Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before we get started, discussion item number one, Pulaski Street Storage has been tabled. It will not be discussed if anybody came here just for that. That being said, let's go to town board referral of potential zoning codes with Matt Chardis. All right. Good afternoon, everybody. For the record, Matt Chardis, senior planner with the town of Riverhead Planning Department. So we have a town board referral for possible changes to Chapter 301, specifically dealing with Article, I wish I knew Roman numerals better, LVI, site plan review. So if the board is aware, which I'm sure you are, which you're likely aware. The way our application process currently works now for site plan review, we have an optional pre-submission phase, which gives an applicant the ability to come in and meet with planning staff before they make a formal submission to get their submission in a better place. After that, they submit for a preliminary site plan. We'll generally get a conditional preliminary approval with certain conditions, and then they come back in for a final site plan. During the preliminary phase, we are having a public hearing, conducting SECRA, and then at final, generally, it comes back to the board simply for a resolution, acknowledging that the conditions of preliminary approval have been met, and then giving them more conditions at the final stage. So for some time since I've been here, we've been looking to streamline the sort of the operations of the Department of Ethics function. I did look into the enabling legislation for site plan, so the only thing that's actually required by the state is a site plan, and then the other thing that's required by the state is a site plan. So that's the final stage. What we're looking to do with this amendment is to go from a three-step process to a two-step process. So still having the pre-submission phase, so applicants can come in and work things out with staff before making a formal stage, and then coming back for final. We're still having public hearings, still conducting SECRA. The way it functions with this board and with the town board won't really change. You'll still get a staff report before we're having a public hearing, before we're going through SECRA. So a lot of things are going to change. A lot of it will look the same, but instead of having two approvals, you'll have one. You still don't have to seek with them, right? Have to, yes. There's no way to get around that state law. So that's generally all happening before a public hearing anyway, and well before any approval. So it'll definitely help to streamline. So you'll just at the end, you'll have one approval instead of two. Substantively, all the conditions will be the same. So any conditions that would be in preliminary would just be in final. I don't think there's really much lost here. What's happening now is sometimes because of the approval timeframes for preliminary, people are getting caught up because they expire. Before they can get to final this way, you're coming in, everything's reviewed. We have all our conditions. Generally, we know what the conditions of final are going to be at preliminary anyway because it's already been referred out to, you know, outside agencies and to town departments. So it's really just getting all that up front, so to speak. If Justin could just shoot the screen. I can show you. Okay. I'll show you a little flow chart just so everybody can see it. This is directly from the state. Just zoom in a little bit. So this is how we function now. Just zoom out a little bit, Justin. So here's the pre-submission. Then we go to preliminary, which is optional phase two, and then to final, which is at the bottom. Essentially, this wouldn't exist anymore, and we'd go right into final. You know, people are still able to come to our meetings, comment on anything, comment on any resolution. There'll still be public hearings for those applications that require it. Other things that are in here, I know Joe, Member Beyer, had, you know, some ideas, which I think are good pickups that I'll refer to the town board. One is just to reference the health department as a referral because we're always referring things out to them anyway. That's just not included now. And then another where it says for the actual contents and requirements for preparing site plans and subdivisions, just to reference that they're New York State licensed design professionals, engineers, architects, et cetera. What percent of other main nationalities do it this way? None that I could find. Yeah, so I've looked everywhere in the county. The five east end towns certainly don't do it this way. I used to work in the town of Southampton. It's a two-step process there as well. So I don't know how we landed on the three-stepper, but it just sort of slows things down, and I don't really think there's much gained. If you have any specific comments that you'd like to transmit to the town board, let me know, and we can write something up and transmit it to them. I appreciate it. Thank you for giving me the time yesterday. No problem. Yeah, I've been working on this for, I don't know, probably like six months just to get it all ironed out with everybody. But I think it'll be good. You're the culprit. Yeah. Easy for us and easier for you. Anything in common? Sounds good. Good. Okay, thanks, Matt. Hope that works out. Let's go to Sumlin Farm's major subdivision with Greg Bergen.

