Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time.

Okay, we've got a couple discussion items. Woodhull at Sound Avenue for a minor subdivision with Matt Chardas.

Just introduce yourselves to the record, please. Hi, I'm Christine Malacena Woodhull. This is my family's property. Kimberly Judd, 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead. Yeah, okay. Dustin, you can just zoom out a little bit.

That's good. All right, so we have a two-lot minor subdivision at 506 Townshore. Road, pretty straightforward. We have one lot that is going to contain the existing structure. So there's a single-family residence and some accessory structures. Both lots will have access to the Long Island Sound. This is about, I'd say, right in the middle of Townshore Road. It's about a mile from the Townshore Road up here, Avenue Intersection, with a proposed single-family dwelling on Lot 2. Surrounding area is mainly residential. And with the exception of the Northville Tank Farm, which is in the area. Moving through my staff report, this is type 2 action pursuant to SECR, so no further environmental review is required. The property does have an existing CO for the residence, which was recently updated, if you noted in my report. It was written as a mobile home. It was always a modular home when they replaced the original mobile home, so that was corrected recently. Items of note are these two-frame sheds, which are non-compatible. They're not conforming locations, because it's within the front yard. Accessory structures have to be within the rear. With this structure in a conforming location, but too close to the property line. And then this one, which is totally in the front. So the applicant will either have to seek relief or relocate them. While this board can't support relief from the zoning board, it'd be pretty challenging for them to locate it in the rear of the property. If you know there's significant topo as you go to Long Island Sound to the beach. So starting here, it drops about 30 feet to a flat area here. Does it require any variances? Not for the lots themselves. No, just those structures will either have to be moved or they'll need relief. There is an encroachment on the property, which is covered by an easement. It's for this driveway area and the frame shed from these lots up here. That's already been recorded. And there's also a little bit of encroachment from an earthen and RCA driveway for the property. So the west and I believe the owner is working to prevent people from coming down. It looks like this owner put some sort of like roadway down, but there's a do not enter sign. So they're working to rectify that. This does comply with the RA40 zoning use district, but there's not a dimensional chart on here. So we'll just leave that on as a condition of approval. In terms of the recreational fee, it'll be one $5,000 recreational fee for the additional lot, not one where there's already residents. We did get comments from, the water district is public water on the street with a hydrant to the east, right by my finger here. So they'll need to pay all fees from the water district to connect. I did get a memo back from drew on the 15th. He had no comments on this, nothing back from the fire Marshall fire district or the planning commission. You haven't had to go to the planning commission because they're within 500 feet of the sound. They do have an application in with the health department. It's incomplete, but obviously we'll need health department approval before you guys can approve. Uh, and then moving to the D. C. Because they're within their jurisdiction. Um, they did get a permit from DC, which was issued already for the subdivision noting that they're within three miles of occurrence of the Northern Longyear bat. So they all have a covenant that they can't clear unless they're within that bat window, which is between March 1st and November 30th. I'll be hearing at the same time and you're playing with health department. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. That's what typically happens anyway. Now, just one question. Yes. The, um, um, um, no cutting trees between March 1st and November 30th. Will that continue on building also? Yeah, they have to. So you have to comply with the, that's the Northern long. So you're not working in wintertime. Correct. Good luck. It's a stiff burden to me, but we, it's not atypical for the town. Pretty much. There's a Northern Longyear bat within three miles of everyone. So my recommendation is that we have a resolution, classify this as a type two and schedule a hearing for September 18th, which is an afternoon meeting. I didn't know if the board had any questions before. This is just one question. I'll be on the, on the gravel driveway, which extends onto the property over here. Yeah. Or this one, which is from the asphalt driveway. Yeah. That morning. Yep. Now that, that seems to be on the property. It is. So that's, that's captured by a encroachment and it's, so they already recorded an easement. Uh, the benefit of the neighbors, that's their driveway. And there's actually a pretty significant grade difference here as well. It's about 20 feet from the low spot down here to where that driveway is. It's like straight up. Yeah. There's a big retaining wall. And if you guys have any questions for the owner or for Kim.

There's also a tool shed. Yep. So that's captured by the easement too. That's it. Okay. Neighbor's tool shed. Okay. Good guys. Good.

Don't go anywhere. Number two is JPD Calvin site plan. Matt, tell us about it.

