Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, everybody. We have a full agenda, so let's get right into it. Greg, our first public hearing is on Summerwind Farm Major Subdivision. Can you bring us up to speed? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the board. For the record, Greg Bergman, Senior Planner with the Riverhead Planning Department. What we have is a public hearing for a proposed major subdivision application, which is seeking to subdivide an existing 30.12-acre tract of land, which is located at 200 Beconic Bay Boulevard, more particularly identified as Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-86-2-8.2. The property is split-zoned between the Residence B-40 and the Residence B-80 zoning use districts, with approximately 13.5 acres of the tract located in the RV-80 zone and approximately 16.5 acres located in the RB-40 zone. The planning board, by Resolution No. 25-11, adopted on February 6, 2025, adopted an as-of-right yield of the subject property, which is a total of 19 lots, based on the dimensional requirements of the Town Code. And then, by Resolution No. 25-092, adopted on September 4, 2025, the planning board selected its preferred sketch plan, which presented a 16-lot clustered subdivision map, upon which the preliminary plot was based. The Planning Department initiated coordinated Seeker Review, as this is a Type 1 action. Seeker coordination materials were sent out to involved agencies on November 3, 2025. We received no objections to the board lead agency request, and during that coordination period, and subsequently, we have received comments from other agencies, including the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, the New York State DEC, Suffolk County Planning Commission, and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The preliminary plot that's before the board tonight provides two agricultural lots, which are shown on lot numbers 5 and 16, with lot number 5 preserving a total of 4.45 acres of farmland, and lot number 16, serving a total of 9.13 acres of farmland, totaling approximately 13.6 acres. A roadway would be constructed towards the northwest corner of the property, which would be designed to town standards and would be offered for dedication to the Town of Riverhead Highway system. That would serve as access to eight lots and will also include a stormwater recharge area, as well as an open space non-disturbance area, which is being implemented pursuant to the archaeological research and an avoidance plan as recommended by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. A private driveway would be constructed on the south end of the property and will serve as access to five of the residential lots. This private driveway would not be designed to town standards and would not be dedicated to the town. Lot numbers one through four also include a non-disturbance buffer on the west end of their property to retain a large swath of wooded area. The applicant has received so far a permit from the New York State DEC, for the subdivision as it is located within the tidal wetlands jurisdiction, has received a letter of no effect from the State Historic Preservation Office with those mitigation measures implemented, and has also received approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission. I will just acknowledge for the record we have received comments from our consulting engineer, as well as written correspondence from neighboring residences. I received a letter from Joshua Serifman and Sarah Kim dated February 2nd. Ruth and Michael Arnone, letter dated January 30th. Lois Leonard, letter dated February 1st. And an undated letter which was signed by David Carrick and co-signed by a number of the residents on Foxchaser Place. That pretty much sets up the presentation. I don't know if the applicant has anything they'd like to provide or if the Board would like to open it up to public comment, but I've got my piece. Does your applicant want to speak?

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Alison LaPointe with the firm, Sir Tilman Ballen Adler Hyman, Office of the Board of Directors. I thank Mr. Bergman for being incredibly thorough and stealing a great deal of my thunder. As he described this project began about a year ago, almost a year ago tomorrow, February 6th, 2025, when the yield map was approved. If you'll recall, the first round of schedule plans were rejected in March of 2025, and then we came back through in June getting approved. Finally on September 4th, 2025. I'd like to put into the record, my client has had somewhere between nine and 10 meetings with the neighboring property owners, some in person, some via zoom, some by phone. And much of the design of this plan has been to accommodate their concerns. In particular, lots one through five were pushed closer to Peconic, trying to limit how many houses were running along the residential area. But the plan was really helpful. We're hoping to get the right number of residents on board. were running along the residential properties to the east and again has accommodated as many of their comments and concerns as deemed feasible we do have our dec permit issued on december 1st 2025 and you do have a shippo letter dated april 25th 2025. we are also in receipt of the engineer's comment dated january 19th 2026 and we have either addressed the concerns or are in the process of revising the plans to do so again we are seeking less than the yield map in terms of number of lots we are seeking 16 lot clustered major subdivision which is three less than yield and we'll go into describing the cul-de-sacs because again mr bergman did a very good job doing that the site will maintain the 70 percent class one and class two prime soils with on lots five and sixteen and will be in the process of running along the residential properties and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along the municipal lands and running along and to ensure that that area is never disturbed in perpetuity. Beyond that, I'm available for any questions the Board may have at this time. Is there any chance that your client would voluntarily remove cannabis as an approved use on those parcels? At this time, my client is not amenable to prohibiting a permitted use, particularly in the Ag District. We know that agricultural uses are difficult to keep running on Long Island, and as we are seeking to aggressively maintain more than the 70 percent of Ag land at this time, we are not amenable to eliminating a permitted use on the site. Okay, because I'm sure he's putting up expensive homes, and their neighborhood is an upscale neighborhood next door. I don't know. Would you consider it? I would say particularly at that. Again, it's a discussion I have had with my client. Regardless of whether or not the subdivision is eventually approved, that use would be permitted within the restrictions of both the Town Code, Ag and Markets, and with state authorization. So whether the use goes forward at this time or not for the subdivision, it would be permitted under those restrictions. All right, and I believe on the site plan, it's showing lights on the private road. Yes. Is that necessary? We do feel that lighting the private road is necessary, just like many people would light their driveway for coming in along their driveway. Again, we are anticipating that we will be meeting all code standards in terms of any necessary shielding. Again, as I mentioned, my client did have a number of meetings with the neighbors. This is a development that is seeking to be as sensitive as possible to the neighborhood, and also keeping in mind that the street light would have as much impact on future tenants at the proposed, lots as they would on the surrounding community. Thank you. Certainly. That would be one light per lot? Is that what it is? I believe what the chair was describing was there's a proposed light along the private driveway. My point was that adding light to the driveway is a relatively common residential use to make sure that people can safely traverse the area.

Unlike other kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids touches the proposed subdivision. Before I start out, I will say that I have never met personally with the developer, nor did my former neighbor, who has recently sold his house at 250 Peconic Bay Boulevard. I have a few questions about the proposed recharge basin that would be immediately next to my property line. My question is, what parameters went into selecting that particular site as a recharge basin? Okay, we will ask that question. Address the questions to us and we'll find out for you. Okay, thank you very much. Also, speaking of the same recharge basin, actually, before I get to that point, this, as we see on the screen, is a sketch plan. Or site plan number six, correct? And that was adopted, I believe we said, on September 4th of 25. When was the first offering to the public of this sketch plan? Was it at the notice of the, on the website, on the planning board website from this last week? You know, Greg? Because I checked numerous times and that was the first time that I was able to see this sketch plan made available, unless I missed it. So, the preliminary plat was discussed at the planning board. We did have a discussion on the preliminary plat when it was presented, I believe, September 4th. No, I apologize. I don't have the date off the top of my head. The sketch plan, which, upon which the preliminary plat was based, was discussed with the planning board on September 5th. The preliminary plat was then discussed with the planning board when this public hearing was scheduled. Okay, thank you. So, Mr. Bergman, sir, if I'm correct, the first offering to the public was at the announcement of this meeting? Was that the first opportunity that the general public had to see the engineering plan and the site plan? So, it would have been when the plan was discussed with the planning board. It would have been posted on the website and then... Justin wants you to come to the mic.

