Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] Good evening, everybody. This is advertised time and place for the Thursday, May 1st, 2025 Planning Board Meeting. Please join the board in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you all for being here. We have no public hearing. We have no public hearings tonight, but we do have five discussion items. Item number one is River Point Apartments, and that's with Matt Charters. Matt, let us know what's going on, please. Matt Charters, senior planner, for the record. This is a site plan amendment for, better known as the apartment building. It's 821 River Point on East Main Street. If you remember back in 2023, by Resolution 2023-93, this board did grant administrative approval for some facade changes. Really nice cleanup of the whole. Additional plantings, some gardens on site. So it's looking pretty good. It's come a long way. I know the property's had some issues over the years, but they're really improving for the right reasons, I think. So we did do an inspection in January, and doing this inspection, we noticed the elevations are slightly different than what's approved. So if you see on the plan here, all the interior entrances have this overhang that are bracketed. These two are what you see from the road. From what we've gotten from the applicant, I guess doing all these brackets, which are non-structural, were cost prohibitive. So they've built them out with no brackets. So they're seeking to modify that as-built condition. I'd like to say that the department put a lot of work into making sure this looks good. So I would prefer the brackets, but it's really at this board's discretion. Brackets. The brackets. They're there so that rain, inclement weather. Yeah, so the overhang is still there. It just doesn't have the bracket that's on a 45. So I guess what the applicant said is they were concerned about the integrity of the bricks that are underneath the siding. They didn't want to damage that, I guess. I don't know if anyone is here. You guys here? Come on up.

And introduce yourself for the record. I'm Eric. I'm Val. I'm principal of Granoff Architects. Hey, good afternoon. Sam Schilberg from Related Companies. We're the owner of the building. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Go for it. I think the, so there's a series of vertical brick applique to the front of the building. And, you know, as some of the, you know, work was being done, we reinforced some of that brick. And as we explored, you know, really attaching through the brick, it really began to undermine what was there. So we found through with our structural engineer, if we could put our, I think the details on the middle of the drawing. Bledgers, you know, across the back of the roof. The new roof that we were adding on, that that was creating less problems for the brick. And we could keep the brick that was there. And one of the particular buildings, I forget which one off the top of my head. The, we did have to take all the brick down because of the movement that was there because of just the way the brick had pulled away from the building under previous, just where. So, yeah. [transcription gap] So, so this was, this was a way to, you know, keep the existing brick there. It also was something that was perceived as a positive relative to the wayfinding in the signage. As, as we, you know, head out there during construction, the, the brackets where intended were blocking vision towards the, the numbering of, of, of the buildings. So I think that was sort of a, something we considered. something we considered as an added plus, you know, that it was helping with just finding someone's ability to find their way around the complex. So the ones on Main Street are completed? The ones on Main Street are as designed with columns, bluestone little piers, you know, out there, and really create what we think is a beautiful face compared to what was there previously. You've done a great job compared to years ago. Thank you. We were just out there for a playground construction as volunteering with the Related Affordable Foundation, and Matt Grant, who's been before you on this project, and I were just, you know, loving how improved it is relative to the beige and, you know, the funny postmodern, you know, canopies that were there previously. Are the brackets necessary for support of the overhang? They're not. Strictly decorative? Yes. Is there anything else that you can do decorative that doesn't interfere with the brick? Like a corbel or something in the corner? There could potentially be an applied piece, but it was looking, when we studied it, it just kind of looked like it wasn't the right size for most of those. Could you get back to Matt and come up with maybe an idea? That we could look at? Yeah, that's up to you. If you want to see an alternative to what's there. I would also quickly add that, you know, on sort of one side of the door, we've added an exterior light, which I don't know if you can tell from the revision. You can kind of see the signage on one side, but on the other side, we've added a light that's above a keypad. So it's, you know, in addition to the wayfinding, which was a request from the PD, you know, hey, we have trouble identifying your buildings. Can we respond to calls on your property? We've added a lot of that, both at the door and on the side of the building. But now on the other side, we have an exterior light, which was not there before. So we haven't just gone away with this bracket and not utilized the space. We've actually, there is something framing each doorway, which I think looks quite nice. I would, I agree with that completely. And I think it's just an extra piece that's not necessary architecturally. And, you know, with the mission of the particular development, you know, I would, you know, I know it's not really my position to talk about budgets, but, you know, just if it was at all possible as we try to put that, you know, client's money and where that money that's coming from into things that build the community, I don't think that that's what these brackets or corables necessarily achieve. All right. Well, hang around. We're going to have a vote in a little while. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or anything, gentlemen? No. Good? No. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Right now we're going to go to executive session with our legal department to discuss Zuma Central Square. If I can get a moment. Motion from the board. So moved. Motion. Moved and seconded. Second. Vote all in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. We're going to ask everybody to leave for a few minutes and hang around. We'll be back.