More of an update for the board for an existing application that we have. I will go through the update. I'm just grab.

All right. So JPD, JPD Calverton, 4195 middle country road in Calverton. If the board's familiar, this is where I had nobody from the applicant. They couldn't be here today. No, I've been corresponding with them. They both had scheduling conflicts, but we're not taking an action today. This is more of an update to bring everyone up to speed with the changes that have been made since you originally reviewed this back in 2023. This is the, where Neptune feeds is located south side of middle country road in Calverton. We received this application, I believe in 2023. So what happened is under, we started reviewing, we retained LKMH review their traffic report on this because they're building a 74,650 square foot new industrial building with multi tenants. In addition to their existing 139,000 building with outdoor storage. Now we retained LKMH. We moved offices. We had, there was a retirement LKMH. And then in January of 2024, this application was captured by the Calverton industrial moratorium. So that went on for a year, more or less new zoning for this property was, was, was, was, was a three year old property. So the property was rezoned from industrial C to Calverton industrial. So what I highlighted for you in the staff report that it distributed was essentially those changes. It complies to the, all the dimensional regulations of the Calverton industrial zone with the exception, they'll need to show the 50 foot transition yard in the front. But really just to pick up the review again, no action other than to continue the traffic review. So. these two outdoor storage areas weren't included because it wasn't permitted in the old zoning use district they are now allowed so in the traffic study we're just include asking that they're included and they know what exactly they're going to use them for to see if it has a traffic impact. Are they planning on any improvements to the parking lot? I would love to see it because if you see in my report it's not in great condition so it's I can definitely transmit that to the applicant that their existing parking area you know there's weeds growing through everywhere there's a lot of truck bodies I'm hoping that's where the outdoor storage areas is where they'll put a lot of that stuff because they'll they'll have to be screened in within the fence other than that. It's pretty bad, see if we can edge them along. That is we talked I'm gonna leave my comments until we have someone here from the company that's doing the work it's just like Ed said the place it just looks terrible and any type a lot of improvements have to be you know for the next 20 years. 25 or 30 years. Yeah and that's that's understood it's a new owner I think even since the last time this board's reviewed it so if you're familiar now that they do access via two curb cuts the eastern curb cuts going to be abandoned so they'll only be able to access off the western curb cut they're proposing a nice planted berm here not to excuse the condition of the site because it is an industrial site but you can't really see it from the road very quiet neighbors to the east and to the south that's a solar farm this is a sod farm to the west but there isn't any !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Yep yep so we're keeping on plugging along with traffic right no action on that one to that number three Thomas Anderson minus vision either come on up I'm just cutting I'm just cutting I'm just cutting I'm just cutting helt helt helt