Yeah, so, the procedure, when we review an application, it's presented to the planning board. All of our meetings are public and televised. Information is posted on the website. The purpose of the public hearing, which is tonight, is to receive public comment on the subdivision. Do you know about the recharge basin, or should I ask the applicant? I would ask the applicant. Okay. You have more, sir? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. So, also in the engineering plans, with regard to the recharge basin, I noticed that on June 3rd of 24, or 25. I may have the date mixed up, but water was encountered at seven and a half feet below the surface of the land. That test was taken in early June after an unusually dry winter. We were in a drought situation the previous fall and through the remainder of that winter time. We're also talking about a time where surrounding farms are pumping water for their vegetation. My concern is that that number of seven and a half feet below ground level encountering water is not entirely accurate. I feel like that same test should be taken soon thereafter, the end of winter or at the very early spring before pumping. I also have a well on my property that I use to irrigate my lawn and my garden. So, I feel that... Okay. So, when is excavation to be done for the recharge basin? If we are, indeed, from what I can gather in my interpretation of the site plan, there is going to be excavation. We are going to be going down very close to the water table at that point in time. My other concern is where is the water coming in that is going to go into this recharge basin? This is not the lowest point of the property, by any shape of the mind. I look at the property every day as I leave my driveway. I grew up on the property. PROPERTY. MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT IT IS ALSO THIS EXCAVATION WILL BE VERY CLOSE TO REEVES CREEK WITHIN 150 FEET. MY ALSO ANOTHER CONCERN OF MINE IS THAT LIKE I SAID LIVED ON THE PROPERTY MY WHOLE TIME WHILE I'VE NEVER SEEN THE FLOOD COME OVER PAST THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE IT'S COME VERY CLOSE SO NOW IF WE DO GET THAT 100 YEAR FLOOD THAT 100 YEAR STORM WILL THERE BE SALT WATER NOW GOING INTO A RECHARGE BASIN. ANOTHER CONCERN OF MINE IS I SAW THERE WAS BARBED WIRE THAT WILL BE AROUND THE RECHARGE BASIN. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE THAT I'M COMFORTABLE HAVING BARBED WIRE THAT CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY LINE ESPECIALLY WITH MY CHILDREN AND THE AMOUNT OF WILDLIFE THAT WE HAVE IN THE AREA. IT ALSO SAYS THAT THE RECHARGE BASIN WILL THEN BE FORGIVE ME FOR NOT HAVING THE EXACT TERMINOLOGY BUT IT WILL BE GIVEN OVER TO THE PROPERTY. I'M GOING TO GO OVER TO THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD UPON COMPLETION. MY NEXT QUESTION FOR THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD WILL BE ON WHAT SCHEDULE WILL THAT RECHARGE BASIN IF IT GOES THROUGH, HOW WILL IT BE AND ON WHAT SCHEDULE WILL IT BE MAINTAINED? AS WE KNOW RECHARGE BASINS COLLECT AND ARE ATTRACTIVE TO PESTS, VERMIN, MOSQUITOES AND I DID NOTICE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT THERE ARE PLANTINGS TO BE PLANTED AROUND. I ASSUME TO HIDE THE FENCE. I'M GOING TO GO OVER TO THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD AND I WILL TALK TO THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD ABOUT WHAT SCHEDULE WILL THAT PLANTING BE. I AM AGAINST HAVING A RECHARGE BASIN THAT CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY LINE FOR THE REASONS THAT I MENTIONED AND FOR THE FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ELEVATION THAN OTHER PARTS. SO IS THAT WATER GOING TO BE PIPED IN TO THE RECHARGE BASIN? IS IT GOING TO BE WATER THAT IS FLOWING OFF OF ROADWAYS INTO THE RECHARGE BASIN? AT WHICH POINT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER CONTAMINATION, POLLUTION, AND ARE WE PUTTING THAT POLLUTED WATER OFF OF A ROADWAY VERY CLOSE TO THE AQUIFER, WHICH AT THE TIME OF DIGGING WAS ONLY 7 1 1 HALF FEET BELOW. AND IF WE DIG DOWN AS I INTERPRET IN THE EXCAVATION IN THE SITE PLAN, AND I COULD BE WRONG BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT IT SEEMS AND I KNOW WHAT A RECHARGE BASIN IS, THEY ARE EXCAVATED. SO NOW WE'RE PUTTING POLLUTED WATER VERY CLOSE TO POINT SOURCE AQUIFER. AND VERY CLOSE TO REEVES CREEK WHICH IS A TIDAL WETLAND. IN ADDITION, ORIGINALLY ON SITE PLAN 3A, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ALL RIGHT, AND NOW ON SITE PLAN 6, OR SKETCH PLAN 6 AS WE WANT TO CALL IT, THE LOCATION OF LOT 5 WAS ORIGINALLY SET MUCH FURTHER BACK OFF OF MY PROPERTY LINE. NOW IT'S ESSENTIALLY RIGHT IN MY BACKYARD. I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THAT I'M NOT GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE FUTURE. I'M JUST WONDERING, NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE A RECHARGE BASIN PLANNED ON ONE SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, LOT NUMBER 5 DIRECTLY IN THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY, TAKING AWAY ALL OF THE OPEN VIEWS. AND I'M WONDERING WHY, IS THAT SPOT FOR LOT NUMBER 5 LOCKED IN PLACE? OR CAN IT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WITHIN THAT LARGE BUILDING LOT? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BECOME LATER BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BECOME that I have questions about in a lot of different spots. I noticed that there are temporary off-site inlet protections. I'm not exactly sure what those are.

Also, I noticed that there are seven dry wells immediately along the berm of the proposed recharge basin right along Peconic Bay Boulevard. With those dry wells, will that also be taking in contaminated water off of Peconic Bay Boulevard this time of year with snow melt, ice, salt, and general road contamination? I know that some of my comments and thoughts are a little scattered and all over the place. I'm just thinking as I go here, but I do have concerns. I am willing to be the best neighbor possible. As I said, I've lived on that property for nearly my entire life. It was my parents' farm. It was my father's farm. So it is in my best interest to see the best possible outcome for all of the neighbors, and I'm very willing to be that good neighbor, but I also want the feeling that I'm not being taken advantage of. Thank you. Thank you.

