of March tasteful elevation from what I can see either hardy plank or lap siding or or shape it's on the I think the second page of here it's in here you're welcome we don't need to take any action yeah this is just to get your case so you can see them in the busy day you can see first floor it's in two units now doesn't have to necessarily be two units and then baseball but this is what you'll see in 58 and this misses the east elevation last they all near each other pretty tasteful fire marshal had no comments health department has an existing application from 2015 calls number of applications on this property the last one that was here I think was for a fast-food restaurant Nathan's hot dogs to story didn't go through so this is a smaller scale project that's a little bit more reasonable waters on the road they need to just get approval from the water district and show what their their service town engineer had no comments by Marshall I think I said already no comments is it the sewer district it was in the sewer district we have a lot of people who are interested in the water district and they're interested in the and they're interested in the water district and they're interested in the system so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so nice okay the to the ZBA there's a walkway here on the south side right here yeah yep sidewalk and then this curb cut or is that part of this project right that's a direction that's a directional for the oh this right here is a directional I think this is probably the stop line or maybe it's a crosswalk that's crosswalk crosswalk to here here yeah it exists it exists it exists like that that's what you get comments from Vinnie on the ship no it went to drill just because it's it's pretty small and he didn't have any concern amen everybody else just the first look so once if they're successful yeah

you need a copy of the plan yeah thank you guys item number three RH Hamptons LLC Matt shortest

okay what do you got that all right we have so if the board recalls resolution 0 0 1 2025 we approved a five lot subdivision or a champion this is between Maple and Union Avenue a condition of that approval was they actually have to conform with the Long Island workforce housing as part of our approval we asked for a payment in lieu of getting a bonus lot on site in order to do that you either pay one and a half times the median income for the NASA Suffolk statistical area or the value of the bonus of a lot whichever so what they had to do was create a sketch plan that shows the bonus you've got a 10% increase which gives you six lots which is this one so what I have before the board tonight is to conform with the conditions of approval based on the ! head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head Yes. Who's got the gun? Any questions from the board? No. I know it's a lot of steps, but this is one of the last things. I think you guys are pretty close up. And we're ready to do it. All right. Very good. Thank you. Good luck. So you have a resolution before you. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. All right. Discussion item number four, bargain molding with Greg Bergman.