I don't know if you read the letter of intent that was submitted in order to get an equal share. The brother to the south, who's Richard Anderson, is subdividing his into three lots. And then Thomas Anderson is subdividing his into two lots, again, with the intent to sell all the larger pieces to the county. Just to get into the nitty gritty, the northern parcel, which is the Thomas Anderson parcel, is Suffolk County tax number number 600-64-1-57. The lot is 25.711 acres, and they're proposing to subdivide it into two lots, one being 21.711 acres, the acquisition parcel, and then the smaller one to be a four-acre retained parcel, possibly to build a house on in the future. It's located wholly within the APZ zoning use district, about 1,000 feet south of the Reeves-Roanoke Avenue intersection, located on the east side of Roanoke Avenue. So I did refer this to the Ag Advisory Committee. They approved the application as submitted at their meeting held on August 11th. As far as access is concerned, obviously no new accesses are proposed. Currently, I believe the Thomas Anderson farm parcel is accessed via this. It's a right-of-way on the map, and it's actually a flag that's part of the 9 Tyler Drive Corp. parcel, which is the Vineyard Golf parcel. And it's interesting, it's been in that configuration for quite some time. So I don't know if this original right-of-way was parcelized and then merged with this lot. I'm not 100% sure, but in reviewing the title reports, both of these farm lots have rights to this for access. But it looks like this access is for the Thomas Anderson parcel, and then the Richard Anderson parcel, which is to the south, has multiple farm roads to access it off of Roanoke Avenue. I did make the general referrals. Water District, Fire Marshal, our consulting engineer, Highway Department, I have yet to receive comments back from them. But that doesn't stop this board from scheduling a public hearing, as it's a Type 2 action pursuant to SECRA. So just to sort of dovetail, if it's alright if we go into the Richard Anderson map. I have a question. Sure. The road that's from the golf course, is that going to impede any of the access? No. Okay. Are the counties looking at the property? No. No. The county is happy with this proposal that we're trying to get through. But no, they've looked at it and they're fine with it. Okay. So if you don't mind, this is the Richard Anderson minor subdivision. So this is the parcel to the south of the right-of-way on the map. It's more particularly identified as Suffolk County Tax Note number 600-H. And this parcel is 66.996 acres. And they're proposing to subdivide this into three lots. Lot 1 would be 20.639 acres, an acquisition parcel. Lot 2, 42.357 acres, also an acquisition parcel. And lot 3, which is 4 acres, would be the retained parcel, again, for potential, you know, residential development in the future. The main difference between the two is that the residential development is going to be a little bit more complex. The main difference between this lot and the Thomas Anderson lot is it is partially split-zoned. The southern portion of it here that goes to Joyce Drive is RA40, and then the remainder is APZ. Again, this is a Type 2 action pursuant to SECRA. The Ag Advisory also reviewed this at their August 11th meeting and approved the application as proposed. Why is this a three-lot subdivision? So as I stated earlier... Why couldn't they just get rid of this lot and have one large parcel? As I stated earlier, the intent is that the two brothers would like to split equally whatever is made from the purchase of development. Sure, Mr. Petty, sorry. Minnesotans, like many of us, are getting older, and they were making an estate plan. What they did is they took 92 acres, which is back-to-back in this area, and each one is going to get 42. And they could have saved four. When I say 42, 42 is going to be sold to the county, so that's 84 acres. The other eight acres, they're splitting four cut-out pieces for the house or something. That's all they're really doing. They're just saying, we each want to own part of this. We now own it together. We want to separate it. So if it... The lot two, as it's shown here, is actually for acquisition. Yes. Yes, so if you look at... I'm just trying to break them up, and that's really what's happening. If you look at the map side-by-side, the lot two of the Thomas Anderson plus the area of lot one of the Richard Anderson essentially equates to the total area of lot two. So because they're divided by that flag, they had to break it up this way. But it's my understanding that the county is currently reviewing these maps and is happy... They're looking at exactly the same thing. I'm sure they've done the same thing. Okay, great. So if the board has any other questions... I mean, it's really... You know, we're classifying this as a type two action pursuant to CEQA for both subdivisions and then scheduling public hearings for both on September 18th, which is a 3 o'clock meeting. We have resolutions on tonight, so... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, number five, Summerwind Farm, major subdivision. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We may have one more shortly. Our traffic engineer, Rebecca Goldberg, is in route, so at least she makes it in time. Did we see the reports? Yes. All right. So this is a continued discussion for the Summerwind Farms application. Just a brief sort of history of the project thus far. Back in February, the planning board approved a 19-lot as-of-right yield map for the subject property. It's about 30 acres in size, so there was an as-of-right yield of 19 lots. In March of 25, the planning board rejected the three sketch plans that were initially submitted and instructed the applicant to submit three revised sketch plans. The applicant did so, and then in July we retained LKMA to review the three proposed sketches as well as a traffic safety engineering assessment that was prepared by the planning board. We did receive a review memo from LKMA, so I'll kind of just go over the three revised sketch plans for the board. So what they're calling sketch plans 4, 5, and 6. So the sketch plans generally follow the same sort of layout and design as the initial sketch plan that was rejected. The main difference was in the layout and location of the driveway. So the plan was to be a little bit more

cul-de-sac here, and then there would be a private driveway that would be proposed to serve lots 1 through 4. So sketch plan 4 has the proposed private driveway coming off of the western side of the property on Peconic Bay Boulevard. That would serve lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, and it's presumed that the development area for lot number 16, this area, it would be open space and ag reserve. There is a right-of-way on the eastern side of the property. Sketch plan 4 would have access to the development area from that private, from that right-of-way.

Sketch plan 5, I had to sort of look very closely to see what the difference for this one is. The difference for this is that the development area for lot 16 would take access off of this proposed common driveway. Again, that same location on the western edge of the property along Peconic Bay Boulevard. And then we have sketch plan 6.

