Full Transcript

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

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody from the public like to comment?

Good evening members of the Planning Board. My name is Thomas Haughton. I am one of the two residential parcels that borders this property on the northeast corner. Excuse me. On the south path. I'm on 181 South Path. I'm going to turn it around. Myself and my neighbor next to me, I think we're the only two residences. You have Lasky's Poultry Farm to the west of this property, and then you have a landscape nursery that went in, and then I think there's gonna be another subdivision next to it. So I was unable to attend the scoping meeting back in December, but I took a look at the site plan, the draft EIS. Just wanted to make a couple of comments. I saw on the site plans, it looks like there was gonna be a woodland buffer surrounding the proposed lots on the north side of the property. I love that. Bought my house, woods in the back, undeveloped parcel, it was great. If that woodland buffer would be covenanted, that would be fantastic to me. I'm not sure what it was called out as, whether it was 20 feet, 25 feet, but just the idea of the erosion control plan said that, you know, the whole site minus this buffer was gonna be cleared and then reseeded with grass and trees and such like that. But if these lots become undeveloped for two years, four years, et cetera, I just have this unkept field in the back of my house at that point. So a covenanted buffer, I mean, I understand there is some invasive vegetation in that area, but there are a number of cedars, pines. It would be nice if that stayed. The turkey farm, I'd appreciate that as well if there was a little buffer. I just had a, I'm not gonna give you comments. It's a little early for that, but you're pointing out, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, but your point's taken and we'll consider it at the proper time. Yep, so beyond that, northern long-eared bat clearing window, just a point to make. The architecture looked a little out of place since a bunch of Southampton pictures were used, the Parashar Museum, the Phillips Cancer Center. Alright, so what are you scoping on tonight or what are you taking comments on tonight? The draft environmental impact statement the subdivision application okay fantastic and the site plan and the same plan yeah everything yeah so that's pretty much everything yep so um i noticed on the full environmental assessment form uh there was one section where it talked about the noise impact of construction equipment i think it might have been on page eight top of page eight and it said there'd be no impact from construction happening uh on the site so we might want to take a look at that item um and i also wanted to talk about potentially the developers providing access for these residents to the bike path across the street currently there's no real great means of access to the grumman path and if you're gonna have 33 single family or single unit apartments with no backyard no outlet for recreation you might end up having a problem with those people trying to cross the street um so that'd be helpful but yeah the biggest thing i want to talk about was the buffer and then um that's about that's about where i'm at so thank you thank you next speaker mark

hello i'm mark malosky from will malosky's poultry farm um i just wanted to reiterate on some of the things about the standing order on the on the property because uh we're trying to keep the wild following you know aquatic birds away from us because of the bird flow yep and the second thing is um the front of the fence around the property i don't know what how much of a buffer there is but from middle country road maybe 100 feet back i was asked that there's no fence and then the fence starts because of site because when you're heading east to west on the road you won't be able to see anything on your right if there's a fence that goes all the way to the road and um i just want to know what kind of fence and uh how that works okay matt do you know i believe it's called out as a stockade fence but i mean that's a design thing yeah yeah because i was because isn't there fences that are made for like sound barriers and uh things like that maybe that could be addressed too okay and um i think that's it thank you thank you greg what are we working off of plan a um uh joe just showed me i i never got the you know the new drawing i had the three i had the three uh drawings so uh is that we're in the environmental impact statement well yeah so there is a preferred you know we one of the items that we discussed when the initial draft dies came in was the one of the alternative designs with the building we wanted it kind of rotated 90 degrees um so that is in the dies as one of the preferred alternatives all right i i would just like to bring up the uh the fact that i i think that Possibly the applicant should start to look at drawing three, which would be without the sewage treatment plant. That would be all the houses would be built and just some sort of a commercial facility up front. Because without an SDP, I think it would be a lot nicer for all the people in the community. And it would feel better. It would look much, much better as a possibility. And that was alternative B.

And I believe we have someone on Zoom. They'd like to. Anybody else in the audience like to speak first? You got to do it from the mic. It's a public hearing. I've got to ask one quick question. I'm not sure. At the last meeting, I asked for a 25 to 30-foot buffer. And I don't know how far the buffer is now. You're talking about in the back of the property? No, from my property line to their property line. Oh. So I was wondering what they came up with that or how much that buffer is. I believe the plan currently identifies a 10-foot buffer. But I don't see, you know, I mean, I don't think it would be impractical to increase the size of that buffer on the west. Okay.