All right. Thank you. If you could just introduce yourself. Sure. Allison LaPointe with the firm Sir Tillman Bell and Adler Hyman, offices at 100 Voter Parkway, Hotbug, New York, for the applicant. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. So we're just here to discuss the preliminary approval resolution for the Sumlin Farm's major subdivision, which is the approximately 30-acre property located up 200 Connick Bay Boulevard. As the board will recall, we had a public hearing. We had a public hearing on this major subdivision application back on February 5th. Through the review of the application, the board selected, identified the as-of-right yield, which was 19 lots. Through the application process, the board selected a preferred sketch plan, which was a 16-lot clustered residential subdivision. So there's going to be 16 residential lots, and there will be two agricultural reserves. The resolution, most of the resolution is just reciting comments and feedback from the agencies. We've gotten from a lot of the involved agencies, including Health Department, DEC, Suffolk County Planning Commission, Consulting Engineer, Water District, basically just a recital of the facts. The project is not subject to the town code's Long Island Workforce Housing Act, as they are proposing a reduced-density subdivision. So the resolution that I have before the board assumes lead agency issues a negative declaration pursuant to SECRA, as there's no significant... negative impacts that are anticipated from the proposed development. And I just want to go over some of the conditions, and I know the applicant has just some questions they'd like to discuss. So after discussions and considering all the facts and circumstances, granting this preliminary approval subject to the fact that the lots within the boundaries of the currently proposed subdivision shall not be further subdivided, that cannabis cultivation shall be prohibited on the agricultural lots within the proposed subdivision. I do note this prohibition, however, shall not... apply to personal home cultivation. So there is a distinction in state law regarding cannabis cultivation as an agricultural crop versus personal home cannabis cultivation. This is not intended to, if someone who lives in this subdivision wants to grow their three plants on their property, that's not something we're going to get into. But in terms of commercial agricultural production on those agricultural reserves, cannabis will be prohibited. Thank you for that. Yeah. It was a point, I mean, again, it's important. That was a comment from a number of the residents. We received written comments of the applicant considered it and agreed to that prohibition. So the ag reserves on lots five and 16 shall be restricted from any residential commercial development, and the use of such property shall be limited to the erection of related agricultural structures and agricultural production as defined by Riverhead Town Code, with the exception of the cultivation of cannabis. The area defined as open space number two on the map. Shall be left in its natural state. That's that large wooded tract along the southwest corner of the property behind lot numbers one through four. Nothing in that's designed to, and I've dealt with this several times recently. An open space buffer is really meant to prohibit and restrict the clearing of existing vegetation. That's not to be construed as if there's a dead or dying tree, something that's going to endanger or imperil a residence or there's a tree or something's already dead. That's not to be construed as if there's a dead or dying tree, something that's going to endanger or imperil a residence or there's a tree or something's already dead. That's not to be construed as if there's a dead or dying tree, something that's going to endanger or imperil a residence or there's a tree or something's already fallen over. It's not to prohibit removal of dead or dying. I do just say that they need to make an application to the Planning Department review just to ensure that we don't sort of inadvertently end up with a large clearing effect. Greg, those are those four lots that are right on the boulevard on the east, I believe on the west side. I'll just, I'll get the map. Move the building up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. envelope stays and remains the way it is? Correct. The building envelope remains the way it is. There will be a... Can we just zoom out a bit, Justin? So you've got lots one, two, three, and four. This area here is the open space. That's where that large tract of wooded land is. It'll serve to, you know, provide some screening from the residents and from the roadway. So again, if they need to do any sort of maintenance, if there's stuff that's fallen over, which the applicant has received a letter from a resident of the Bay Woods community, basically calling out that there's some trees that have fallen over and they were asking them to clear it out. So that's in there. One of the comments, and I recall from the public hearing, number five says that a wooden split rail fence will be installed along the west side of the 16-foot wide right-of-way. So as the board will recall, there's a 16-foot wide right-of-way on the eastern side of the property. So as the board will recall, there's a 16-foot wide right-of-way on the eastern side of the property. There are no plans to remove or amend that right-of-way, so that's going to