Sketch plan 6 took the private driveway and instead of locating it on the western portion of the property, it comes around to the south and comes out at the southeast corner of the property on Peconic Bay Boulevard. So the summation of LKMA's review of the property, so they did a site visit, they looked at the three sketch plans, they reviewed the engineering assessment that was prepared by IMEG that was submitted by the applicant. Their recommended driveway option would be option number 6. They noted that option 6, this configuration depicted in sketch plan 6, locates the driveway at the southeast corner of the subject property. For the applicant, the driveway location provides 605 feet of site distance to the left, meaning to the east, and 310 feet of site distance to the north. The driveway location is the same as the site location to the right. Traffic traveling southbound around Peconic Bay Boulevard curve is likely to be traveling slower compared to the straightaway section of the roadway. The applicant expects the prevailing speed of vehicles traveling on the curve to be about 35 miles an hour. Again, I believe that was based on field observations by the applicant's engineering professional. It states that at a speed of 35 miles per hour, required amount of intersection site distance changes to 390 feet. As such, the required site distance can be attained at a speed of 35 miles per hour. Sale for Sale Sale for Sale on the south side of the property the original proposal did propose to clear a site triangle out of this significant wooded buffer over here but they're saying that the site distance can be accomplished with minimal clearing over here towards the southeast corner they did note that there is a 20 mile per hour advisory speed around the corner which you know is supposed to warn people to kind of slow down a little bit so the end result is lkma's recommended driveway location would be option number six um again you know from the inception of this project i've you know i've appreciated the you know layout of this subdivision it serves many functions it preserves the you know what i consider the real the vista of the farm field over here to the south the only real view shed that you have from it is down on the south side of the kind of on the south side of the property from conan bay boulevard looking north there is the preservation component back here it's a very high level of the residential development that serves to the greatest extent practical keep that vista for the residents on fox chaser place there would be you know the these two lots on fox chaser would have new residences in there but any other configuration of this subdivision would be much more impactful than neighboring residences so from that end i can respect the layout and the considerations to it so we're here before the board to present the three sketch plans present the applicants as well as our retained consultants review of it again I you know I would support sketch plan number six we will obviously if the board prefer if the board is in agreement they would move forward with the preliminary plat they would have to do grading drainage designs at that point my only kind of question or concern would be you know so this roadway meets town standards and would be potentially offered for dedication to the town there is a recharge basin here that would capture the stormwater runoff from that roadway being at this would be a private common driveway there is a note down here that says driveway drainage area I'm just a little hesitant to have what essentially would be a private lee maintain drainage area right next to the town roadway I don't know if there could be when they actually get it there hearing if that could either be managed within the road itself or if they could address the drainage you know I just don't know if that would be necessarily appropriate to have a privately maintained drainage area. Supposed to be paved? Yes, I mean that would be a 26-foot wide asphalt driveway with turnaround. That's required based on the length of the road in order to meet fire codes for an emergency vehicle to be able to get in there and turn around. And also if there's any types of, you know, Amazon, any type of deliveries that are taking place, it gives a vehicle a place to turn around. Yes, that would be a private driveway. Is the lot 16, is there a specific reason why it's located that far in rather than, let's say, closer to the other lots on Conagher? Well, I mean, so lot 16, you mean you're referring to the development area? Yeah. In terms of why that was selected, I would defer to the applicant if they could, you know, speak to that. I mean, it would make sense to sort of have a, if that's going to be the farmhouse, you know, you want to kind of have it tucked back rather than right in the middle of your farm field. Yeah, or just put it right here on the entrance. I mean, I believe that was in part to try to maintain as much of the agricultural vista from the roadway, so that way if the development in that location was further back, it would allow it to look continuous, continue to be able to observe the farmland from that location. There is a prospective purchaser for that lot, which is looking to