Would you mind speaking? Thank you. Did you note the questions? I got a good number of them. I'm going to start with the couple that I'm going to answer, and then I'll turn them over to the engineer to speak to those. In terms of the timing of when Configuration 6 was first made available to the public, that would have been part of the August hearing for the second round of sketch plan approval. While it wasn't the fully engineered plans that you're reviewing today, the configuration showed... showing the proposed location of the recharge basin was part of that public hearing. It would have been then discussed again when the resolution was approved on September 4th, and as Mr. Bergman pointed out during your discussion item when you were scheduling today's public hearing. In terms of the location of the dwelling and the developable space on Lot 5, part of the reason that location was chosen is one, because it was a public hearing, and the other part of the reason was because it was a public hearing. So the reason that the location was chosen was because the location was chosen was part of the public hearing. So the reason that the location was chosen was because one, where the configuration of the private driveway in part, which was one of multiple configurations that were considered, was part of what drove that location. The other is to make sure we're maintaining contiguous Class 1 and Class 2 premium soils, so that way when you do the agricultural easement, all of those soils are together. I'm going to now turn it over to our engineer to answer the water retention. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Andrew Stolzenberg, S-T-O-L-Z-E-N-B-E-R-G. I'm with ALS Engineers 200 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 207 in Melville. Just regarding groundwater, water was encountered 7 1⁄2 feet below grade. However, from that, we then calculate the estimated historic high water level based off of monitoring water quality. Unlike other facilities above the above above grade, above grade above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above above you choose that location for the relative to the site itself it does contain the elevations that are the lowest on the site the grades do go up as you go south towards the property that was mentioned but adjacent to the roadway those are the lowest elevations of the site especially within that roadway development area um regarding the temporary inlet protection those are temporary devices placed on inlet castings to prevent sediment from entering inlets during construction so it's to keep sediment out of drainage basins i believe that was all i caught regarding groundwater and the recharge basin but there's anything else like maintenance you're going to have to find out probably from the highway superintendent i don't know their schedule i live next to a recharge base and i think it's the best navy you can get to the beach and it's a good place to live and it's a good place to live and it's a good place to live and it's a good place to live and it's a good place to live and it's a good place to have personally but that's just my opinion um i think that thank you sir excuse me one second one second i think one of the questions were was how does the water get into the recharge basin oh essentially within the roadway there are catch basins right along the curb line water gets conveyed over the surface collected by the catch basins and then piped directly into the headwall the recharge basin so all the water entering the recharge basin is mostly through uh pipe conveyor vans on the record

if i may sir um i i will say just address the board please again kevin no hill 234 peconic bay boulevard um that elevation where the recharge basin in once again is not the lowest elevation on the property um i don't know what what cartography uh what cartographer made the map of the property or what information they're looking at uh but a simple inspection of the site uh and standing in my driveway and just taking a uh a semi-panoramic view will will reveal that thank you next speaker

hi ruth and michael are known 73 fox chaser place me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me she's from me met with him no changes have been made no matter what we've asked for well verbal assurances have been made okay they're not enforceable once these lots are sold so that's why we're asking the board to re require clear and recorded covenants as part of the approval first you already brought up the street lighting on the private driveway it's not required by town code it's not town maintained and doesn't address a documented safety standard so we're asking that you remove these lights as they refuse to do so on the public cul-de-sac we understand that town code does require lighting in new developments but the dark skies policy and the warrant system also makes it clear that lighting should only be installed when there's a demonstrated safety need so we're asking the town engineer to determine whether that lighting is necessary on the cul-de-sac or if the one street light at the entrance would be sufficient second the entrance now to the flag lots and lot four five headlights leaving there via that driveway will shine directly onto the property at 17 fox chaser so we're asking for a permanent tree buffer protected by a covenant to mitigate the impact on that property third is the agricultural use of lot five we respect the right to farm but this property is in a residential zoning district not an ag zone so we'd ask for a covenant limiting the agricultural use to what's permitted under the residential zoning we'd like to see greenhouses prohibited and grow lights and restrict fencing to four foot corral style to preserve the vistas we also were the developer also advised us that the right of way across the property would remain and that he would be fenced leaving the 16-foot row open to the fox chaser residence so to avoid any future disputes we request covenants requiring that that row fencing be permanently maintained as four-foot corral style for the next five years and we're asking for a permanent tree buffer to protect the property from the ! and preserve our privacy the developer has declined to do so our home is a high ranch with all living spaces on the second floor and it's angled toward the lot not just on the second floor but on the third floor and it's angled toward the left side of the house and it's not shielded from it there is no hedge between our property and the field only pine trees as a result areas that were once open now look directly onto the proposed development leaving us with significantly reduced privacy because of the orientation and elevation our home is especially vulnerable to lighting noise and visual intrusion from lot eight i sent along uh with my letter a sketch with our home penciled in and a line drawing outlining our requested our request and i ask you to consider such even if that light line is redrawn we request covenants on lot eight requiring all exterior lighting to be ground level only no motion sensor lighting lighting backyard lighting only used when the backyard is actively occupied and extinguished between 10 pm and 7 am any lights from their backyard shine directly into my bedroom installation and permanent maintenance of minimal lighting and lighting is required for the ! the the the the the the the the the the the !

the

We don't need barbed wire there. Anybody else in the audience? Good evening. Josh Syriffman, homeowner and resident 25 Fox Chaser Place. Like the Arnones, I sent along with my wife a lengthy letter to you all. I won't go through all details. I will say though that we have been engaged in this process from a year ago at our initiation. I just want to make sure it's clear that the Fox Chaser community actually reached out to Vince Calvosa and his team and have repeatedly done that through the process to request additional updates and engagement. And I will say the presentation from Mr. Calvosa, from your rep, I think gave us far too much credit for the state of the plan. It really does in fact reflect a lot of other requirements, not anything from the community. Our objectives from the start have been to preserve as much of the project site as possible for agricultural uses. Open space, natural habitat and vistas and to ensure appropriate measures are taken to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Given where you are in the process, you may have seen that a number of the Fox Chaser community have suggested specific solutions to ensure some of these things are addressed in perpetuity. First and foremost is the preservation of the agricultural use. I did note that in the presentation it was described as open space. I will note that greenhouses and other structures. At least, I will make sure that those structures are preserved. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. cultural use. I did note that in the presentation it was described as open space. I will note that greenhouses and other structures at least I believe is not to not qualify as open space. It's very unclear what the governing mechanism is for these preserved areas. Is it the residential zoning and what's allowable under that? Is it some other mechanism? Our suggestion is is a restrictive covenant identifying the permitted uses and what's not permitted and and we would suggest that that not allow for greenhouses and other structures. I would also second the suggestion for the four foot style corral fencing consistent with the agricultural tenor of the entire area. I would also in that vein like to request that the town and Mr. Bergman meet with the community. It'd be very helpful to get a more detailed explanation of what are all the ways that this project will be governed over time and where does zoning apply, what are the other things, what is the subdivision ruling accomplished, etc. On the right-of-way we do believe it's important to codify the commitment that the developer has made to not try to abandon the right-of-way and to ensure that there's no further interference with that right-of-way in perpetuity. Again we think a restrictive covenant or something like that would be helpful and should also govern the style of fencing to the to again maintain the agricultural character of the area. There are some very specific impacts on specific members of the community. The Arnones mentioned the lighting, the alignment of the driveway for lots one through five is unusual and that it's literally coming straight at one of our neighbors. We do think again that that can be solved through plantings not just on the eastern edge of that driveway but all along the northern edge of it, excuse me, as well. Similarly the lighting on the cul-de-sac we would like to ensure complies with dark sky and other requirements. I do want to second that the impact on 73 Foxchaser is unique and we have had a number of discussions with Mr. Calvos and team about that. It would be a thoughtful and I think a gesture that would not affect the marketability or livability of lot 8 to make some modest adjustments to accommodate the that very unique situation. All along we have consistently engaged in constructive dialogue. Much as always we'd all love to see this entire property preserved for agriculture. We recognize that's not happening and so now we'd like to see some real engagement around some of the specific solutions that can be implemented to address all of these issues. And I would say for any other community members who have not been able to join we have a regular dialogue. As all the neighbors and we'd be happy for anybody who here has not been a part of that to ensure that we have a consistent group. Thank you. Thank you. Nobody liked where that driveway came in but it was the safest place to put it. If it was too close to the turn it really wasn't safe. That's why it ended up where it ended up. Yeah we recognize we fought that fight. We recognize we lost but but now we think there's ways to make it as effective as possible. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hi. Susan Mcdonald, 186 sunup trail. I'm talking about I have concerns concerns about lots 15 and 16. I can hardly see it on here. I think it's 15 and 16. 14 and 15 it's at the end sunup trail. I see that they name this developments, Summer Wind Farm, well, these two properties are part of Sunup Trail. We're not part of Summer Wind Farm. These two houses, which are going to be, I'm sure, beautiful houses, will not conform with the culture of Sunup Trail as well as Fox Chaser in terms of the way that the houses are. Um, we were never, especially on Sunup Trail, until Monday I received a certified letter as well as my neighbor across the street whose property would be adjacent to Lot 14. I have questions about the size of the lots here and if they conform to code, but my biggest question is, this doesn't belong to Sunup Trail. This belongs to Summer Wind Farm. And is there someplace else they can put these two houses or just eliminate them altogether?