One person on Zoom.

I'm sorry. We didn't get your name, please. It's Karen. K-E-R-E-N. K-E-M-P. Hello. I live in Calvert. I live in Calverton. I just have a couple of comments about the report. It cites economic development by building commercial space. And I'm kind of confused. What economic benefits those are. Just like two parcels down from this place is the Calverton Commons. And since they've been built, they have empty space still. I think they were built about eight or nine years ago. And they still have a for lease sign for some of the space there. And even down at the shops in East Wind, they have empty commercial. So I would like some serious consideration about allowing more commercial space being built, especially along this part of Middle Country Road.

And my second point is, will a traffic light be installed either at Fresh Pod Road or at this new street that's being created? Because as it is now, it's very difficult to make left-hand turns onto Middle Country Road. And we'll be adding more vehicles, more residents, and it'll just be a lot more convoluted and a lot more harder to make turns. The traffic will increase. And my third point is that why is this being made by the city? Are there any uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? Are there uses for it? but no hand up yet. Anything else, board members? It's a pleasure.

We can close it if you gentlemen want to close it. Motion that we close the public hearing on the TJOC real estate holdings. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Aye. And I vote aye. The motion carries. The public hearing is closed. Okay. Moving right into discussion items. Heather, can you join us, please? RH Hampton, 321 LLC, unmerger. Tell us all about it.

Is there anyone here for the application? I wasn't sure if Mr. Pettis was here. He appeared to be a client. Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Are there any members for it? Town code, it's called merger of lots, under which pre-existing non-conforming lots held in the same ownership that are adjoining or contiguous are automatically merged by operation. So that doesn't necessarily mean that they get a new tax net number, but they're no longer seen as single and separate when they're conveyed under the same name. So in this case, 321 Union Avenue and 314 Maple Avenue, their respective tax net numbers are 600-127-1-41 and 600-127-1-44, have two separate tax net numbers. They were, up until about a year ago, vacant lots conveyed under the same name, same line burn page number, I think beginning in about 2000. So that's a separate tax net number based on the chain of title that was submitted. So even though the county recognizes them as separate lots, they're considered merged by the town because they are non-conforming pursuant to the RA 40 zoning use district. Chapter 301.243 allows the planning board to unmerge or grant an unmerger when the parcels are merged by operation, subject to three conditions, which I outlined in my staff report. In this particular situation, the land is not subject to the zoning use district's approval. The lots do not meet condition number three, under which no such lot for which a subdivision is applied, pursuant to this section, shall result in a lot area half or less of the area permitted in the zone, pursuant to the lot area requirement schedule. So this is RA 40 zoning. The lots, again, as they exist, the surveys show roughly 5,000 square foot per lot, which is in keeping character with the lots to the north of it. So it's not out of character with the surrounding area. But the applicant has to appeal to the zoning board for relief from that condition. So the planning board can't grant the unmerger until the applicant goes through the process with the zoning board. And if they're successful with the zoning board, they would come back to the planning board. So looking at SIGRA unmergers are an unlisted action, seeing as this wouldn't directly result in any environmental impacts. It's not expected to result in environmental impacts. By going forward with the unmerger, I do have a resolution on to do a negative declaration so that they can proceed to the zoning board. One thing that I wanted to point out to the board is that the lot that's on Maple Avenue is currently improved with a single family dwelling. The owner came in and received a building permit and then a corresponding CO last year. And then they came in to develop the lot on Union, and that's when it was discovered that they were not single and separate. When a chain of title was done for each lot. Could you give me the size of the lots? It didn't seem to be anywhere in the drawings, especially the vacant.

So this is the lot on Union, and it shows a proposed house. Again, they can't move forward with the building department for a building permit until the unmerger is granted. Right, I understand that. And this... Just see, the lot is... It actually doesn't show the lot dimensions, but I did look it up in the assessor's records on GIS. And that lot... I believe it's 5140. Yeah, 5140 square feet. And then the other lot that's on Maple that has the house is 5002 square feet.