remain. There were some conversations that I believe were had between neighboring residents and the applicant. There was a sort of a verbal comment that was made that was going to be a split rail fence. Now, I will just say, whether or not there's any type of delineation between that right-of-way and the existing subdivision, I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other. But I know the applicant's attorney would just like to discuss that with the board. So I know there had been a number of discussions earlier in the process about putting a four-foot split rail fence along the western side of the right-of-way. The concern that comes from that though is that while it does protect those who have rights to the right-of-way to make sure it's never encumbered, it then makes the fee owner of the property, completely separated, and lose access to the property that they own. They own the fee of the property underneath. That said, we have no authority, my client has no authority to remove the right-of-way from the property. You'd have to have both sides to that transaction make that agreement. We have no intention of encumbering the right-of-way in any way, and that those who have the rights to the right-of-way would continue to have their civil rights to be able to go to the Supreme Court and enforce it if a future owner 30, 40 years down the line decides to put a fence in the middle of it. All of those avenues for enforcement continue to exist. And again, as this is a civil agreement between neighbors, the town wouldn't be the source of enforcing that either way, because it is an agreement that will remain in title regardless of going through the subdivision process. That will continue to be in the chain of title for all future owners to be put on notice for. And again... Who owns the right-of-way? It is owned by this property. It's owned on this side, but the rights are on for access starting here, and I believe it continues down along the entirety of the property. So there's an access right-of-way, but again, the ownership will remain on the westerns. That's the one that pays the taxes on the property? That is correct. So again, we're perfectly comfortable if the board just wants to put further notice saying, that the applicant is not to encumber the right-of-way. Again, but it's not something that the town would traditionally be enforcing. It's something that would be enforced through a civil action based upon the language of the right-of-way. Will there be a homeowners association associated with this? A homeowners association? We have not gotten as far as to whether or not there's going to be a homeowners association. There will be, as you'll get into the further comments, easement agreements and maintenance agreements in terms of the common driveway. We'll see what's happening along the westerns. We'll see what's happening along the westerns. contemplated at this time whether or not we're expecting to do a full association across the subdivision. Who's maintaining the right-of-way? Who maintains the right-of-way? So that would be maintained, all of that language would be in the right-of-way from when it was, from its inception. Again, nothing that is done via this subdivision is going to change any of the rights and responsibilities under the right-of-way as it's filed in the chain of title. So again, if a recognition of the right-of-way in the resolution, we have no problem with that because again, all of those rights and responsibilities will continue to exist regardless of the subdivision. But the concern would be while we totally understand that the neighboring residents don't want a new owner coming in and saying, well, they've immediately put up a fence, like let's put it on notice in the subdivision resolution that you can't do that, those owners will already be on notice as part of the title process when they close on the property. What does the board think of that? Require the fence, not require the fence? I mean, if you want to remove, I wouldn't just strike the entire condition. I would just, to further solidify it, we can just put language in there that says the 16-foot wide right-of-way on the eastern side of the property shall not be impeded by structures or land. We can put language in there to sort of just further solidify the fact that that . . . You have some language right there as it is, simply saying that no structures are impeded to be constructed or placed within the 16-foot right-of-way along the eastern side of the property. I think you have most of the language in that condition as is. The developer is putting up the fence, not the homeowners. Who's putting up the four-foot fence? Well, that's what we're asking. Does the board want a fence? Does the board not want a fence? I don't think it's necessary. It's another expense. And again, from the point of view of the board, I think it's necessary. I think it's necessary. I think it's necessary. I think it's necessary. And from our concern is the property owner will be paying taxes on their property, and now they now have an impediment to access it entirely. Again, there's no intention of putting any impediments in the way of future use of the right-of-way. All of the enforcement abilities, the rights and responsibilities under the right-of-way will remain intact, so everyone who has right-of-way access has ways to enforce that right-of-way access that's already outlined in the right-of-way as it originally . . . Okay. And the