Thank you. I mean, for the board, I would, you know, I will say Sunup Trail is a town right of way. When that subdivision was done, I looked at that old file. The roadway was designed to allow for a future extension of that. So, I mean, at some point in the planning board's review, there was always some consideration that there would be potential. You know, future subdivision off of that town roadway. I will just, you know, I've heard the comments from the residences regarding greenhouses. Now, on this map right here, the zoning on this property is unique. This portion of the property here is located in the residence B 40 zoning district, which is a one-acre residential zone. The remainder of the property is located in the RB 80 zoning district, which is a two-acre residential zone. The RB 40 zoning year is above the rent rent rent rent rent rent rent rent rent rent rent use district does not permit greenhouses as a use um so i mean so there would be you know in terms of restricting greenhouses here they're not permitted by code within this hatched area on lot number five um whether then whether or not that adequately addresses the concerns i don't know but i just want for the board's knowledge and just for the record greenhouses would not be permitted on this ag reserve lot okay thank you greg next speaker please

ray stefanowitz 36 bay harbor road aquabog thank you for having the meeting we live in the baywood community on the south side of peconic bay boulevard there is a lot of traffic as everyone knows along peconic bay boulevard our concern is the two access points proposed come out onto peconic bay boulevard adjacent to sharp curves with limited sites and the distance there is an existing town road that could service this parcel i know it's not agreeable with the other residents but that is an accident waiting to happen those those two access points yeah that's definitely a new parcel and we took that into consideration and i think this was the safest out of all the you know the choices well i would respectfully disagree there are sharp curves with you know and many of the residents have please slow down signs so now you're adding two access points truck deliveries trying to get in and out to go east and west um the other i have one other question did it has the fire marshal and police department reviewed this plan for their response times along peconic bay boulevard the added traffic i'm sure the fire marshal has but i don't believe the police department there are concerns with fire marshal code for access and do you know back double check on the fire marshal comments I mean we don't refer subdivision plans don't get referred to the police department but I mean in terms of roadway access with you know width of a emergency access road it's designed to town standards we didn't facilitate you know an emergency vehicle down that cul-de-sac would we be able to get a copy of those review comments from the fire marshal generally 12 feet traveled way for a private driveway and free clear 20 we can get clarity for you thank you thank you sure yeah I carry sweat 24 seaman road James port I just wanted to point out that he had the zoning flip-flopped RB 40 is to the west RB 80 is to the east going to be able to get a copy of those review comments and then we'll get a copy of those review comments and then we'll get a copy of those review comments that is what I said this is the hatched area this is RB 40 and this is RB 80 he said it before it was backwards but 14 and 15 lots 14 and 15 don't conform to the zoning regs it's a cluster subdivision when you do a cluster subdivision your locks get smaller so those would not those aren't those aren't actually in the in the subdivision they're coming off another road they are they are actually in the subdivision they are fully within the property boundaries of this subdivision but the only way to access them is not from that property is by it by an existing town road which is a dead end it's a subdivision map I mean the locks are within the subdivision they're proposed at the end of a town right-of-way that always had envisioned a future connection I mean I me me me But it's a cluster 175 foot width correct sir when you lost when you lost or a subdivision Eliminate all the other requirements So are you saying so you save warmly in an open space by? When you when you cluck for the board's knowledge just for the record when you cluster a subdivision when you do a major subdivision You identify the as of right yield Those as of right yield maps identify all the lots that comply with the dimensional regulations when you cluster a subdivision When you preserve let's say 70% of that property those lots are inherently going to get smaller That's just the nature of a clustered subdivision. That's how you preserve the land So instead of building out in this zoning district instead of building out a two acre lot the lot would shrink to facilitate Preservation that's how we cluster subdivision works. So in other words preserve land, but put more houses Small a lot same amount of houses

Thank you next speaker Great how much they are over and above the amount of preserved land that they that they have to do well well in excess of the RB 80 zoning district only required the Clustering is only required in the RB 80 zoning district So by the code there they would only have to preserve a total of five point two acres of the subject parcel And I believe I said it before They're proposing thirteen point five I believe correct Whatever I said at the opening of the public hearing so they are preserving much more land Then is required by the code and they are building less houses than they are entitled to it. He has a right yield map Come on up ma'am Good evening. My name is Kathleen Cooney. I live at 341 Peconic Bay Boulevard My only concern is the Peconic Bay Boulevard Where this new proposal is is going to do is it's very windy It's very hilly and it scares me. It scares us going out of our driveway We're going to be right across from where this development is and Baywoods Association is right down the road and they have like 4850 houses that are going to be going out and I'm wondering if you're worried about safety. That's what I'm worried about Absolutely. Are there going to be signs lights? That's the scary thing because right now getting out of our driveway We have to wait because we can't see them coming up the little hill and it's whiny and windy It's it's a scary part. I wish there was another entrance and exit for this development I have no problem with the development, but the exit and entrances for both sides are a little scary That's all I want to say, but thank you very much Next speaker Unlike me she's running me running one more lady. I don't have a chance to speak yet. Susan McDowell, 286 on up trail. I kind of feel like you were not even addressing my concerns about lots 14 and 15 in terms of the culture of our neighborhood and how it's going to change. I propose that your Summerwind Farm do something about the cul-de-sac here. Maybe you can have another right-of-way between lots number, I can't even see it because it's so small, and this is the first I've seen of it. Is it 12 and 11 and 12? Have some type of right-of-way that comes through there and continue the development that way. Don't come through Sunup Trail. It's a total change to our development, as well as when they're going to do the construction, what's going to happen to that cul-de-sac. It's a very small cul-de-sac. You can't even have one car park there, otherwise the buses can't get through there. So you're going to have construction vehicles there, the workers' cars will be there, are you going to guarantee that that's not going to be a problem? But my proposal is to do something, change something in terms of the design so that Sunup Trail is not changed, that you change something to the cul-de-sac and have a right-of-way to these two properties. Thank you. Just for your knowledge, there is no parking in any cul-de-sac at Riverhead, just for the reason of fire trucks and ambulances, etc. What's that? I know that, but if there's construction there? Well, they're not allowed to park there. You don't have to park on the parcel. There's no parking in cul-de-sacs in Riverhead Town anywhere. I know, I've lived there for 25 years. Okay. So you're a newbie.