We'll be right back. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you, Justin. This board supports farmers. This board supports farming. We always have. We always will. But we don't believe we have a legal mechanism to support fixedness. I'm going to ask the town attorney to draft a memo to the town board with all findings. And move on to item number three. Cordova drive-thru restaurant conversion. With Heather. So as the board is aware, sorry, before I start, just introduce yourself for the record. Jacqueline Peranto, Key Civil Engineering. I'm the same engineer for the town. And Zane Sellis, the landowner. Thank you, board. Okay, so as the board is aware, we had received, reviewed, had a public hearing on, and approved a site plan application to repurpose the existing Friendly's building into a drive-thru. Half would be used for the Key Dover drive-thru. The other half would be an unspecified restaurant tenant. One of the conditions of approval prior to signature of the plans was to submit a future cross-access easement for the abutting property to the south, as described in the plan. As described herein, that was condition number 5B on page 5 of the approval resolution. The property owner does not want to sign any future cross-access agreement with the property to the south. And upon looking through the title report, which I referred to our council, it was actually discovered that the property, the western and southern property boundaries are already encumbered with a cross-access easement that was filed in 2006. And Jacqueline Peranto, can you point out under... So there's a Schedule A. So this is what the board received, a copy of the Declaration of Cross-Aismen. So this was the title report. And I circulated it this afternoon. I don't know if everyone got a chance to look at it. I have some copies. So the way this document reads, it says that the... Cross-access easement is described by Schedule A. Schedule A... Sorry if I don't have enough for everybody. Schedule A is defined by these meets and bounds. And so we had asked the surveyor to plot it. And it's shown this gray-hatched area. So there's a line that runs parallel to the east property line that continues all the way to the southern property line, varies in width from back here to up here. So the way I'm understanding this document is that, cross-access can occur anywhere along the eastern boundary to the adjacent parcel which L's around us has a connection to our piece both on the east and southern portion. Currently, there's an auto repair place here. And currently, and I'm just going to switch to an aerial that might put it in a little better perspective for you. So currently you come... This is with our proposed on top. So you're... You're coming in and you immediately would make a left to get into the... It's not an auto... It's like a tire place. Get into the tire place. And then there's, you know, this piece continues. This is August Gruber's parcel that's behind us. So in previous discussions with the board and with the planners, the discussion was to put the cross-access back here. There's a little bit of a concern not knowing how this parcel is going to be developed, that this might become a bit of a thoroughfare. Create a traffic congestion for our development. And again, it's an unknown problem at this time. My hope is that when the adjacent property owner comes in with an application, we'll be notified. We'll see their development and understand how... Whether cross-access should be on back here, up here. And in light of it existing, we're not... We don't feel that another document should be signed. So... [transcription gap] so... so... poorly written agreement to be honest with you I've read it several times I shared it with his owning attorney I mean there's even spelling and typos right away but it's it's so I followed the description as the best way to do it and there's actually two there's one on the east side and there's another description it makes no sense seems to be describing it seems to be describing this area here that's also hatched on the survey so which which has no connection it's just on its own parcel so but yeah if you want I'll put that yeah so exhibit a so this is the exhibit a that's referenced in the cross-access easement and I think that Zane's interpretation of reviewing this if you see right above the wall here it's a cross-access easement and it's a word mutual access easement you see these arrows going left and right right into the curb cut into the tire place and I think but his understanding and intention there are also arrows that go to the south and then cross-access here so I think the intent when they did this easement it was to make sure that any development on any of the properties would be done so in the safest and cleanest manner you know obviously we don't know what the other property owner is going to do but at such time a site plan application is made this is a application is made this is a! board in conjunction with you know any agencies that we refer the application to other departments our consulting engineer on top of having a required public hearing for new development will consider the safest and best place for any sort of future cross-access nothing is getting built out as part of this but I want to acknowledge that it exists and according to the verbiage in this document it exists on the west and the south can I speak? certainly! it's my understanding that one egress exists that actually crosses through to the neighbors property currently it's the one right here off of Old Country Road yeah that's been improved since before. correct so there would not be a request for a second egress in the back they would be closing that because that parcel currently manages the traffic for itself it also manages the property for the property to the east and in the event it gets developed back here it'll be managing the property for traffic for that as well and I don't think that's in the best interest of the community of any of the tenants or anybody I don't think this board would approve anything that would inadvertently harm or cause any sort of issue with public safety to any of the adjacent property owners in the event that development were to come in in the future that's not you know this board its best interests are in planning and making a new property. planning and making a new property. sure that site circulation you know makes sense again is safe it would get referred to DPW for all we know DPW might say abandon that existing cross access here's your curb cut on 58 mm-hmm but from a fire access standpoint you know we would want some sort of cross access in the future again we don't know what's going to be developed if it's going to be the same over owner developing we don't know if you're gonna own the property in the future it's just it's poor planning to omit a condition when you don't have to do anything new it exists so it seems like this board tries to make more easements to move traffic more you know smoothly and everything else and all all this is is just giving you an easement a right-of-way to go west go east whatever and actually it keeps it more away from your parking area well as it is right now should they create another egress into the rear going but it's more off the south it could be here it could be here I believe there's a curb here so I'm way on the south you know how DPW sort of guided the development and the traffic circulation on this project DPW might come in and say the same thing anyone who's looking to go points west from this parcel is gonna have to utilize an existing cross access here or here and go to the traffic circle but they not come through the existing cross the easement and just go to the back couldn't they just come through the easement that currently exists that's right that's going to be right out only you were complaining about people making left here. Right. That's the thing. I'm complaining about having to manage all of the traffic that pertains to this parcel on this property. Plus it's owned traffic plus it's traffic all on one property. That's what I'm complaining about. Yes. but that's that's what the town is trying to do. To make everything smoother whether it's your property or your neighbor's property. That's what we're trying to do. It's not to harm anybody. It's to keep traffic moving. Whether it's to alight. To the traffic circle. Or just going east. I'm talking about creating additional traffic that does not belong here now. In other words, I'm referring to future traffic that would be developed as a result of developing this rear parcel. The traffic does not exist. Once this gets developed, now we're talking about new traffic. That's the traffic I'm talking about. Which is going to be subject to Seeker review and Planning Board approval, at which time you'll be afforded the opportunity to speak at a public hearing and you're an adjacent property owner, you would be notified of any public hearings. We also post the Planning Board agendas on the