All right. Thank you. So we have a site plan application seeking to reuse an existing vacant commercial building located at 1133 Old Country Road. We reuse it as a molding window door showroom and warehouse. The plan currently proposes a new parking and drive aisle in order to create efficient traffic circulation throughout the site. It's actually located on two separate tax map numbers. Tax map number 600-108-4-6.4 and 6.6. They're located on the south side of Old Country Road, directly to the west of 1107 Old Country Road, where we just had a public hearing on. For the board's reference, I'm sure you're aware, this is the old Sargent's Rec Center on 58. It's been vacant for a long time. Previously was the site of Maximum Motorsports. For a while, they seemed to be doing some pop-up antique sales on the weekends for a number of years. But beyond that, it's been vacant for quite some time. So the existing property on 58 that currently contains the building on the old Sargent's Rec Center is a 0.943. That's the property that's currently in use. It's a three-acre parcel. The remainder of the tract of land is about 2.7 acres. What the plan proposes is to redo the traffic circulation. The eastern curb cut would be an entrance. It would circulate around to the western end. They're going to create a new driveway coming out of the site, exiting onto County Route 58. This would be able to facilitate any types of deliveries if there's any type of flat beds or trucks that need to come in and unload. They can do so on the back of the site. There is currently no exterior site lighting on the property. I do recommend for a safety component, they could probably just install some dark sky compliant wall packs on the building. I mean, again, it's not a tremendous parking lot. We'd probably not need pole-mounted lighting. I think the site could be adequately lit with some dark sky wall packs. Maybe under the first resolve, we could make G. Yeah. That's a good idea. Maybe all lighting will comply to dark skies. I do have a couple of amendments, which I'm going to speak to, and we'll go through just so that we have them all recorded in the resolution. It is a type two action pursuant to SECRA as it involves reuse of a commercial structure where the use is permitted under the applicable zoning. I just touched on the traffic and circulation. What I do recommend, and we do look for this at all the sites on 58 to really help with reducing the number of turnouts. Being that the site directly to the east was recently updated, they updated that parking lot. I do recommend the inclusion of a cross access, and I did identify that on figure five of page four of the staff report. It would essentially line up with that existing driveway located just to the south of the old blockbuster building. So someone could utilize that cross access and get out to the light at the Staples Shopping Center. It really would create good connectivity between the shopping centers, and that's something we look for. As far as remainder of the existing southern portion of the site, there's really not a feasible location for cross access, and that's not really being developed right now. And then in terms of to the west, it's similar. You've got the proposed, the existing medical office park to the west. So right now, what we would look for is cross access just to facilitate out to the old blockbuster site. Whereabouts would that be on the plan? So if right here, where I've circled it, this essentially lines up straight out, and you could get out. It's a straight shot. That is the... Okay. It's almost like it was planned that way, but that would be the logical spot, so that is where I do recommend that. I did refer the application to DPW. We did get a number of comments from the DPW. We will require those revisions, and that will be required prior to the issuance of the building permit. You know, they require some changes to drainage, some changes to the curb cuts. I did refer the plans to the town engineer. Right now, this is just a very basic site layout. The existing parking lot has drainage. I did see an old site plan that does identify drainage for the existing asphalt, so they would essentially need to create a grading and drainage plan for the western driveway. So do I have an administrative approval condition on there? I did. I spoke with Member Behr this afternoon, and I did some digging back through the old files, and I spoke to Michael Reichel, the sewer district superintendent. I did find there is an existing septic system, which is located to the east of the building here. It's kind of hard to identify through all the writing, but they do identify the existing location of the septic system. That was approved back by the health department back in the late 70s. However, because this property is located within the sewer district, they would eventually hit the requirement for a health department. It's not necessarily a site plan aspect, but when they go to apply for a building permit for properties located within the sewer district, the sewer district generates a letter to the health department. So they would have sort of hit this impasse sooner or later, so it's better to identify it earlier on in the process. So I do recommend on the resolution, we will add two conditions. One is that the septic system is not a public property. The other is that the septic system is not a public property. So we will add two conditions. Condition G, and these are conditions that will need to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Condition G will be receiving approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Wastewater Management. And then I would recommend letter H to just provide dark sky compliant lighting for the site. We do have all the other conditions in there. Obviously the grading and drainage plan, satisfying the comments from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. We also have the ! D.P.W. Identifying the future cross-access with the property to the east. Street trees and a landscaping plan with which if the board is amenable. The planning department can review that. Heather, our resident Green Thumb is a wizard with plants. She can tell you what it is. So if the board is amenable, we can address that. And then obviously no COs will be issued until they get building department fire marshal final planning inspection. The cross-access is clear. Okay. All right. [transcription gap] All right. All right. [transcription gap] All right. All right. Where is the water service? It's not shown on the plan. I think it comes in from the back. I'll double check on the old plans. They may have it identified on that. If that's the case, we can amend the plans to identify the location of the existing water service. I think everybody's really happy. I mean, I assume it's public water. It's not a private water. Yeah, no, it's not public. I think everybody's really happy that somebody's finally taking that and cleaning it up. Do you guys have any plans on, like, painting the facade or anything? Yeah, I mean, we'd love to do more upgrades. You know, we're... I don't know. Can they talk to the ARB about recommended colors or whatever? So the ARB does not get into painting. ARB is only required. We've had this discussion previously. ARB or site plan approval is not required to paint the building. It's only when they're doing something that requires a building permit. So, for example, if they were removing and redoing the facade or redoing the siding, but if they wanted to slap a fresh coat of paint on it, I mean, the board can surely recommend a color. You know, I'd recommend something neutral. Yeah, earth tunnel. Yeah. That's fine. But a site plan. Yeah, the site plan and ARB. We're glad you're going in. We really are. Awesome. How is the inside of that building after all these years? It's really nice to be back. Most of the space is delineated for warehousing and a small showroom. So. You know, it's in strikingly good condition. You're not doing any manufacturing there, just distribution. No. And to speak to Greg's point, there won't be any tractor trailers coming in. Everything that we do is within the box trucks or smaller than that. Okay. So it's really like this. So, Mr. Bayer, actually Tom Wolpert just provided this. This is a drawing from back in the day, I believe 1977. The existing water service comes off of 58. There's an existing main on the south side of 58. So they can just show that existing water service on an updated plan. Okay. But they do have public water. Sorry, where is it? So if you look on the screen there, the existing water service comes right off of 58 here. Okay. Again, and this shows the drainage pools. Yep. This shows the drainage pools on the back end of the property as well as the location of the existing septic tank. That's old. So. Greg, is that adequate drainage? You know, if that's all they needed? So the existing drainage system was designed for the existing parking lot. Where we would require additional drainage work would be for all the new impervious surface that's created on the western. Right. Okay. But again, I do really share the board's opinion. This site's been vacant for a long time. Since I started here almost nine years ago, vacancy on 58 was a big deal. So, I'm going to go ahead and get this done. So, I'm going to go ahead and get this done. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and get this done. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and get this done. I think the town has done a really good job of refilling these vacant sites and, you know, excited to get something in here and get it done right. All right. Wish you the best of luck. Thank you. I just want to interject with something because I just feel that this plan is not adequate as far as we're concerned. There's no drainage plan. There's no landscaping plan. No light. There's no lighting plan. I like to see those things in the drawing before I can approve something. So, I'm not going to go along with the administrative approval.