continue the farmland use on that lot, as well as for lot 15. That is the same situation. There is a prospective purchaser for that lot who is also looking to continue the farmland use on that lot. So, I mean, I think that's a good point. So, I mean, I think that's a good point. So, I mean, I think that's a good point. So, I mean, I think that's a good point. And in terms of the drainage, certainly we're open to making sure that everything is engineered to the town's specifications and requirements. Young lady, you got here a little late. Can you tell us who you are? Oh, of course. My name is Rebecca Goldberg. I'm the Transportation Engineer that prepared the letter report that was submitted to the Board in June. Thank you. And here for questions if needed. Greg, I kind of agree with you. I'm on a— Exhibit 4 and 5 going out west on a boulevard. I've been there. The elevation is probably 3 to 4 feet. The road is lower, so it would be a tremendous amount of work just getting it down to that level. I like the idea of going all the way to the east where it's relatively flat, and there is somewhat of a road opening as it is. If that's going to be blacked up, will it be Belgian block, and can the dry wells maintain? You know, the water, the rain runoff instead of a, you know, recharge basin. Is there a limit on how far or the amount of area? I mean, so that's really an engineering question, you know, that would have to do with just the amount of impervious surface, the grade of the property, you know, what the required capacity for a— It's hard to have a SWPPP, right? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So, I mean, yeah. I mean, it's without question. I mean, that's a standard, you know, and every subdivision, every development has to maintain their own stormwater. I mean, in terms of whether it's going to be Belgian block or curbing, I mean, that's really up to, you know, the developer for what would be a private driveway. You know, the town road would have to meet the town standards in terms of paving width, curbing, specifications, recharge basin standards. You know, this would have to be designed to the town of Riverhead Road drainage standards, but we don't really have a common standard for a common driveway. It's still a difficult lot because of the S-turns, but maybe as we get— further along in the process, we could consider things like blind driveway signs, you know, other things to mediate the S-turns there. All right. If I could just for a moment. The applicant has worked pretty extensively with the neighbors directly to the east. I believe some letters were submitted to the planning department. It's my understanding that the neighbors to the east prefer option number five. So, with that said, my clients are prepared to move forward with whichever one the town feels is the best option. I understand from—in terms of what the traffic engineer came back with from your engineer. I believe—and again, I'm going to speak out of turn— I believe some of those neighbors maybe behind us who maybe speaking at the public speaking section— and they can correct me if I'm incorrect— I think there were some concerns about having access in the location— having trucks and vehicles increasing the traffic in what is now there— Right. farmland backyard which I thoroughly understand but again if it comes down to it is the safety considerations that will control the day again we're prepared to move forward with whichever plan the board deems is necessary the applicant has also been working with the DEC and with SHPO SHPO has given an approval for the site there's one little location up in this corner which will be a do not disturb location which is what gave them their the comfort level with with this application has also worked with the Farm Bureau again making sure that the vast majority of the two larger Lots will be maintained for future agriculture and again especially requests that you make a decision so that way we can move into engineering and answer some of your larger questions before we move I do just want to bring up as missile point pointed out we did receive some correspondence from the neighbors which was forwarded to the board there was a question so this I believe it's a 16-foot right-of-way that's located on the east side of the property there's actually mentioned of that right-of-way in some of these neighboring property owners deeds on Foxchaser place right now the the plan calls that to be abandoned but rather than sort of open up a can of worms and abandoning something that other property owners may have a right to I personally would not have an issue with that right-of-way was maintained and was not abandoned again we don't I don't have the information as to the right-of-way to to whom they service on their deeds but again both follow the guidance of the board and we can't abandon something that can't be abandoned true okay good good good luck thank you we we good just to get some the rally good with sketch plan six based on the other traffic safety room individually to you and text me I'll let you know because it's illegal to take a straw poll so we'll reach out individually and whatever number they want to majority will be okay thank you very much I appreciate it