And that again. Okay, this does have the site area on it. So there should have been two surveys submitted in conjunction with the application. And I know the survey for the vacant lot is unclear because they have a proposed structure and a building envelope on there. But that's 5140, and then the other lot is 5000. So again, they are less than half of what's allowed in RA 40. It's a 40,000 minimum square foot lot size. So they do need zoning Board of Appeals approval before coming back to the Planning Board. I'll note that the Planning Board has granted the zoning board. The Planning Board has granted unmergers in the past. In particular, there was one, um, Chaffery on further Lane in 2009. I think he proposed lots of roughly 16,000 square feet in the same zoning use district. Um, but they also had to go through the zoning board process. Okay. And those lots split up with our keeping with the neighborhood, the rest of the neighborhood. Yeah. And I mean, you'll have to make the case to the zoning board, but I wanted to bring it to the Planning Board. So you're aware so that we could... I mean, I'm aware that they could complete SIGRA and they could continue on the process. If they're successful with the zoning board, they'll come back. Um, we'll have a public hearing and go from there. Okay. I have a question. How they got the first permit to build? I can't speak to that. Um, I mean, all I know is that, you know, before they went and got a permit for the second house, it was discovered that the lots were not single and separate. And again, I went through the chain of title, which I have here for each lot, and I sort of flagged where the lots were conveyed. Under the same ownership. It started in, uh, 2001. Where Riverhead Building Supply, uh, owned both lots. And conveyed them to the Riverhead Fire District under the same librarian page number. And that process continued. The properties have been sold several times. And this new owner bought the properties. Wanted to develop them. And again, it built the house on the one lot. But they can't build a house on this lot. Cause it's not single and separate. Right. We'll offer up a request. resolution a little later and if it passes they can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. And then if they're successful they'll come back. Very good. Thank you Heather. Okay discussion item number two Calvin Industrial Subdivision also known as OSTAT. Greg? Thank you. So this is just a really quick update on the Calvin Industrial Subdivision also known as OSTAT. This is a major industrial subdivision of approximately 131 acres which is located directly to the west of Splish Splash. Back in 2022 the Planning Board issued a positive declaration for this application. We went through scoping. We accepted a draft environmental impact statement and then shortly after that, shortly after the board accepted the draft EIS the Town Board adopted the Calvin Industrial Moratorium. So that stopped review of the OSTAT Industrial Subdivision application. Once that moratorium was lifted, the Town Board, we adopted a series of zoning amendments to the Industrial Zoning Use Districts. This property was located in the Industrial A zoning use district. It is now located in the Calvin Industrial Zoning Use District. So I discussed with the applicant how best to address the zoning changes. We came up with the solution. We issued a supplemental, we issued another positive declaration on June 5th of 2025. We set a very narrow scope to just study the changes of the zoning code and analyze those impacts. All of the dimensional regulations were reduced so it was a pretty straightforward analysis. So the applicant did submit that supplemental draft EIS and adequately addressed the items that we had scoped out and set for them to study. So I have a resolution tonight to both accept that supplemental draft EIS and then we're going to hold the combined policy. I believe that's going to be scheduled for the first meeting in November, which I believe is November 6th. I have a couple of questions. It basically had to do with the layout of the subdivision. I noticed that lot 7 now is part of lot 1, so the water district would be satisfied. But I couldn't understand. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

And the reason I bring it up is because they're going to build a sewage treatment plant. They're going to have to build every one of the roads in the subdivision before they can get to that. And they're going to have to put all the utilities in after, let's say, the first subdivision, lot one, is brought in. And that seems to be, I don't know, you might think of it that way. Unless they're coming in off of River Road. So is the question why is the sewage treatment plant on the back of the subdivision? Yeah, yeah. I don't want to speak for the applicant. I don't know if that has to maybe do with topography. Maybe if the, you know. Well, it could be for grades. Also, aesthetics, potentially. Yeah, but the point being that you're going to have to build all of the roads and put all the utilities in to get to that furthest point. Mr. Barrett. Good point. And apparently that was all considered when the engineers laid this out and recommended to our client. It's a terrible expense, let's say, for the first lot. But anyway, the other thing is on Road B.