maintenance for the four lots on the southern driveway, how is that written up in the four individuals? Yes. So that would be . . . all right, so we'll . . . when we go to vote on the resolution, I'll just call for an amendment for that condition. Going down, prior to a final plat signature, they need to submit a final plat demonstrating full conformance with the town code. Plans shall be revised to comply with the board's consulting engineer's comments. They need to submit a final plat. Okay. The plan will be reviewed by the planning board and planning board attorney, restricting the reserve portions of lot five and 16 from any residential or commercial development. The use of such property shall be limited to the erection of related ag structures and ag production as defined by Riverhead Town Code with the exception of the cultivation of cannabis. Then an easement for the common driveway serving lot numbers one through five shall be reviewed by the planning board and planning board council. The easement shall include details of ownership and maintenance. So the common driveway is going to have some drainage infrastructure here. So really that easement is going . . . So who maintains that road? I didn't know I was getting that . . . So I don't want to call it a road. It's going to be a common driveway serving lots one through five. So that's going to be under the ownership and maintenance of those five owners. So that's what . . . you know, before we have a final approval, I want to see an easement that's going to be in the form of a potholes or potholes or potholes or potholes or potholes. So I will sign off on that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. want to see a easement that's going to define to what extent those five lots, what they're responsible for. I mean, but not to be concerned. The town is in no way going to maintain or own or it'll never be dedicated to the town. It's going to be a common driveway. Greg, the $722,000 is for the new water services for the entire bill? Yeah, I mean, if we're going back, yeah, that's the, I believe that number came right out of the mapping plan that was provided by the water district's consulting engineer. And the $10,000 is, is that the fees per lot, the $5,000 per lot? Where are we going back? The key money fees. So, yeah, so the $722,000, that's the cost to actually provide the infrastructure to the site. You know, any water piping, fire hydrants, you know, any, all of the infrastructure improvement. The key money is a separate assessment from the actual cost that it takes to put the infrastructure in the ground. So that's money that's due to the water district. The $722,000 is the estimate to put the pipes in the ground. The key money is a separate assessment fee, which is detailed in town code for the construction. $5,000. $5,000. $5,000 per lot fee. I think that's. Yeah, again, so, yep, that's. Well, that's further down. We're getting, yep, we're bouncing around, so we'll get to that. So that, so the, sorry, so prior to final approval, screening plan for the recharge basin in accordance with the town of Riverhead road and drainage standards. Need to get approval from the health department. A final plat showing the dimensional regulations and required setbacks. So the, the planning board. The planning board does have the authority because it's a cluster subdivision. You do have the authority to amend the required setbacks, you know, front yard, side yard, rear yard, because you are clustering the lots down to smaller than is required in the zoning districts. An earthwork plan, basically clarifying there, there was a road and drainage plan. I just want certification from the engineer to identify whether this is a balanced cut and fill or whether they need to import or export any material. In the event that there's a cut and fill, we'll have to make sure that the plan is in place. So that's the plan. In the event they do need to import or export any material, they need a chapter 229 permit from the town board. Again, the SWPP approval and then the Riverhead town board is the governing body of the water district needs to approve the lateral water main extension. And to your point, members will Nikki, the parks and rec fee, which is down at the bottom of page nine. That is assessed that is in town code section 301, 289 B 14 D and the amount of $5,000 per each lot within the subdivision. Although it is a 16 lot subdivision, we've always interpreted the park and rec fee to be for new residential development. The house on lot number 16 already exists. So that $5,000 per lot fee would be assessed on the 15 lots. So that's in the amount of $75,000. Beyond that, those are the conditions. We've got the preliminary approval ready for the board. Again, we've thoroughly reviewed this. So if there's any other questions from the board. Good. Good. Good. So. We'll have a vote in a little while. So when we get to the resolution, I will just call then for that amendment regarding the language on the fence. So I'll call that when we get to the resolution. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next discussion, I have a discussion of a sketch plan for Suffolk Cement, also with Greg. 