website a week prior to the meeting, which is the first and third of every month. You're always welcome to look. You can call us to see if the subject property owner of this parcel has submitted anything. The Planning Board, I don't want to omit a condition. Again, you don't have to file or sign anything new. But we're acknowledging that. The cross access exists. And if in the future, maybe they decide to demolish the Friendly's building and you want to build something new there. Maybe all of these parcels get merged. We don't know. But the Planning Board should be afforded the opportunity to decide in conjunction with a site plan review process, which is required by law, where the safest and most equitable spot for a cross access should be. We're not making anything get built out at this point in time. And we discussed a little bit earlier today that... We're gonna modify the site layout to not actually show this curb cut right here and just show parking. With the understanding that when this application comes in, it'll be reviewed by the board to determine the best spot based on what they are doing. And maybe it's in this location and the trash gets put over here. Because this is a continual easement that'll take you out to Roanoke. So it's sort of this hypothetical concern of a future development. That we don't know. going to happen and i think if ever but that's every project yeah yeah i understand i think and i just one just one little question i wasn't sure um if when notices are sent is it just to property owners or is it also to like tenants no it's to the property just the property so the mailing list is generated based on the property owner and their mailing address but a sign has to be posted so when they come in for a site plan you know the property would have to be posted on the frontage on 58 which is quite visible so i would think that the tenants would be able to clearly see it and obviously if they fail to meet their posting and mailing requirements in an application that has yet to be made they wouldn't be able to have a public hearing so i'm just the point is is that instead of trying to modify a condition that's a requirement of town code we're just acknowledging that oh this cross access actually already exists it was filed in 2006. so if you could as we discussed on the phone earlier sort of in detail load that up on the site plan and just reference the library and page number i think that would um sort of solve this issue if that's what you want to call it mr chairman i i think just as long as they have to have cross-actions where it where where it's most appropriate where it's appropriate right all right if we take no action now that's what we'll stand correct 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 so You want to say curb cut. There will only be one point of connection between the two, whether it's here, here, here, here, here. I don't know. I can't tell you that. If DPW were to make the finding that that northern curb cut is no longer viable and they can have a direct curb cut onto 58, we would still require another cross-access. But our code doesn't speak to a single cross-access. It actually says cross-access easements, plural. So I understand that it's the same property, but it's an L shape. And if having two accesses is going to be the safest for all of the properties, that's the action the planning board will take. If it's not and only one consolidated access is needed, then that's the action we'll take. But we can't make decisions on future applications that don't exist. And it's holding up this project, which is unfortunate for the time. Can you be able to share a little history of this? Because I'm understanding from seeing that there was an application for compare foods here that was approved. So there were multiple applications made. There was one to expand the auto shop, which actually did get preliminary approval. I think the zoning board relief expired. He had come in with a potential compare foods, and I couldn't find any sort of approval resolutions on file. So, you know... Do you recall what happened with the compare foods? I recall not approving the eat risk and the deal fell apart. That's what I recall. That I had the option to agree to. I don't know if I'm going to do it or not. Because, and the way I see it, whatever traffic comes through onto my parcel, I'm burdened with managing not only my tenants traffic, but the asphalt, the wear and tear, it all falls on. So I said, I don't need to accommodate somebody else's property. They already have access so that they can accommodate themselves. So do you own all the property all the way to Roanoke Avenue? I do. He owns Friendly's. He owns the KFC property. What's that, the Jiffy Lube? It's currently... But my point is everybody uses a second means of egress to go out to Roanoke Avenue. Yeah, they're all coming through. They're coming through an oak, but that's my point. They're all connected. He owns all of these. Right. But that easement that goes across the properties has been in place. That easement is for my tenants to go back and forth. That easement was created so that my tenants, they each have a curb cut, can also have a cross easement for each other to service themselves with all the traffic they have. Right. It wasn't for neighbors or other properties. Everyone's restricted with a right out onto old country. So it's an opportunity to be able to make a left. But arguably in the larger span of planning, especially along 58, interconnectivity is important because it acts as a safety tool. You want to direct everyone to this access because then they can utilize the... No, I agree with everything you're saying except for the fact that this property's traffic pattern problem is not my problem. But we don't know what the traffic pattern is going to be or if it's going to be a problem. At any point in time, it would never be my problem. My neighbor's pool should never be my problem. My pool is my problem. My neighbor's problem is never my problem, especially when my neighbor already has access to his property. The reason why he doesn't want to go this way, he doesn't want to disturb his current tenant. So we'll disturb my tenant. But we don't believe that building will get knocked down. If he comes in for a site plan, we don't know what it's going to be. We don't know what the site configuration is going to be. My point is this. As the landlord who pays taxes on all of these, who maintains them properly, who I believe fair in the community, should not be burdened by anybody else's needs. I don't think the planning board would place a burden on anyone. Okay. Thank you. By creating a second egress through my property would be a burden to me though. Just so you know. I mean, it's common sense. All that track. But it already exists, right? One exists. No, the easement exists. The easement exists. There's one right here for him. It was my understanding in the read of that cross-access. I assume you got it. It was a little challenging. It was a bit of a challenging read there. But that was my understanding. It's the swath of land across that goes from Old Country Road all the way to the back. Is it eastern and southern? But are you aware that an easement also exists on the KFC front? On the property? This is the thing. So I mean... There is no. There is no. That was not recorded. That was not a recorded easement. That does not exist. It doesn't show up anywhere. The curb cut was put in by somebody, but there was no recorded easement there. There's a curb cut that doesn't belong there with no easement. So with the western... Which is another thing that bothers me. That's a classic. Correct. There is a curb cut here. There is no recorded easement. It's just a picture of it. It was a survey. Yes. It does not exist. It seems like maybe a conversation needs to be had with the adjacent property owner in the future when he comes in for development. I don't know if managing any issues that you have with him is under the purview of this board. There's no issues. It's just that I don't want to take on the burden of traffic for another property owner. And I think that argument will be for a future time and place. When there's development here. So it's not happening at this moment? Nothing is getting built out as a part of this site plan. We're just, you know, part of one of the conditions of the approval was to file a future cross access. Because we weren't aware that this easement existed. The easement from 2006 exists. That's correct. I mean, while it may not be written how we would write them now. It clearly says between the adjoining land southerly to the rear property owned by August Grober. Then westerly along the southerly part of both August Grober land and Longwood lands as shown on exhibit A. Which is attached. It's that sketch that was shown and that was attached and recorded in the clerk's office on August 15th, 2006. Correct. And I acknowledge that. So that's, we're just asking that the site plan, you know, be referred to the !