Okay. I believe that's set up so that at some point they're going to be able to get an exit. It's a lot. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it. So, that was studied within the EIS. Then, also within the draft supplement. There's a lot of impediments to getting access to the EIS. Oh, I know that. They were all analyzed, reviewed extensively in the DEIS. So, the feasibility of it was really put in doubt. So, I think in terms of the design of Road B, it anticipates that there probably won't be access to the LIA. Then you don't need it. Okay. Because you can have access to Road 5, 3, and 4. From all the... Trying to get access to it from the feds is just... Yeah, forget it. They really hit a dead end? Yeah. Oh, that's the bad. Road B could always be removed. We could always show that as future potential access. But, again, if it's too much of an uphill battle, if it really can't be achieved, it can always be shown as future. This, Lot 5, will be open space, which will help to satisfy the minimum open space requirements for the industrial subdivision. So, Road B, if it's not constructed as this little spur, could potentially just be shown as future access if at some point it ever materializes. Okay. And when you exit any of the properties, you want to maintain that you head east to go west to get on the... Instead of using Edwards Avenue to make a right to get on the expressway. It would eliminate a lot of traffic from that busy intersection. And it's not that far. So you would just go 25 to the expressway. Mm-hmm. Anything to eliminate a certain amount of traffic from that traffic circle. Yeah, but the only thing with that is there's no... If you, and I understand, you know, if someone's looking to head westbound on the LIE, it would make sense to just go right, go to the entrance ramp onto the LIE. But there is no... If vehicles are looking to head to the south fork, there is no westbound exit route. There is no exit ramp onto, you know, New General, by exit 71. So any vehicles that are traveling or headed down for the south fork would likely have to go towards Edwards. But, again, there's no current subdivisions, you know, on the current site, depending, there's no intended users at this point. But they did just use a general industrial park growth formula. So there's no access to River Road? No. No access to River Road. Strictly on Middle Country Road. But it's important to note that... Thank you, Jeff. All of the mitigation, roadway and other, that was suggested in the DEIS was included in the grant supplement when the project was scaled back by about half a million square feet, which is a plus. Mm-hmm. Okay. John? Good. All good? Yeah. Yep. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, at this point, we're taking public comments on resolutions. Anybody want to speak, feel free to come up. Roll. Got an old jump I want. Evening. Hello, everybody. Hello. What up, Bianco, Bading Hollow. Am I correct? Did I just hear somebody say that the Oostad subdivision that public hearing would be November 6th meeting? I believe that's what he said. Okay, that's a 2 p.m. meeting? Is it possible? No. No. 6 o'clock. 6 p.m. Oh, okay, good. I was looking. It's the first meeting of the month. That might be a town board meeting. Okay, that's good because a lot of public people can't come at the 2 o'clock. Yeah, it's 6 o'clock in the evening. Terrific. Thank you, folks. Thank you all. You're welcome. Any comment, folks? Nobody? No. Okay. Nobody else? Let's go. Chairman, what's your resolutions? I'll move resolution 2025-089, Calverton Industrial Subdivision, accepting the supplemental draft environmental statement for the proposed major industrial subdivision. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries. I'll move resolution 22-03. 2. Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale

in Anza Square, which seeks approval to construct a commercial center. So, I'm moved. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? No. Mr. Nero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries 4-1. Resolution 2025-092. Summerwind Farms Major Subdivision Resolution Selecting Preference Sketch Plan for a Major Residential Subdivision. Just one question, Greg. Yes. Was that Plan 6? Yes. We had LKMA review it. They provided engineering assessment for the proposed driveway locations. So, that was based on the engineering assessment. Okay. Application seeking to subdivide an existing 30.125 acres. So, moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move Resolution 2025-093 Calverton Industrial Subdivision to schedule a public hearing on the Major Subdivision Application. So, moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Alrighty. At this point, public comments on any issues and all issues. Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Minutes of the meeting? I'll move the August 7, 2025 minutes. So moved. Second. Moved and second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We have no secret actions tonight? No, sir. Okay. Other business? Everybody's good, huh? Correspondence, we did have seven correspondences about Summerwind. I know some of the neighbors did favor number five, but the... Summerwind and... Yeah, yeah. Most of those correspondences were on the Beconic Farm. Oh, Beconic Farm. Okay. Okay. Why does it say Summerwind? For Summerwind. Okay. The rest were for... Yeah. The Summerwind, I know some of the applicants wanted the other one, but our number one job, any officials elected or appointed, our most important job is public safety. And the other two maps, I'm sorry, did not meet. The safest possible. It's a bad lot, S-turns. So that's why we did that, for what it's worth. Next meeting date, Thursday, September 18th at 3 o'clock. Anybody want to close the meeting? I move it closed. I move it to close, yes. Second. Moved and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you.