Okay. Anything else? All good? Okay. Now, we're moving on to public comments on resolutions. Anybody have a comment on resolutions? Resolutions. None seen. Let's start on resolutions, gentlemen. I'll move resolution 2025-017, RH Hamptons, LLC, to approve the workforce housing sketch. So, moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries. I'll move resolution number 2025-018, Atrium Cafe. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. The only thing I would advise staff on this is we know there's a lot of children right across the street. They're in construction, and let's make sure that everybody's safe and the town's diligent on that. Uh-oh. Heather, got a comment? No, it's okay. Just to sort of follow up. So, this is just a preliminary approval. There's sort of a laundry list of things they need to do, and obviously, final approval prior to the issuance of, you know, like the MILRs being signed and building permits. We'll take a full look at that. Okay. I just wanted to thank members Zanicki for working with traffic safety for, you know, getting highway out there and putting the signs up, so, to make it as safe as possible for everybody. That's what we want. Thank you. Okay. I'll move resolution number 2025-019, Cox Place of Worship, resolution classifying the action as unlisted pursuant to secrecy. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Resolution 2025-020, Cox Place of Worship, resolution to schedule a public hearing for the site plan application, seeking approval to convert an existing single family dwelling into a place of worship. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. That public hearing will take place on Thursday, April 3rd, at 6 p.m. at Town Hall. Number five? Before we move resolution 2021, I would just like to formally once again reiterate those amendments. Adding condition G, the applicant shall receive approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Waste and Water Management, and adding condition H, that the applicant shall provide a dark sky compliant life plan. Thank you, Greg. Okay, the moment you're all waiting for. Public comments on any matters? No, no, we need to go on through it. I'll move resolution. Oh, okay. Not the moment you're waiting for. Move it as amended. 2025-21, bargain molding, granting administrative approval to the site plan. So moved. As amended. As amended. I'm sorry. I second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes, as amended. Mr. Hogan? Yes, as amended. Mr. De Niro? Yes, as amended. Mr. Baer? No, as amended. Um. I agree with Joe on a lot of these points, but in the same token, I think it's important to get this done as soon as possible. So I'll vote yes. The motion carries 4-1. Okay. Public comments on all matters?

Yes. Get up. Come on up. I'm going to go quick, so. Yeah. Yeah. [transcription gap] Yeah. [transcription gap] I apologize for that. David Carrick, 61 Fox Chase Place. So my property in Butts, the land that Mr. Cavoso was talking about. Obviously we all want to see that property preserved in its entirety, but none of us, one lot of us, so that's not going to happen. I do, I appreciate the Board's concerns with the entrance there on the southern end, but if that pushes us into Sketch Plan 1 or 2, it's just going to be devastating for us. They're really trying to preserve the site and with the exception of one of my neighbors, we're all as happy as we're going to be with that land being developed. Whatever consideration can be given for Sketch Plan 3A would be appreciated. Thank you.

Don't be shy. Feel free to come up. We're not shy, believe me.