I'm from Babylon, so watch out. Okay. If there's no other speakers, let's go to our Zoom people.

Good evening. Good evening, Dave. You got me? Yes. How are you, sir? Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning board. My name is David Carrick. I live at 61 Fox Chase Place. I previously submitted a written letter into the record on behalf of several residents of Fox Chase Place. That letter outlines our collective concerns in detail. Tonight, I'd like to briefly highlight a few key points from that submission, explain why I believe they're important to enjoy the city. I'd like to highlight a few key points from that submission, explain why I believe they're important to enjoy the city, and I'd like to highlight a few key points from that submission. First, I'd like to highlight the fact that the city is a city of the city. I'm a resident of the city of the city. I'm a resident of the city. I live in Montgomery, Montgomery, Montgomery. I live in Montgomery, Montgomery, Montgomery. I live in Montgomery, Montgomery, Montgomery. That letter outlines our collective concerns in detail. Tonight, I'd like to briefly highlight a few key points from that submission, explain why I believe they're important to address as conditions of approval of this major subdivision. First, I want to be clear, you know, we don't oppose development. You know, we've talked about, you know, we prefer the preservation, but that's unfortunately that's not in the cards right now. So we've been coordinating with Mr. Calvosa for quite some time. We've been cooperative throughout this process, and we appreciate the opportunity to participate. Our goal is not to create obstacles, and I think we've done a pretty good job of not creating obstacles. Our goal is to ensure that what is approved works long after construction is complete, when future homeowners are living there and exportations are set. That's why the central theme of our letter that we submitted is clarity through recorded covenants and restrictions. Kind of also kind of... a central theme of tonight's speakers as well, I guess. We're asking the board to require covenants that clearly define how the right of way is governed and enforced. And an example of that, of why this is important, is Mr. Calvosa told us at the last meeting that he's going to install a fence along the right of way on the west side of the right of way, which would be 16 feet within people's properties, which... That's very confusing to me. If I was buying a lot, and they were going to put a fence 16 feet into my property, I probably wouldn't be happy. So that's just a perfect example of a future friction point that's going to come for the potential people that buy these properties. Another one is how the wooded and preserved areas are protected, so they remain buffers over time. We all know that they'll slowly start clearing that. That'll be... Wide open. And wood is and is not allowed on the two lots preserved for agricultural use. And I do appreciate you opening, you know, asking about cannabis. And I also appreciate Mr. Bergman's clarification on the... That greenhouses are not allowed. But we're asking for clear written restrictions, so there's no future ambiguity regarding the inability to grow cannabis. Or install greenhouses on these agricultural lots. Maybe that's a moot point now. Whether these uses are desired today is not really the issue. The issue is that ambiguity creates conflict. And conflict is exactly what we're trying to avoid for future homeowners, existing neighbors, and the town. Clear rules protect everyone. And I can tell you, you know, listening to this meeting tonight, we've had many meetings with Mr. Calvosa. And I think that's a good thing. But I don't feel like... Maybe I've missed something. But from the very start, when we discussed the location of Lot 15, the building portion of Lot 15, as well as the recharge basin, we were told that it was because the person interested in Lot 15 was friends with Mr. Nohill. And that's why some of that was there. Listening to Mr. Nohill earlier in this meeting, I'm baffled as to... I'm a little bit of a disconnectist. So I... Just a perfect example of why we need clear rules to protect everybody. And I also feel, you know, cannabis farming, greenhouses, I think... I know they're going to have a very negative impact on our quality of life in our communities locally. Lighting. Also, lighting that spills into backyards. Uncertainty over... Overdue... Overdue... Unlikely preserved areas or unexpected changes in land use all have real day-to-day impacts on how people live and enjoy their homes. Clear recorded covenants don't just prevent disputes. They protect the predictability and compatibility that homeowners rely on when they choose to live in a neighborhood. That predictability supports long-term stability for both existing residents and their future homeowners. I also want to raise one additional issue this evening that ties directly into preserving the character of the area. Roadside advertising... in construction signage. Based on prior experience driving around town and seeing Mr. Cabos' job sites in Ackerborg and off Pierre Avenue, the level of signage and flags has been quite honestly excessive. There's flags everywhere, directional signs everywhere, signs, new construction this way, come see our houses. That approach may work in some locations, but it doesn't belong along Peconicley Boulevard. Especially for the length of time it'll take to fully develop this land and sell all these houses. These homes will clearly be new construction. There's no need for excessive on-site advertising. In an effort to preserve the beauty and character of this corridor, I respectfully ask the board to limit the number of permitted signs and prohibit use of flags entirely. When I say flags, it's those on the stanchion with the... I call it a flag. It's a small condition. But it makes a meaningful difference in how this development fits into its surroundings. Finally, I want to emphasize that none of these requests in our letter should impose meaningful costs to the developer. We're not asking for major changes or expensive mitigation. We're asking for clarity written down now so future homeowners are not surprised and neighbors are not forced into disputes later. We've been cooperative throughout this process and we believe these conditions will help alleviate friction and preserve the city's economy. preserve quality of life in the future. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask that the Board consider the items outlined in our written submission as conditions of approval for this subdivision. Thank you very much. I think what Mr. Carrick is saying is no gray areas. Let's get it right the first time. Okay, do we have any other Zoom people? Gentlemen? Close it. I move to close the hearing. Tuckin? Moved and seconded. May I have a vote, please? Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. DeNiro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. You too. All right, let's move right along with discussion items. Hampton Chitney with the BESS site plan.