There may be a second one on the southern property line. But we don't know. We don't know. We're just telling you. There may currently be an existing one you're saying? No. There is an existing one. It's in the recorded document that it's the eastern property line and the southern property. In the future this board may over, require that the southern property has a cross access to the field. But we don't know that yet. Does a curb cut exist behind the KFC into that, the wooded lot in the south? It's not an easement. Somebody built it there but it does not. Well, would that suffice as being a curb? Would that suffice? He owns all those properties and he doesn't want to allow any easement. He doesn't want any access back. But what, what the point that we're making? I mean the curb cut's already there. I know. On KFC. So would that settle, solve the problem? Yeah, but I mean I could cut a curb cut right now. It's not, it's not a recorded, it's not a, there wasn't no permits pulled for it. There's, it's not a recorded, it's not, it doesn't show up in the building department that curb cut. That's, that's not relevant because that property isn't in question. Right. It's just the Friendly's parcel and August Grover's parcel. And what we're saying is there is already a recorded easement with a Liburn page number that describes with, with the exhibit and also in writing where the easements exist. There's only one currently improved curb cut now and by acknowledging that the easement exists instead of making him file an additional easement which he doesn't want to do, which is, it's duplicative if we were to try to do that because one exists already. Right. And so, in the future when the planning board reviews any sort of application for the other develop, for the other property should, should it come in, you know, it's going to be conducive to all of the developments around. Right. And if it's not needed, it's not needed. But the easement, which is essentially at this point an imaginary line. Correct. Still exists. But we're not opening any additional curb cuts at this time. Right. The, sorry I just, I just, I had done this for myself. The, the two highlighted areas are what is just available. Right. And the two highlighted areas are what is described, that description in the document. Schedule A. So if you follow. Jackie, there's exhibit A and schedule A. Uh-huh. So the cross axis is exhibit A. Schedule A is a sewer. It says easement area. You're reading it as a sewer? I'm not hearing that at all. Sorry. Matt, you're going to, if you're going to speak you have to come up to the table. Thanks. So, you know, I, we had provided the title report to the surveyor and asked them to update the survey to be a title survey. So their interpretation of it is, is what we're showing. Well, what's, what's interesting. I'm just. And I don't know. Yeah. Whose initial, but we have page one of four here. That's declaration. Right. Page two of four, part of the declaration where both owners had signed at the time. Page three of four is the notarized stamp. Not really sure. This is easement area, but they're not included as page numbers. Mm-hmm. And page four of four is exhibit A. That's interesting. So. Right. I'm not entirely sure why they included this as an easement area when it is clearly describing, I think, the existing sewer easement. Mm-hmm. If you look back at the title. No, it does speak about sewer in here. I wonder if you were to look back in the title report. Because it says together. Together with an easement for sewer mains and a pertinences described as follows. Heather does. It's very confusing. Right. Do they get site plan approval with the cross-easement? So the planning board, the site plan board, they're not going to be able to get the site plan approval. Right. So they're not going to get the site plan approval. Right. So they're not going to get the site plan approval. So the planning, are you talking about Qdoba? Yes. So Qdoba was given approval with the condition that a future cross-access easement be filed prior to signature of the plans, not realizing that there was one existing. So the owner is contesting. He doesn't want to file anything new, but he doesn't have to. Okay. But this wasn't discovered until today. Okay. So. So there is a cross-easement. It exists. Okay. So it's been there. [transcription gap] So all we have to do is acknowledge it on the plans, which will allow Ed to sign them as planning board chair. Okay. So you know there is an easement. I know the easement that I point to. You know, I know the easement that I know. I think, I think. I know this easement here is the legal easement. That's the easement we're referring to, right? That's the existing improved. That's the existing easement. I know that. That's the existing improved area, but the easement itself that was filed in 2006 is larger than that. So the way that the town attorney. So it's. The town attorney is reviewing this document is that the easement is along the entire eastern boundary and along the entire southern boundary of the Friendly's parcel. The current connection between your parcel and the neighbor's parcel is this curb cut right here. Yes. But the easement exists anywhere along here, which means that they have the rights to provide additional connections anywhere along here. And this document is recorded in perpetuity. So it's, it's forever that way. Okay. I acknowledge what I, what I'm seeing here. And I also know that in the future, should they want to do something, I'd be notified because obviously there's parking and various things, but currently. Any sort of development, just even like with this application, it was the reuse of an existing building. It underwent site plan review. It was subject to a public hearing. Arguably new development would be, you know, it would have a more thorough review. So you would most certainly be notified if you're still the property owner at that time. Are we good? So essentially nothing is changing. No action. Just the site plan will be updated and it'll effectuate you being able to sign it. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Let's move on. Discussion item number four. Long Island Cauliflower Association Commercial Center for a sign-off. Okay. Thank you. [transcription gap] We'll head over to the next 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 Israel come up for discussion? Messrs. Gentlemen. Hey, how we doing? Hey, how we doing? Good. So as the board will recall at our last meeting, we granted another extension for the Long Island Cauliflower Association redevelopment site plan. Justin, if we could just zoom out a little bit to get the whole. That's good, yep. Yep. Yep, okay. All right, so this is the site plan application to redevelop the property located on the northwest corner of 58 and Old Country Road, 58 and Mill Road rather. The initial application when this came in, the planning board, we granted a preliminary approval. That came back in 2023. At that time, the site plan application proposed to redevelop the site with a Chick-fil-A restaurant with a drive-thru. There was gonna be a potential Dunkin' Donuts. There was discussion of a second Jimmy John's restaurant, another unidentified fast food restaurant with a