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? Suffolk Cement. Thomas Wolpert, Young Associates. Thank you. All right, so what the board has before them now is an application seeking to subdivide an existing approximately 26.2 acre parcel of land which is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Manor Road and Toomey Avenue in Calverton. The property is identified as Suffolk County Tax Plan number 600-100-2-4.9. The property is located within the Light Industrial Zoning Use District. The site was previously the site of a sand mine which is currently going through the process of reclamation through with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The property has approximately 1,600 feet of frontage on Toomey Avenue. It has approximately 860 feet of frontage on Manor Road and approximately 470 feet of frontage on Middle Road. The surrounding area is a mix of heavy metal and wood. The property is located within the Light Industrial Zoning District. The property is also a mix of heavy industrial uses including Coastal Pipeline which is located across Toomey Avenue to the west and Sears Ready Mix which is across Middle Road to the east. The surrounding area also contains several single family residences at the Manor Road-Middle Road intersection, residential subdivisions north of Manor Road as well as agricultural uses throughout the area. So the property is relatively flat along the frontage with Toomey and Manor and then drops off at the end of the road. The property is located in the middle of the road and then drops off. There's a pretty steep slope along the west and northern side of the property and then finally levels out at roughly 30 feet elevation what I call down to the bottom of the pit. So in terms of subdivision policy so the in pursuit of the town code the planning board is authorized and empowered to approve plats showing lots blocks or sites with or without streets or highways and to approve preliminary plats within the town. So the subdivision policy is a little bit more complicated than the subdivision policy. The subdivision policy is a little bit more complicated than the subdivision policy is a little bit more complicated than the subdivision policy states that policy is a planning board to consider land subdivision plats as part of a plan for the orderly efficient and economical development of the town. This means among other things that the land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or perl from fire or flood or other menace that proper provisions be made for drainage water supply sewerage and other needed improvements and that all proposed lots will be laid out in such a size to be in harmony with the development pattern of the surrounding properties So I will now introduce the planning board to introduce the planning board to introduce the planning board to introduce the planning board to Now, the map that's before the planning board, the sketch plan, while it does comply with our dimensional regulations, because right now the subdivision code only excludes, there are eight areas that are identified in the subdivision code that do not contribute to yield. Specifically, number six is areas required for recharge of stormwater pursuant to this article. Number seven, areas required for the provision of public highways pursuant to this article. So there's no exclusion in our subdivision code for steep slopes that contribute to yield. However, I do note that in our site plan code, section 301-307A, areas with steep slopes in excess of 15% are deemed non-buildable. Now, based on the previous use of the site as a sand mine, as I said, these steep slopes, you know, you got these pretty steep banks here. They're approaching probably in excess of 40%. Now, while they comply with the dimensional regulations, when we're sort of looking into the future and what we do, you know, we want to look to the future. In terms of the future development of these lots, it would really make the orderly, efficient, and economic redevelopment of these lots somewhat difficult. Because as you see here, I highlighted it just for illustrative purposes. These steep slopes basically bisect the building elements. The envelope of these lots basically right through the middle. So what they do is they sort of create, you know, compacted building envelopes. You know, just a sort of concern that I have is that in moving forward full steam with a map like this is that we may sort of create a situation that may incentivize or kind of almost force someone to come in when these sites come in for redevelopment. To maybe try to put, you know, industrial buildings. Or put their development closer to the road. Claiming, you know, the reality of if they needed to build retaining walls and come in and, you know, backfill for a significant amount of these lots. It sort of may make an argument for the future development of these sites to be rendered difficult and sort of, I don't want to say incent, but create a need for future variances. So kind of put a pin in that. I just want the board to keep that in mind. Do you understand what he's saying? Yes. I'm curious, I guess maybe Tom, why did you lay it out so the lots are split in half? I can explain that kind of. We laid it out like this. Originally we drew it. We have a set of plans that have a slight drop down at 15 foot without bringing extra material in. So we have a building lot. But we were figuring if you're selling a piece, somebody else might want to do something else with the property. Or how they want to move the dirt. So we were just going to sell them as is without being, doing the work there. Where if they want to do, you know, they might buy two lots and push the dirt this way, let them do