! Yeah, we'll give them a minute. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I know Maria can't be here. So I'm just gonna give everybody a minute to clear out. And then you guys can, then you can introduce yourselves to the record. Oh, was I? Yeah. Yeah, I know. Got something there? I mean, if it's legit, you know, we gotta fix it. All right. Please. All right. Sure. I'm gonna go back to the station. I don't know if they've been required that before. No, we've had other ones that we let go. One on Soundshore Road. Because I'm selling million-dollar homes. You want me to put barbed wire on the shelf? Sitting down the whole time. Actually. Okay. That's right. Thanks for talking to me. I'm talking to the public. I looked up with that BESS stamp and I forgot. BESS? Uh, do you have it? BESS? Yes. Yes. Oh, here it is. BESS Energy. BESS Energy store. Yeah, but it was, I think it was pretty favorable. BESS Energy decommissioned. Yes. Yes. Yes. I wonder if we can continue on. Can we have a discussion outside, please? Yeah, no, no, I read it all, but I forgot what the aftermath was. I tried it, Tony Moore. I don't take care of this. Sound bar. Sure. Sure. Our daughter won't just cut to the door. Yeah. It goes well. It's good. But it's good. Yeah. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, if you would, we're trying to continue our meeting, please. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. I can speak loudly, but if everyone at the table could please introduce yourselves to their record and just be loud and clear so everyone can hear you. I'm Peter Fasio, project manager of Spark and Power. I'm Jeff Lynch, president of Hampton Chitney. Michael Tolan, Walden Engineering wetland specialist. And Heather Trojanowski, planner for the town of Everhead. Thank you. Welcome. So this is a site plan application. It's also a special permit application before the town board. It has already gone to a work session. The town board did issue a negative declaration. It's scheduled a public hearing, which will be held on February 18th. But the site plan review and approval is through the planning board. It's for the Hampton Chitney Battery Enclosure. It's a It's a tier two BESS. It's only four battery units, totaling 1,000 kilowatt hours. Essentially, it's going to tie into a microgrid with a roof-mounted solar grid. It's going to be a solar system that already exists on the building. And it's going to be used to facilitate the energy costs for the Hampton Chitney facility and future EV charging for bus leads. So, again, the town board did issue a negative declaration. It's scheduled a public hearing. So in terms of SEPRA, this board does not have to do anything. I don't know if you read the staff report. I know it was quite lengthy. There was a lot to the application just because, you know, this is new technology. There are a lot of fire safety requirements and mitigation measures. So if the board had any specific questions about anything that was submitted, we do have the applicant representatives here. We have the owner here. One thing that I had brought up with the town board was the wetlands on the property, which I think Walden Engineering is working on. When the Hampton Chitney facility was built, the facility itself and actually all the parking areas were outside of jurisdiction for the town of Riverhead CAC. The New York State DEC issued a letter of no jurisdiction, which runs with the property and does not have an expiration date. Given the fact that the proposed area of work, it's a 5,000-square-foot area in front of the building, closer to the road and further away from the wetlands, I don't expect that any wetlands approvals will be needed. But I did ask that they re-flag the wetlands just to make sure. One of the things that the town board had asked about at the work session was the distance between the proposed batteries and the fueling canopies. I think we said that was in excess of 300 feet at the work session, but they are going to revise the site plan to show those exact numbers. The fire marshal did not bring up anything about it, so it's compliant with whatever minimum code is. The site plan is required. And John, I know that you had a question. I don't know if you wanted to bring it up now. I spoke with, just for the record, I spoke with Andy Smith this afternoon. Okay. And he agreed that the parking space is directly in front of the, where the battery storage is going to be, that they should be eliminated and made a fire zone. Yeah. So I will note, when the property was developed, and I have to take a look at the site plan, I think 161 stalls may have been required. The site is over-parked. I think you're at about 177. I'll check the numbers. But even based on, like, usage, the parking lot that's on the southern side is never full. So, I mean, even if they had to lose, I think, six spaces here in order to provide additional access, I wouldn't have an issue with that from a planning standpoint. And there are bollards here for any sort of impact protection. And I spoke with Andrew this morning as well about the accessible stalls, just because they do need to. I think they're not going to be proximate to the building entrance. He felt that those were far enough away. But he's going to look at some specific standards to see what, like, the clearance is for vehicles, the clearances for battery energy storage systems. It's 10 feet to buildings. I don't know if they have anything specific for vehicles. But, you know, if the owner and the applicant, the representatives are amenable to it, you know, this could be designated a fire zone. And I think it would eliminate a lot of the concern. And it wouldn't affect your parking. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it would put you into a variant situation at all. I have a question about your figure two.

Yes. Where is it? Figure two is on page three. Yeah. No, no. I have it. In other words, where is it? I'll turn it to make it a little bit easier. So if you look at the site plan where the proposed bus is, there's a transformer directly next to it that's existing. That's this box here. So these parking stalls, they're right here. Yeah, that's what he's talking about. Okay. So this is anticipation of you getting into electric buses, hybrid type buses? Yes. Electrification, I can't tell you exactly when it's coming, but it is something that we are looking at. In fact, I mentioned in the town council meeting in 2027, we'll have our first demo electric vehicle. And, um, We are anticipating that our power needs are only going to go up, if not pretty dramatically. So putting this solar system on our roof and having this best system is part of anticipation of that. All right, so you have the ability then to feed it back into the grid. They're not going to feed it back? No, they're not feeding it back into the grid. It's all going to be self-contained on the site. So you charge them, and then this way you don't have to draw down all that power all at one time. You can use your own power and then replace it when the rates are lower. We are looking at essentially offsetting what is going to be much bigger power needs in the future and obviously the additional cost that that would entail. So we're trying to eliminate some of those future costs. Do they require relief from the General Board of Appeals for anything? Not in terms of this application, but I believe at some point they got relief for some of their lighting fixtures on the property. I did mention it in my staff report at some point. Sorry, it's, again, very, very lengthy.

Oh, there it is. So on page 10 of my staff report, it starts on page 9, subsection H of all of the battery criteria. So they're not proposing any new exterior lighting as far as I'm aware. I didn't see any on the proposed plan around the Bess enclosure, but they did have 10 pole-mounted fixtures in the rear storage and staging area that exists. Their mounting heights are 25 feet, and they did receive relief from the zoning board by appeal number, 14-21, dated March 27th of 2014. This is one of the best, most comprehensive proposals that I've seen. It was really well done. I actually read all of it. Okay, well, my hat's off to you. It was a really professional job. Heather, real quick, how many feet are away from Edwards Avenue from the main road? I thought I saw it someplace. It's 104 feet and 4 inches. So even though it's located in front of the building, it's quite a distance. It meets the transitional front yard requirements. They have a very nice landscaped area as well, and they will need to provide screening around this. We're trying to work out the details of the types of plantings, and the fire marshal needs specific signage, so we want to make sure that's visible. I can definitely suggest plantings as we work through that. But at this point, they've done a good job of meeting, and they've done a good job of meeting the battery criteria, which I outlined in my staff report, which was considered by the town board as well as the special permit criteria. So they finished secret. They're moving forward the public hearing. So I didn't see a reason to not move forward with the planning board public hearing. So I do have a resolution on to schedule that for the first meeting in March, which is an evening meeting. And I wanted to just bring the planning board into the loop, since you guys will eventually have to review and approve the site plan, which is granted by the town board. Great. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? No, good. Just to clarify, we are able to maintain our ADA spots? Yeah, and that's a suggestion that I had made, because I mean, I don't have a scale, but these seem far enough away, and you want to make sure that they're proximate to the entrance of the building. I know you have ADA here, and you have some in the adjacent parking lot here, where the crosswalk is. But I think, you know, I think just six stalls. We might even be able to keep this one, but we can work that out with Andrew, depending on his needs and the designation of fire zones. All right? Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, discussion item number two, Town Square Hotel Project and Town Square lot line modification with Matt.