drive-thru, and then a traditional sit-down restaurant. Since that preliminary approval, the application has changed slightly. The Chick-fil-A is still proposed as the first building on the site closest to 58. The. The same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same same [transcription gap] Substantive changes. So one of the things that we did, we do have a final approval resolution on this and the conditions in there. I did make a recitation to just reflect the secret record because, again, we issued a negative declaration based on a development proposing for restaurants, three with drive-thrus. There is a recitation in there that the trip generation for a medical office is significantly less than a restaurant with a drive-thru. So we analyzed and the mitigation that was proposed in the form of the northbound addition of a left turn lane from Mill Road into the site, as well as the redoing of the signal and the timing up here on Mill Road and Home Depot intersection. We've arguably mitigated the more intense use of the property. So there's no need to do additional review. We've essentially mitigated the more intense use of the secret analysis and the mitigation will remain in place. At some point down the road, if they decide to shift gears again and do another drive-thru, do a drive-thru restaurant, it's consistent with that analysis. So we, again, have satisfied all the conditions. We've got through fire marshal. They got through SWIP. Do need to make some final tweaks, which are called out in the resolution. We are ready for a final approval for this. Okay. Any questions you have? Both water and sewage, right? Water, sewer. Sewer connection. This is going to be through an easement through a parcel that Mr. Israel owns on Commerce Drive. Okay. Water will be coming off 58. There were a lot of discussions that the applicant had with the water district. It's going to be looped. It's going to be coming off of 58, which they'll have to jack under the road. And there will also be a connection on Mill Road. My understanding is that that will serve in the event of a failure of one point of the water system. There will be a redundant supply, so they won't have to shut down the property if there's a break on 58 or on Mill Road. Beyond that, pretty happy to get this guy with the finish line. It has changed. Is it all going to be paved? Excuse me? Is all of the entrances and the area where... We've agreed to create the two entrances and create the back road that you see there that leads to the secondary entrance. Right. While the balance of the projects... We don't know what's going to the north yet. Well, I'm thinking in the Chick-fil-A, it looked like in the entrance where they make their orders, it looked like this is not going to be paved. It's going to be a bluestone or something. I don't believe it. I think she... All the curb cuts, all the access, I mean, the GPW wouldn't allow bluestone on their property. Okay. Curb cuts. Good. Right. So the curb cut on 58 will be completed. The curb cut on Mill Road by the light will be completed. And Greg has said that he wants us to put in that road that leads to the northern portion. There's a lot of drainage and everything else under that road, so it may have to be built and torn up and built and torn up and whatever. Rich, there is a curb cut to the west of that property already. Are you going to be using that one? There's a curb cut to the west. Meaning the one on Commerce Drive? No, no. The one right on 58. Okay. That gets ripped. That gets ripped. Removed. And the new curb cut is hard up, almost hard up against the neighbors' property. There is a curb cut there already. Yeah. So the phase one development is going to consist of, they're going to construct both of the driveways, the service road, the service driveway coming down here, the curb cut on 58, the right in, right out, the redoing of the signal. This area and this area. You know, buildings two and three and building four will essentially be future phases. But, you know, so if someone's exiting Chick-fil-A and they're looking to go north on Mill Road, if they don't want to sit at the light, they can go out here and come out. All right. I'm looking at the first, oh, no, number 15. Okay. Yes. And what I'm just seeing in terms of... Okay. In terms of the entrance to Chick-fil-A. That's where they put their orders in. There's a different, it looks like a different type of pavement. Concrete. The entrance to 58, meaning down here? No, no, no. The entrance to where... Oh, here? For all the guys, yes. Where they... Oh, they have concrete through their drive-through. Okay. That's all. So there's no, I guess, so... It just had a different type of stippling and I'm thinking, well, maybe it isn't. I don't know. [transcription gap] Maybe it isn't. Okay. That's one of their standards. Anything else, gentlemen? Good. We're going to have a resolution on it a little later. Okay. I just have to tell you that I am going to vote against it because I do not want the entrance on 58 into the property. The exit is fine, but the entrance, it's just not going to work. I've driven back there many, many times and that is the bottleneck to start with. So the... The concept is that if a person misses the mill, is heading west and misses the mill road turn off, there's no way for him to ever get back. I understand that. So it's really a right in and the same thing with the exiting. Well, the right out is fine. Yeah. But it's just that it's just congested to start with. It's one of our problems on Route 58 that if you miss something, you have to make it almost all the way to Edwards Avenue to turn around. You have to go under the expressway and take that loop and come back. You make a left turn. You make a left turn at the next light and come back. Make a U-turn? Yeah. No, no, no. Okay. Thank you, guys. Moving on to number five, Sandy Pond Links. Trade shops, managers, residents. Hello, Kim. [transcription gap] square foot trade shot buildings. Subject property is located at 1521 Roanoke Avenue, Sandy Pond Links, Belfcourse. The town board for these proposed improvements granted a special permit. They adopted the resolution number 2025-189, dated February 19, 2025. There were some conditions in that approval. They said the applicant must receive site plan approval from the planning board. That the manager's residence shall be occupied by employees of the golf course and shall not be rented. That the uses of the proposed trade shop building shall be limited to building and construction, general and special trade contractors, which there's a standard industrial classification code that we've used to identify that. So it'll essentially be, you know, if there's a contractor, a landscaper, plumber, you know, et cetera, who can, you know, needs trade, you know, needs storage space, they can utilize that for such. And that there's also the, they have to relocate the property and relocate an existing drainage easement. Right now there's an existing drainage easement that travels from Roanoke Avenue to the pond. That takes water from basically the northern tributary area on Roanoke Avenue, bundles it to that on-site water feature. As a result of the building number two, they're going to relocate that easement. So