Good evening. Josh Zierman, 25 Fox Chaser Place. Located immediately adjacent to the subject property. I have a slightly longer version of Dave's comments. And you'll forgive me, I prepared some things, but there are some things talked about earlier that I just want to make sure I respond to. First, I want to start by seconding that I think we're all deeply disappointed that many people through the years have made many efforts to try to preserve this property in its entirety and we all wish that that could have been the outcome and are sad that that never came to fruition. In the absence of this happening, we do have some comments though about the project, the proposed project that's in front of you. First, I want to acknowledge that the developer Vince Calvosa has been open and receptive to direct engagement both in advance of tonight's hearing and we're hopeful moving forward. We've been working with myself and my neighbors and we're appreciative of this. The same goes for Greg Berman on the town planning staff who has been responsive to our inquiries. While we have an obvious self-interest being located right next to the parcel, I think we all recognize that there's got to be a constructive solution to a complex set of objectives, many of which are at odds with each other. I cannot emphasize enough how unfortunate the as-of-right yield plan, as well as the slight revisions to it, represented by site plan alternatives one and two, if realized, would be for all involved. Any of those plans would eliminate all opportunities for preservation or protection of open space, agricultural uses, vistas, and wooded habitat, and would also negate the ability to achieve cluster development and sound approaches to the infrastructure and traffic management. Every aspect of those plans runs counter to the aspirations and objectives contained in the Town of Riverhead's existing comprehensive plan and the updates to it currently under development, or at least those publicly available. There are major elements of the proposed site plan 3A that are vastly superior to the as-of-right plan and the other alternatives that represent meaningful progress in finding the right balance between communal, civic, neighborhood, and market interests. These include the preservation and conservation of open space, agricultural uses, and vistas on significant portions of the southeastern and northern portions of the site, the preservation of almost the entirety of the wooded area running north-south along the southwestern edge of the site, the reduced volume of development parcels from the as-of-right scenario, and the abandonment of the use of the eastern edge as an access point from Peconic Bay Boulevard. That said, there are critical elements of the proposed plan and project that we would urge Mr. Calvosa and the Town to continue to investigate before finalizing site and development plans. These include an investigation of the potential to make greater use of the site's existing driveway from Peconic Bay Boulevard as a primary entry point for portions or all of the site, potentially reducing access points off of Peconic Bay Boulevard while also enabling modest adjustments to the overall site plan. We'd also encourage continued investigation of the site's existing driveway and the potential to reduce the amount of ! The proposed plan would also increase the size of the site and reduce the size of the site and increase the space and the space and the space and the space and the space so in conclusion we strongly advocate for the elimination of the as of right yield plan and proposed site plans 1 & 2 I'm not sure if I have all my technical names of the alternative's right but I think you'll understand the point as options for the site plan moving forward.

We also strongly advocate for the ongoing refinement of proposed site plan 3A that builds on the strengths of that plan to further improve solutions for open space, agricultural preservation site access, and VISTAs. And lastly, we look forward to continuing to have active and constructive engagement with the developer and the town, especially given, as you talked about, all the details around engineering and all the technical impacts. It's hard for us to have fully informed opinions about some of these project elements until we're able to see some of that additional work and engage on that. So thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Hi, I'm Ruth Arnone at 73 Foxchaser Place. I'm the neighbor Dave spoke about, the one whose home is most impacted by the new development. I also came here with prepared remarks, but I tossed them away. First, Josh hit on most of my keynotes. And second, what I've heard has changed some of what I had wanted to say. I'm not thrilled about where the new street will be and where the homes will be, as that is my VISTA, which will be totally eliminated by this plan. That being said, this plan three is still head over heels better than the two existing plans. Going back to one and two, whatever they're called, doesn't eliminate the safety concerns you have on plan three. It just creates new ones. The more homes that are in that area, the more traffic there'll be. And eliminating that. Eliminating the shared driveway and putting in one road doesn't solve it. That turn is notoriously bad and always will be. So I encourage the board to fine tune plan three, work with Mr. Calvosa. And he's willing to work with us. And maybe he could solve some of the other issues that I personally, my husband and I are dealing with. And take care of all his neighbors, as well as preserving the community feel and the quality of life in Aquebog. It's an amazing place. It's an amazing feel. And we'd like to see it continue. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

OK, I'd just like to remind you guys that this is not a public hearing. We're not taking any action tonight, just so you know. OK, if there's nobody else, we have the minutes of meeting of February 6. I'll move the minutes of February 6. Second. Moved and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. No seeker actions tonight? Under other business, I just want to make a point about AstroTurf. I know I've brought up other times. But some of these commercial projects where the backyards and areas that aren't going to be seen, or even front yards, we should consider AstroTurf on some of these commercial projects. Green all year. They're really realistic looking. And they don't require any water. So just a thought for planning. Really? Thank you, Matt. OK, correspondence? None. All right, good job, everybody. Our next meeting will be Thursday, March 20, at 3 PM right here at Town Hall. Can we get a motion to close? So moved. Motion. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thanks for coming out tonight, everybody.