Thanks, Heather. Thank you, Heather.

All right. Okay, what do we got, Matt? I think a good one. After a lot of work behind the scenes, this is sort of the first thing to redevelop the town square. It's a lot line modification. It actually involves six parcels, all owned by the town. And it's a lot of work. I did provide with you a staff report that outlines everything. I did a little coloring today to better illustrate what we have. So if you see here, these two green parcels are the existing green spaces in the town square as you know it. A portion of lot 86.1, which is the parking area, actually comes through, and that's the sidewalk that goes all the way to the road. Blue parcel here is where it crafted used to be, which is being demolished. Yellow parcel on the bottom is owned by the parking district. And orange is the parking area. And the one that's being demolished, cross-hatched here, is East End Arts. So on the next page we have all the transfers. So the original parcels stay cross-hatched. And then all the parcels that are being transferred are outlined in the new color. So the town square is getting this T portion of the parking area. It's down the middle. The hotel parcel is getting this small area of the parking lot parcel as well as this portion that used to be this area. So this area is now one of the new parking areas. And then the parking area is now being changed to be part of the town square parcel. This is the main parcel for the hotel. And then they're also getting this strip on the side, which is part of East End Arts. The East End Arts parcel is transferring this small triangle to the remainder of lot 14, which will become part of lot 86.1. And then a portion of lot 23, which is this portion here owned by the parking district, will also be part of 86.1. And on the third page, we have a result of the operation, which is a unified town square parcel, unified hotel parcel. This is the new East End Arts parcel. And this is 86.1, where the lower deck will be, playground and the like. And there's also going to be easements over this lot to get to the back of the hotel, which they'll be parking underneath. So this is the first step. I have a resolution to classify this as a type 2 pursuant to secret. Schedule of the new. Underneath the hotel. Still on grade or is it low? Below grade. So a lot of swaps, but not too complicated. Any questions? I don't have any. And Matt, like we discussed, all expenses are paid. As part of the master developer agreement, all costs are borne by the master developer. So I do have a resolution on scheduled public hearing for our next meeting because the posting requirement for a property is seven days. So I'm going to post the property and then we'll hear it at the second meeting in February. Very good. Thanks, Matt. All right, number three. East End Commons, which is BJ's fueling center at the wholesale club expansion. Hey, Chris. Good evening. Hey, Chris. Go ahead. I can't. Yeah, I was going to join you all. Please join. Just give your name, Chris. Just give your name. Christopher Kent from Farrell Fritz, 100 Bowdoin Parkway, Suite 300, Hop-Up, New York, on behalf of the applicant BJ's Wholesale Club. All right. So this is just a discussion of the final site plan application for the BJ's fueling center and the wholesale club expansion. The planning board back in September is going to be working on the final site plan application for the BJ's fueling center. This, I believe it was January of 2026, granted a preliminary approval for a site plan seeking to construct a 16 station, sorry, 16 station fueling station, 165 square foot attendance kiosk, as well as construct a approximately 10,500 square foot addition to the existing wholesale club. Those, the preliminary approval included conditions. I apologize. The preliminary approval was granted on September 18th, 2025. I apologize. Conditions stated that one of them was the site plan will be revised to provide a method of noise attenuation to be reviewed and approved by the planning board at the public hearing, as the board will recall. Although I will acknowledge the enforcement department has not received any formal complaints about noise or anything of the nature from the BJ's site. Several residents along Oliver Street had some concerns and voiced some issues relating to noise at that loading dock, offloading of the trucks, whether it was pallets being thrown around, etc. So after discussion, the application has been revised. They're going to provide a 12 foot tall sound wall. It's going to be a chain link fence with an acoustic deadening material similar to the material that was done behind Stop and Shop to just help alleviate some of those noise concerns. Again, never received any formal complaints, but just in an effort to be a good neighbor, they put forth that implementation. How far, how long? It would go out about 52 feet. How close? So it'll essentially cover, it'll essentially cover the length of the trailer that's backed into there, so any activity whether when a forklift goes in there, anything happening in that truck will effectively, I believe the mitigation plan anticipated a six decibel reduction. Again, just in an effort to be a good neighbor. The plan, the preliminary approval required the row of parking stalls directly adjacent to that fueling canopy. They were non-compliant. They have been revised. Those stalls are now 10 foot by 20 foot. They did provide details of the revegetation area along County Route 58. The plans have been revised to comply with the Town Engineer's comments, and they also obtained a stormwater pollution prevention plan approval from the Town Engineer. That was on December 15, 2025. They revised the plans to comply with the Suffolk County DPW comments. We did get an approved 239F form back from the County. They're just awaiting the issuance of that permit. They need to pay the fees and everything in commensurate with that. The plans do include the installation of a eastbound right turn lane into the site due to the anticipated trip generation. DPW wanted to see the incorporation of that right turn lane, so there will be a road improvement there, and they've got a work plan to provide for that. The applicant paid the remaining site plan fee. That really wraps up all the conditions of the preliminary approval, so I do have a final site plan approval on for consideration for the Board tonight. I have one question on it. The plans are very detailed. You're coming away from the gas pumps when you're exiting the pumps. It's all in the same direction, but then they get to a point where there's a road there, and the road has traffic in both directions. There was no labeling there as to whether those cars are going to be able to enter into where the pumps are. I'm sorry, near the last part because you were shuffling the panel there. There's a road I know the road would come out. There's going to be a stop sign if you're heading west or northwest. I don't know the direction. It's because it's at an angle. But if you're driving behind the back of the shopping areas or the buildings, you come up there, there's going to be a stop sign. I think we had to add that stop sign. We added a stop sign there. It is two-way traffic there. So if you wanted to go out to Northville Turnpike after you left the gas station, you could make the left-hand turn to one way. It then becomes two-way traffic once you cross over the aisle way that's in front of the existing store. You could drive along the back side of the property and exit out onto Northville Turnpike. Okay, but for the traffic that's heading towards the pump or the gas station, you could go out to Northville Turnpike. Is that just going to be a sign there that would say right turn only? Yes, you should. There is a right here, there is a do not enter sign as well as here. So that will be indicated. It states that on there? Because I didn't see it. Yes, there's a little note here that says triangle four. That note corresponds to a do not enter. If the Board wants to, and I don't know if we necessarily need to amend it, they could paint the asphalt do not enter just so it's abundantly clear. So that's a type of indicator to stop people from going against the traffic exiting the gas pumps. We could put something right there at the stop sign that says right turn only or something to that effect. I think there is a sign there though, isn't there? There is a sign that there will be a stop sign here and that was something I had sort of identified just because when I go to BJ's and do my shopping on my lunch break, it's very easy. I could see someone just coming out of that blind turn. So there will be a stop sign. I mean again, I would say put a, you know, street mark and say do not enter at the southern entrance, you know, the southern exit of the fueling station. Okay, something to stop people from going head on. Chris, I like the whole idea of getting you know, people filling up with gas off of the main road. But you're going to be selling diesel, right? Is there going to be any diesel? I don't know the answer to the type of fuels that are being sold. I thought it was just going to be gas. Just gas? They don't have diesel at the existing BJ's on BJ's. I was just wondering what size trucks are available to get in or out. I can find out if Yeah, I mean at the existing one on Ostrander, they just sell regular and premium. They don't have diesel to my knowledge there. But I'll find out Ken, I'll get back to you. So I also wanted to say one thing that part of the county approval for the improvements on County Road 58 requires relocation a couple of utility poles that we have to relocate, which is what we are doing under that permit with the county. They also had no problem putting up the sound attenuation Right, because actually your vehicles are going to be entering and facing west and if their lights are on that wall is going to help Well no, the sound attenuation is going to be placed on the loading dock behind the existing wholesale Oh, okay. It was never required. There's no violations, there's no code enforcement issues but the neighbors did come out that night at the public hearing and we agreed with them to do some type of noise attenuation. As far as the cars coming out of the facility there's a change of elevation here and there's trees all along the hill Okay, alright. Facing Oliver Street. So if you were coming out, it kind of goes up a hill there's trees and then it goes down a little bit on the other side. And there is a stockade fence along the western all along that buffer which is in pretty good condition. I think they're also putting some landscaping in they're re-landscaping that hill a little bit too if you go to the landscaping plan. Good. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Stick around, we got a vote coming up. One thing I'd like to bring up, just a request we were concerned there is a very small 9,000 square foot area that we need to clear and just to avoid any conflicts with the New York State DEC having to do with possible presence of northern long-eared bat. We wondered if we could make application to try to clear this before February 28th. I have no issue with that. It's a very small area. It's less than a quarter acre, .21 of an acre 9,000 square feet. It's where the tanks will be located and I really would like to get it cleared this year rather than having to wait all the way until November. Yeah. If it ever should happen I don't even think we're... We had it done. Okay. Okay. Question item number four. Anderson Acres, major subdivision with Greg.