the property is zoned residence B40. Surrounding area across the street is predominantly residential and agricultural and carousel. The same system is head head head of the pre-existing non-conforming C&D processing facility just located to the north. All in all, very good site plan. There was just a couple of issues I noted. So the clubhouse, that's shown on the site plan. The floor plans and the elevations indicate that there will be basement access on the south side of the building. There's a roll-up door as well as a man door. The basement will be unfinished. It will be for storage and mechanicals. I just noted that on the site plan, there doesn't really appear to be any access shown to that building. The location of the sanitary system may conflict with any potential ramps. Again, I don't think that's an insurmountable item to address. That's just going to be clarified. We also just need an updated cut and fill calculation. If there is to be a full basement, they will be obviously excavating and exporting most of that material. All of the exterior lighting proposed on the site complies with the Article XLIX of the Town Code. They are proposing nine pole-mounted aerial lights around the trade shop buildings and 12 wall-mounted lights. Again, they're all mounted at a height that meets the 16-foot mounting height and they're all 3,000 degree Kelvin. One note about the fencing and screening. So the trade shop building area does show a six-foot black vinyl chain link fence. The same system is applied to the head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room head room fence. Again, they've got foundation plantings around both all the buildings, trade shops, the clubhouse, all along the perimeter so it'll be nice and landscaped. We did get comments from the fire marshal and the water district on this application as well as the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered it to be a matter for local determination and they offered some comments. The premises should be encumbered by appropriate operating restrictions to adequately protect nearby residences, i.e. shielded lighting, hours of operation, truck deliveries, garbage pickup, truck idling, outdoor speaker systems, building alarms, trash compactors, etc. Number two was consideration should be given to requiring the construction of a landscaped earth berm along Roanoke Avenue. Landscaping should be done with indigenous plant materials to blend the earthworks into the landscape and reduce maintenance, while to help preserve and protect residential amenities by reducing sound levels and visual intrusion. And that all stormwater runoff resulting from this development should be retained on site by adequate drainage improvements so that will not flow out onto the right of way of Roanoke Avenue. We got comments also from the Health Department. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the application at its meeting on April 23rd. The application was received favorably by the ARB. They did make some recommendations to the applicant to make revisions to the trade contractor buildings, so they'll make those changes and come back to an ARB, future ARB meeting, for further review. Beyond that, if the Board has any questions, I do have a resolution. Before we start, can we just get your names? Sorry. Brian Stark, applicant. Kimberly Judge. Thank you. The club house is beautiful. You did a beautiful rendering on that. My concern here is the trade shops. It almost looks to me that if we took the trade shops and went as far south as possible got rid of the proposed stone blend parking and had the entrance same entrance as the uh dwelling and then fence off so that i know you have a gateway but the idea of the commercial aspect of it the trade shops and kids running to golf and all that um i'm just curious it would would make more sense to make the uh entrance and exit on the far south corner and move the trade shops down and make it a completely separate almost like a separate lot well we're going to have we're going to have a gate across the uh when you pull it off because the town wanted us to just do one curb cut so that's why we didn't do two so when you drive in to the golf at the one entrance we have you can make that immediate left and there'll be a gate that will be the entrance to the golf and that's where we're going to have the area there which i envision that the guys who are using the buildings will have like a key fob and it'll be gated so the whole that whole side of the property property will be secure and what's the purpose of the proposed stone blend how come just seems like it's almost two sections one trade shop and then two trade shops she was just stone blend just oh on the back on the back um between the three buildings yeah this area so i mean i guess the the exist is the entire area for the trade shops going to be stone blenders just in this area that well i would envision if you're going to put strike parking in there we're going to have to do all asphalt the blend over there i have to ask doug adams why he proposed that yeah but everything else as far as i'm concerned is going to be paid because we have to because we have yeah it shows paved except for that one lot that says proposed and i'm just curious why the trade shops aren't like together i can't imagine i'll uh i'm looking like yeah okay um what else what's the story with the uh pipe that goes from the world is that an issue so we're picking up all the storm water runoff for years um it's always been an issue so that pipe we replaced that pipe when we did the first phase i think greg when we were it broke so we replaced it because it was causing a problem because it was yeah it deteriorated is there still drain on your property so we we made the pipe that pipe that's there now works and it comes into that pond yeah and it's yeah oh yeah it picks up water yeah so so that that easement that drainage easement i picked up on that when i reviewed the first application for the mini golf course right um that easement well at the time i rgis layer just showed a drainage pipe the title report didn't identify any easement so look things get done back in the day it was probably done you know like a handshake deal you know they just agreed to take the pipe uh that easement was formal you know if if there's water if there's an existing drainage system that's taking water there should be some recording of that so that easement was recorded back when we did the mini golf course um now they're just relocating that easement but i mean it'll still function you know they're just they're not eliminating it they're just changing so it doesn't go under the building just the path just changing the path the water takes but yeah that was actually formally it's better than it was yeah

on the back side of the building yeah all the uh all the intense loading and uh

residential side of the screen and we'll have a more of a a softer look there'll be no garage