it that way. So let's see. My question is, is that you had the DEC permit for sand mining. Correct. And I'm very sure that you had to keep a certain angle. Right. That's what. So how can anybody else come in and change? That angle. Well, once the building, once the mining permit's done, they're done with the property. So in other words, you're saying there's no restrictions so they can go as close to the road as possible taking down that. Right. Which doesn't make any sense to me. Right now we have a 100 foot buffer from the property line to the drop in the thing. That's correct. That is Riverhead Town Code. New York State mining permit would go only 50 foot. So I could have mined a lot more. But we went by Riverhead Town Code because back in the day, you guys had mining permits also. So and so we went by both areas. I guess by doing it this way, you're losing a lot of infrastructure. Like, you know, every lot has a. Right. This is one of the first drawings we drew. So with. Actually, Tom drew the building envelope in. And. This had a less of a pitch. Then it had a big. The property went out and then another pitch for the lot number nine. So we do. This is what you could do. And I think just moving the material that's on the property, we would only have to bring in, I think. Thirty seven hundred yards. So with moving the material around for each piece of property, it's not like we'd bring a lot, a lot more. But the property is flat. What dirt are you moving around? That's the hundred foot buffer from the property line to the. But it is flat if you're going to put any type of building. But if you only have 100 foot and you have a 30 foot drop, I'm saying you take 15 foot of this, push it over here. Now you have a flat piece of property to have a building envelope on with a 10 to 15 foot drop from the property line or road driveway. We have an angle at 10 percent. That was one of our preliminary plans. So this is an interesting concept. And I mean, I'm not against it, but it raises the question of, you know, if if the board, if we want to go through this, there's a couple other things I want to kind of just touch on high level stuff and then we can come back to that development plan. So, you know, our our subdivision code requires three alternative sketch plans. This is a unique piece of property. And that it is proposing an industrial subdivision. However, it has frontage on three town roads. So one of the questions that I'm putting before the board is, would the board like to see a traditional industrial subdivision plan whereby they come in with a, you know, 55 foot wide right of way, you know, an area for recharge? Or would the board kind of give some latitude in considering the fact that they do have frontage on three town roads? How are you going to service a lot for the board? You know, it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's in both Manor and Toomey. It may be more economical, and again, I think we'd have to arrive on a preferred sketch before we really see what the water district would require. But, I mean, again, it may be more economic to, let's say, come down Toomey and come in with a main to serve the entire, that could then be sort of tapped off, rather than run whatever the water district's going to require in two town roads. So, again, it really ties into what the board would like to see in terms of a sketch plan. Just one of the other things that I sort of noticed, and I can't, you know, when we talk about future planning and thinking of the area, you know, this whole, the area north of 25, between 25 and bounded by Manor Road, it's a very interesting part of town because it was previously zoned Industrial A, which was the heavy industry. And, again, acknowledging you have UCI. This is like Coastal Pipeline, Suffolk Cement, Sears Ready Mix. I can understand why it was zoned Industrial A. However, there's really no transition because once you go north of Manor Road, it's APZ. So, when you're going, when you come off of 25 and you go down Manor Road, it's really a rural road. It has that rural character. And while there are the heavy industrial uses there, you really can't see them from Manor Road. So, if you're traveling, if you come off 25 and you go down Manor, as you're traveling east on Manor, if you look to your right, you can't see them. You can't see Coastal Pipeline. They've got a really significant wooded buffer there. You can't see what's happening at Suffolk Cement. You know, the grade, it's down there. It's really obscured. And, I mean, as you're traveling down Manor, you know, Sears Ready Mix basically doesn't exist. You don't see that until you make the loop and go down Middle Road to the really, you know, industrial core down here. So, I think it's just important when we consider just the layout of the subdivision to consider that rural character of Manor Road and to really lay it out in such a way. Where, again, I don't want to detract from anything from Mr. Lohr. I'm not trying to, you know, reduce anything that he can do there. But I think it is important to take that into consideration to be able to keep that character while still allowing the types of uses that are permitted in light industrial. It is an important corridor for that, the Calverton community. That was one of the thoughts of, because you're tapering down at the property line down, all the buildings are going to be down 10 to 15 foot. So, the view is going to help. Yeah, and I mean, you know, my