Good evening. Good evening. You gentlemen just restate your names for the record, please.

here on Peconic Bay Boulevard. Open Space Area 2 is 129,443 square feet. Open Space Number 3, which is north of the development and south of the railroad tracks, is 1,055,393 square feet. And then Open Space on Lot 4 is 914,660 square feet. With this preservation on this map, they meet 70.02% of the preservation, which meets the preservation requirement. They're preserving a total of 49 acres. We did get comments from the consulting engineer. He found that the map could be acceptable. They just needed to do a little bit of proving on the recharge basin regarding capacity and storage and depth of groundwater. However, I did speak to Vinny. In the event that the recharge basin needed to be enlarged slightly just to meet that standard, I did not get any comments from the consulting engineer. They just needed to do a little bit of proving on the recharge basin regarding capacity and storage capacity. That wouldn't represent a significant departure from the sketch plan, and that's something that could be addressed during the engineering preliminary set. So if the Board doesn't have any questions, I do have a resolution on to approve the 35 lot as of right yield, and then select the cluster sketch revised 3 that is before us tonight. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Okay. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Good luck. into the open space right next to it? No, I mean, the open space, they're right at the 70%, basically. So in the event that this recharge basin needed to be enlarged, I would anticipate that they would just kind of take a little bit off of Lot 31. Lot 31 is about 25,000 square feet, which is on the larger side for that subdivision. So, I mean, if they needed to encroach into that a little bit, again, that's not a significant departure from the sketch. Okay. All right. I wasn't quite sure whether we were doing 35 or 33. So the 35 is the as-of-right yield. That just identifies how many as-of-right. And then 33 is the sketch plan. So, again, they're reducing the density, so they don't have to comply with the Long Island Workforce Housing Act. They don't get that density bonus. They don't have to provide that affordable component. Okay. Okay. 33 it is. Good guess? Yes. Okay. Good luck. At this time, it's public comments on all resolutions. Any resolutions? Anybody want to speak? Okay. Okay. I move Resolution 2026-006, East End Commons, BJ's Fueling Station. If I could, I don't know if the board wants to amend it to address. I can add about the street markings for the do not enter. I can do it. The board wants to amend it? Yeah, it's amended. Unless you want to just make a . . . we can do it. All right. Yeah. So I would just recommend amending adding condition number 7 on the first resolve on page 4 that just says the plan shall be revised to show do not enter street markings at the southern end of the fueling station. All right. Somebody want to move it? Let me restate it. 2026-006, East End Commons, BJ's Fueling Station. All right. All right. So I move that the resolution as amended. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Okay. Resolution 2026-007, Adopt Sequel Findings of Major Subdivision and Site Plan of TJ Holdings. Moved. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move Resolution 2026-008, TJOC, Real Estate Holdings LLC, Sets Forth Conditions of Approval for a Major Subdivision. Resolution setting forth conditions of approval for a major subdivision application seeking to subdivide an existing vacant 15.8 acre parcel of land. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenaro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. really do well i i really do i'm not against the project whatsoever i just had a problem with the site plan that's all it was uh but i do wish you well though right i vote no mr hogan yes mr nero hi mr bear i i'm going to vote no as well i think that the project itself is an over intensification of the of the use although i know it's to the dense it's the density and meets all density class i still think like 36 out of apartments in the front is just too much no no no um this project meets the criteria of the town code and i suspect that mr kelly is a lot better businessman than me and he probably knows what's going to make his business work so in that respect i will vote yes wish you good luck i understand why my colleagues voted no and they have good reasons but the motion is uh approved three to two and we do wish you well mike hope the project does do well you do well the town of riverhead does though okay we'll do right along i'll move 20 26 0 11 hampton jitney the best site plan so move me

It's number five on the agenda, but it's 010. Yeah, 010. Got it here?

Okay. 10. Sorry. Moved? We'll get there. I'll second it. Okay, moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnick? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. Okay, I'll move resolution 026-011. I'll move resolution 021, schedule a public hearing on site plan for Hampton Jitney. So moved. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnick? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye. I'll move resolution 2026-012, Town Square Hotel and Town Square Lot Line Modifications, resolution to classify it in action as type 2 pursuant to CEQA and schedule a public hearing for the lot line modification. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnick? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I think I speak for the entire planning department and planning board. Let's get this going. I vote yes. The motion carries. 2026-013, Anderson Acre, Major Subdivision Sketch Plan, resolution improving a 33-lot sketch plan. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnick? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. That ends resolutions. We can now open it up to public comments on all matters. No takers. How about the minutes, guys? Okay. I'll move the minutes of December 18th. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnick? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. I'll move the minutes of January 15th. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnick? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. Staff, any correspondence? No. Any exciting news or anything for us? Super Bowl predictions, anything? Okay. Good job, staff. Good job. Good job. Our next meeting will be Thursday, February 19th, 2026. Thank you all very much. Motion to close. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Second. Second. Second. Second. Second.