is there a is there a time limit when that closes well if you're paying rent i would imagine that guys will be using it if they work late but generally it'll be guys who are trade people who are in and out with a key fob and it'll all be gated and secured so i i don't think we can cut the key fob off if they're paying rent well only because do you have a time limit on the miniature golf oh we do on that yeah right okay yeah but i don't i don't think i could ask potential tenants to not use it at midnight right i mean unless they're breaking the code unless they're making 24-hour service business they're going to have to wait 24 hours to get it 24-hour service business they're going to have to wait 24 hours to get it right right plumbers are in there but they still can't go violate a town code and make noise right i mean just so you know for the for the purposes of the site plan i mean we're not talking you know this these are parking stalls this is not going to be like outdoor storage yard where there's going to be outdoor storage of materials i mean no again if if there's a plumber in there and he gets an emergency cold he goes to his shop right you know gets his truck loads up his materials and leaves you know this is not something where one would expect a tremendous amount of money to and leaves you know this is not something where one would expect a tremendous amount of outside activity correct brian's kept the property he's cleaned it up very nice can't imagine that he'd want it to turn into a to a you know that's the type of work you're anticipating like plumbers and electricians and things like that yeah the cement block buildings had uh well they had a welder in there they had george woodland landscaping in there they had jimmy floss seal coating and then they had a garage door opener i mean i have a pool company that's interested from the south side he's actually a little bit more of a

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 head head head head head My knowledge of the clubhouse is the only building with a basement. These guys, the trade shops are going to be off the road. So this basically is the clubhouse and basement? Yes, that's the clubhouse. That's the clubhouse? Yeah, the storage buildings won't have it. Yeah, and I'm trying to get you some money.

Are you going to build all three storage buildings? Or are you going to space them in or what? I envision trying to build the clubhouse first because I just want to be done with that side of the property and deal with the storage buildings in the last phase just because I don't want to be jumping around. Yeah, yeah, okay. Makes sense. So just to the, I mean, I can look at one more question. On page five of your report, all the way on the bottom, it says something about a subdivision.

That was honestly a comment right out of the health department. I copy and paste the health department comments, so they probably meant site plan, but they said subdivision in their memo. It is a site plan. Yeah, because I'm looking at the property and saying, are they going to subdivide between the two trade buildings or something like that? There's no subdivision. That was probably just a copy-paste error on the health department. Okay. There's subdivision between Terry and that. Yes, from that. From nine years ago. That was one of the first things I did. Just to circle back to one of the board's comments, I don't think either of the town board's special permits were explicit in the one curb cut. I mean, there is a pretty healthy separation. If the board would like to see a separate curb cut, if there is any kind of concern here about, you know, conflicting traffic with the mini golf course and the parking for here, I mean, it probably wouldn't be the end of the world if there was an additional curb cut down here. I mean, there is a... By the driveway? Yeah, like to kind of separate the trade shop. I mean, there is almost a... Is there enough turning radius down there? It's wide enough, you think? I mean, yeah. This is a 24-foot wide curb cut. I mean, there's 360 feet from this point. Mm-hmm. To this point. Our code, it has a... It looks for a minimum separation for curb cuts and driveways of 75 feet. I mean, that separation well exceeds the code requirements. So if the board would want to see... I mean, again, I don't think that's a major change, but if you would want to see a curb cut dedicated to the trade shops, I think that could probably be... Yeah, I mean, as long as there's enough turning radius in there and, you know, ability to navigate it. Maybe Doug could... You want something else? Yeah. All right, I will. Okay. Anything else, gentlemen? No. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. Have a good night. Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Greg. Okay, at this point in time, public comments on resolutions. Yep. Anybody have a comment on any resolution?

Hi. Good evening, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Rob Carpenter, and I'm here to speak a little bit about the Kanzella issue. I thank you very much for taking... This section? Sorry, sir. Public comments? Yeah, on resolutions. Resolutions. So if you could just wait until public comments on all matters. Thank you. Sorry. No problem. Resolutions? Yes. I'll move resolutions. Hold on, George. Yes, sir. You want to speak on resolutions? I do. Sure. Just very briefly. I'm Adam Grossman. I'm the attorney for the applicant on resolution number three on the agenda tonight, resolution 2025-39, Gouda LLC. And I just wanted to ask the board if the board would adopt the resolution scheduling the public hearing. Thank you, Adam. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, not seeing any hands. Gentlemen, let's do our... Resolutions. I'll move resolution 2025-37, Long Island Cauliflower Association, granting final site plan approval. So moved. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Yes. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries. I move resolution number 38, grants approval for the amended site plan of River Point Apartments. Second. Discussion. Do you guys want the... Do you guys want the pillars or let it go? Any opinions? No. What did the... What did the Architectural Review Board, what did they say? They want them in place? Say approval. With the stanchions? With the... They approved the amendment. They approved the amendment. Oh, they approved the amendment. Yeah. Okay. All right, so... I'm good with that. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, so. I'm good with that. Moved and second. Mr. Zelnicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move resolution number 20-25039, Gouda, LLC, resolution scheduling a public hearing for the site plan application entitled Gouda, LLC. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. What's the date of that public hearing? June 5th. I'm sorry? June 5th. June 5th. Okay, very good. Resolution number 2025-040, Sandy Pond Links, LLC, Clubhouse, Trade Shops, Manager Restaurant, Residence. Resolution to schedule a public hearing for the site plan. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I'll move resolution number 41, classifying action in pursuit to seek with grants farm stand approval for hen-pecked husband. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote yes. I'm just curious. Is the hen-pecked husband here tonight? No. His wife didn't let him come. Mr. Chairman, I just have to recuse myself. Last resolution. I'll move resolution 2025. Yeah, no problem. Give Mr. Zelnicki a minute. He excused himself.