opinion is that, you know, I'm less concerned because, I mean, going down to me, there are two single family residences on the corner. But, you know, you've got some smaller little industrial users down on Service Road A. You know, really, if more of the development was, like, you know, clustered down off of Toomey Avenue and down what I'll call the bottom of the pit, you know, that could serve as a way to, sort of, preserve some of that view shed and keep that, you know, keep the development as hidden as we can. I think that's just important for the board to consider. I did speak with DEC. I had a conversation with the representative from the Mineral Resources Division. I would just recommend, I know Mr. Lohr has submitted a reclamation, you know, he's submitted the reclamation application. He's probably pretty close to it. But until the mining person... I mean, the reclamation permit is until the DEC issues that full reclamation. I don't think we should have finalized the subdivision just because then Mr. Lohr could then... And once that map is filed, he's free to sell lots. So I just think that could create a situation where, you know, someone's buying a lot that's still under a mineland permit. So I would expect the representative from the DEC did state that he was pretty close to reclamation. So I don't necessarily... We're waiting for grass to grow. Yeah. That's it. Okay. I'm like you, you... I have a site plan that way. Where as soon as the grass, you release it, it's all going to get dug up. He's like, you signed a piece of paper back 20 years ago that it's got to be... So he wants to see six months worth of grass. So that's what we're going to seed in hopefully a week once the cold spell comes past. So again, so those are some of the high level things I just wanted to get, you know, I wanted to get this application before the board, look at it at a high level and just get some sort of feedback as to, would you like to... Would you like to see alternative sketches? That's the question I have. There doesn't seem to be much room for alternative sketches. Unless it's going to leave a lot of land vacant. So the board, I mean, again, not that I want to sort of get too cavalier, but the board does have some latitude to, you know, again, the industrial subdivision code, it's interesting. There is a section in the industrial subdivision code that says, one of the... I don't know if you've seen it. I don't know if you've seen it. I don't know if you've seen it. I don't know if you've seen it. One of the sketches can be a cluster subdivision. Now, for a residential subdivision, I understand cluster. I don't necessarily know how a cluster would be applied to an industrial, but there could be something, you know, maybe we could come up with something where density from those lots along Manator would be shifted to other lots. You know, there may be a way to realize all the development that would potentially, that would be, you know, be realized in this plat in a way that would sort of preserve those view sheds. Is that something you guys would consider? I'd have to understand it better. You know, I don't, you know. Tom. Yeah. When you have time. Yeah. It may work out better for you. I don't know. Right. I just don't like the idea. I visit a property I've lived here my whole life. You know, lot number nine is nothing but the sand mine. You only have 100 to 120 feet of land. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So you've got the building envelope. Then it goes down very quickly. And you're saying you would want to dig down another ten feet to push the dirt towards the sand mine already, which doesn't make any sense. You know, you guys dug out your head, your sand mine per make you made your money. And now you're looking to even do better or the town to allow you to put up a house or a building. on 100 feet from the road and then go downhill very quickly. To where lots two and three are somewhat wooded, they have plenty of room and probably part of four. Like Greg was saying, if you can cluster zone that area, leave the front area exactly the way it is because you've already made your money, you've already done your sand mining and maybe develop towards the south part of the property. It's only my opinion. I lived here my whole life, so I just... It's up to them to come up with more buildings on the 100-foot side. Yeah, if you wouldn't be building up on the 100 foot, that's the material that's leveling the property out. Kind of, you know... My point is you'll be taking all that 100 foot, expanding it into the pit area. Is that correct? Yes, to level that property. It would never be level. No, to make the building envelope would be level because right now you have the pitch halfway through the property. So this development plan is interesting because essentially what's on this conceptual development plan, while it's not proposing buildings, I mean, that's really a site plan. I mean, you're talking about the wholesale regrading of a 26-acre property, but it's actually a site plan. you know for example i mean it's much larger scale but the ostad subdivision proposing a roadway with drainage areas and you know future building lots obviously there's some regrading to construct the road but you know this essentially is a site plan application to regrade the property so i mean if the board was amenable for something like this i mean i really think we'd have to consider the whole action but this would