okay at this point can we have comments on resolutions please I do just have one amendment that I just want to quote to the board bring their attention before we vote it's on the 940 to 946 West Main Street application I received a letter from design professional Martin said Lewski just before the meeting he requested two changes the first change was to page five condition number one this is resolution 2025 dash is 084 so right now the resolution says that no site work shall begin nor shall building permits be issued until a planning board resolution granting final site plan approval is adopted he requested just clarification language that would read that no site work shall begin nor building permits be issued for this proposed site development and proposed buildings until a planning board resolution granting final site plan approval is adopted the reason for this request was to just sort of clarify that if they wanted to use the existing building under a permitted use that a building permit could be issued that was never the intent of the resolution but I have no objection to that clarification and then they did request a change to the duration of the preliminary approval which right now our preliminary site plan approval code is valid for one year and it has the possibility of two six-month extensions to be granted he requested three years which is not permitted under the code so the resolution as it stays for will be valid for one year the applicant as I stated can request those two six months extensions which would essentially bring their preliminary approval to be valid for two years which would allow them to address all the necessary conditions regarding DOT sewer water DEC and the like Eric do you guys have any I know number two we can't help but number one you have any problem law-wise the change in the first resolution for it for changing resolution it would it would just it right now it just says final condition it says that no site work shall begin nor shall building permits be issued until a Planning Board resolution granting final site plan approval is adopted it would just like to add the language that no site work shall begin it or shall building permits be issued for this proposed site development at proposed buildings it it the intent of a resolution is not to stop someone from filing a building permit for destination a building permit for the existing building again i just i don't see that it moves the needle in one direction or another existing building is part of the current site plan now the existing building is going to be demolished as a result of the site plan so they're saying that they wouldn't be able to demolish the building they wouldn't be they wouldn't be able to they just want to clarify that they wouldn't be able to pull a permit for the site work under this site plan or the proposed buildings so that in the two years you know that they may take to get the necessary permits and approvals from outside agencies if they wanted to use that existing building for a proposed you know permitted use under the zoning that's fine all right because are they covered under any uh change in code code changes or anything else within those two years no so so um that would be a quite i mean if we we've treated other sites that have had a preliminary approval we have treated them you know sort of extended that that preliminary approval sort of keeps them within the limits of that site plan for those two years yeah i mean if though if in the two years that they haven't received the necessary approvals and they haven't gotten that final approval um that's a different story but you know i don't think we've ever taken the position that we're gonna change the zoning on someone after they've received a preliminary approval and then subject them to those changes after those two years it could be possible i mean in theory after the approval lapses if there was a code change in the meantime yes they wouldn't be that subject to it but if they're within their time frames granted under the preliminary approval that's how we've treated those applications actually yeah that was my mistake i thought i just got that mixed up with final site plan because that allows three years yeah and when i read it i was just thinking the three years that way so that was just a incorrect it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it If it makes him feel more comfortable. Yeah, the proposed amendment. Okay. Public comments, anybody? All righty. Gentlemen, could we do the resolutions, please? All right, I'll move resolution 2025-082, Woodhull at Soundshore, the minor subdivision. Second. Public hearing, Mr. Zelnicki. Public hearing, I'm sorry. That's okay. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Mr. Baer? Yes. All right, motion carries. I'll move resolution 23-25-084, grants preliminary approval and site plan for 940- Number two, Joe. I'm sorry. Gouda. Gouda. All right. Okay. Go ahead. Let somebody else do it. Okay. You got it? Resolution three? Sure. Two. Two. Resolution number 2025-083, Gouda, LLC. Resolution granting final approval 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. Okay. I'll do 084 now, which is 940-946, West Main Street site redevelopment for preliminary approval. Second. And that will just be as amended? As amended. As amended. Okay. Moved and seconded. As amended. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes, as amended. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes, as amended. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Resolution 2025-085, Silverback Holdings, LLC, minor subdivision. Resulting resolution granting an extension of approval for a two lot minor subdivision. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move. Resolution 2025-086, Thomas Anderson, minor subdivision. Mr. Baer? Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale. richard anderson minor subdivision to classify as type two and schedule a public hearing on the minor subdivision for richard minor richard anderson minor second second moved in second mr zelnicki yes yes mr manero mr baird yes and i vote aye the motion carries i'll move resolution number 2025 088 kathy lane major subdivision resolution granting an extension of approval for a 10-lot major subdivision of res major residential subdivision original originally approved by the planning board so moved second moved in second mr zelnicki yes mr hogan yes mr nero mr baird yes and i vote aye the motion carries okay at this portion of time we can have public comment on all matters

no takers can we get the minutes moved please i'll move the minutes of riverhead town board at july 17 2025. second moved in second all in favor all right all opposed motion carries uh greg no seeker actions tonight other business

correspondence aside from the letters sorry for the letters that were forwarded regarding the summer wind subdivision okay our next meeting date is thursday september 4th at six o'clock right here hope to see everybody there morning close second all in favor aye aye all opposed thank you

moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved moved