Okay. Somebody want to move number 42? Resolution 2025, 42, 47, Pelletreux, LLC, farm stand, granting the farm stand approval. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries. Somebody can yell for Kenny. Okay. At this point, public comments on all matters.

Sorry. Sorry for earlier. No problem at all. I don't generally speak before a planning board, so I'm not familiar with it. I'm not familiar with the process. So my name is Rob Carpenter. I work for Long Island Farm Bureau representing the agricultural industry on Long Island. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, thank you very much for all you do for Riverhead, and I do understand that you and the town board are very supportive of the agricultural industry. Riverhead town happens to be the largest agricultural town in Long Island with almost 15,000 acres in production, and our farmers are proud residents of the town. We are continuing to lose our farmland to development pressures and from non-agricultural people that come in and buy our land and then redevelop it into other projects. I've been involved with this project, and I'm speaking about the Kinsela issue. I'm a farmer. [transcription gap] I'm a farmer. I'm a farmer. I've been in projects, involved in this project for quite a long time, and I can tell you this was not a very simple deal to do. This was very complex, and I'd like to recognize the Zumi's family, the Kinsela family, the Peconic Land Trust, the town of River head, and the Department of Agriculture and Markets, and all of the efforts that they talk into taking what was going to be a commercial development and putting it back into and preserving farmland. This is something that rarely happens on Long Island and particularly in Riverhead. This deal took many, many years to get done, and there were times that we thought it wasn't going to happen, only to be resurrected to actually let it happen. As a condition of this, the back nine acres were preserved with the scenic easement, as you well know. But because of the complexity of this deal, this was not just a simple issue and a simple easement. And there has been, over the course of the last three or four years, many things that have been left out of the discussion that have been discussed. And many of those things that I feel have not been fairly presented in an all-knowing manner. What I would like to request of you and possibly of the town board, which would be a separate discussion, is to actually sit down with the players involved, including the land trust, the land trust attorney, the Kanzella family, and any others who are involved in it, to present you the other side and both the land trust and the town board. And I would like to ask you to present both sides of the story so that you have a greater understanding of all of the facts of what happened and how the deal came to be. I think this is an incredible opportunity that the largest town of agriculture on Long Island has the ability to actually put land back into farming with a family that's been here for a number of generations. That was originally their farm many years ago to put back into production. And I think that would be a win for the town and a win for the residents and a win for agriculture. So I'm here just to make that request of you to consider that possibility of meeting with the groups and learning more about this before you make your final decision. So thank you for the opportunity to speak. Yeah, Rob, I agree with you. The Zumich families and the Kanzella families are great. The other families in our town. There is one other parcel that was commercial, Manor Lane and 25. And that went back to farming. Correct. So it's something that we absolutely support. I'm just not sure if there's a mechanism in the legal department right now. Yeah. But we are going to transfer our thoughts to the legal department to give to the town board. Okay. And if there's a mechanism or a way, we'd be happy to listen to anybody that wants to speak. That's all I'm asking and I would appreciate that. And I know your town attorney, you do a great job and, you know, just want to make sure that everything is presented fairly so whoever is going to make the final decision has a better understanding of everything that went into it and everything that's now coming out of it as the deal that was put together gets unput together, so to speak. So it was complicated. We definitely understand your position. And I've been doing easements and learning about easements for 40 years. This was complicated. Yeah. So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. And thank you for all you do. Rob, just we want to help the farmer. I come from a farming family. I did my homework on this. I went all the way back to the sale from Cozella to Zumas. I know the entire piece. And it is complicated, but the buyer bought it with the easement in place, with the covenant in place. He was told that you cannot farm that. I mean, if we allow that, and legally we can't, we would have to allow other properties, the 46 acres on Edwards Avenue, the 12 acres off of Manor Lane. What do you do with that? That's my question to the Farm Bureau. I mean, you know, like Danielle said, we can't even open up a can of worms. That's the thing. And I mean, it's not that we want, we don't want to hurt any farmer. We don't. But it just, in this situation, I don't think it's a good idea to allow this when other properties in the town of Riverhead have the exact same situation. And this is one, maybe one point where we differ. Because I don't believe in doing my research that this is the same as all of the other pieces. So. Again, we can debate this and have a conversation offline. I don't want to take up anybody's time. Because I think that this needs to be more researched and more well thought out and a greater understanding. Because I've never, in 40 years of doing this, seen a deal like this. I just want to clarify for the record that we are talking about a conservation easement. So I know there was some different words thrown around. But this is a conservation easement. Correct. And this is. This is an easement that's held by the town and only the town. That's correct. That's right. So. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rob. Any other speakers?

Okay. I'm moving the meetings, meeting minutes of the board of April 3rd, 2025. Second. Moved and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Greg, no secret actions tonight? No, sir. Okay. Staff, other business? No. You guys taking care of business down there? No. Good. No correspondence. Our next meeting date is going to be Thursday, May 15th at 3 o'clock, right here. Hope to see you all there. Can we get a motion to close? So moved. Second. Moved and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.