also be this would require a site plan where we'd have to look at the full regrading and i mean i do understand the the thought of you know sort of having the slope here and then creating more of a flat plateau you know further off the further off the property line um i mean i understand that but i mean to consider this this really is a that that level of earthwork is really a site plan application in and of itself that could allow for the future subdivision to really proceed in an efficient manner all right well we're at the very beginning of discussions tom you've got a little direction now yep come up with some hot ideas and we'll take a look at it all right so just is is the board do you want to see a traditional industrial sketch plan where you've got the roadway and the drains i mean i think it it would help in the consideration again just for things like the water district and how that's you know we've got to select a sketch plan before we really you know move in further so i think the board want to see a you know more traditional industrial sketch

you guys come up with something that impresses us we'd love to look at it yeah we could do multiple schedules yeah that'd be great see which one works for you and which one we like and we'll move forward okay okay thank you guys

Okay, Tri-State Horticultural Services Farm Stand with Marissa. Enlighten us, Marissa. Hello. Hello. Good. Nice to meet you. Hello. Hi. I'm just going to put out, because I know in your packets you did have the surveys that I just have a full one here, so it might be easier for us to reference and look at. Okay. Okay. All right. So, for the record, Marissa Janowski, site plan reviewer. So, this application is for a farm stand. So, the property is located at 190 Main Road, and they are looking to utilize an existing masonry structure. And to... Okay. So, sorry. The flowers and produce within the existing structure. So, a little bit about the site. It's also known as Suffolk County Tax Map Number 85-2-1.1. It's a 6.1 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of County Road 25 and New York State Road 25. It's also utilized in parallel with the county road 25. It's also utilized in parallel with the 20 acre northern parcel. So, this is the 20 acre parcel. It's owned and operated by the same property owner as the parcel in the front that is going to have the proposed farm stand. Let's see. So, the subject parcel does meet the criteria to establish a farm stand under the Town Code 301.2.1.2. It does also hold the agricultural tax exemption assessment per New York State. So, this one has the ag exemption as does this one. The proposed scope of work is, like I said, to utilize the existing structure and to convert it into a farm stand. They're looking to create a market area. And then it also is going to have an office space and a parking space. And then it also has an office space and a break room with a bathroom for the employees to utilize. So, there is an existing curb cut. It's located about 500 feet from the intersection of Cross River Drive and Main Road. That is to be utilized for the farm stand. I know on this survey. It does say that it's going to be used for the farm stand. It does not show and the farm stand code does not talk about parking. However, there is the need of an ADA accessible stall and just the parking spaces of where it's going to be located. I did get an updated plan right before I came down here for the meeting. So, I do have that. But it was for more discussion purposes. Okay. Did this get through the Agricultural Advisory Committee? So, they, it was referred to them in February. They are waiting for more information. So, it is, they're withholding the approval as of yet until they get more information to just be further discussed. They were asking, I know, in the beginning because they just weren't quite sure. It was a farm, it just said farm stand application. So, they were more concerned about what was to be sold. I did let them know that it was flowers and produce. This is the parking that I was talking about. So, it just shows the proposed area. There is an existing fence on the property and that's where they're looking to put the proposed parking in front of that fence. And the farm stand is behind that fenced in area. But they're going to use the, utilize the existing curb cut that is there right now. Did the Agricultural Advisory Committee get the information they were looking for? They are going to speak about it at the next meeting which is in April. Wow. They, it was just a time issue, like between. That's too much. That seems like an awful long time. So, they just, they, at the moment when they asked for more information, they were just asking for someone to come in and have a conversation with them. And with how everything was lining up. Okay. So, at the moment, it was easier for them to just push it to the April. So, they didn't talk about it in March. So, this April meeting that's coming up is when they were going to further discuss it. Just for the questions that they had, they deemed it would be easier if someone was there to talk to them about it. Do you want somebody to have it at the next meeting? So, the next meeting, yeah, I think I might be traveling for work the week of the next, I can't remember the exact date. But I will make sure somebody gets to that meeting. The property is mostly for nursery stock. Nursery stock, is that correct? It's, right now, it's pretty much just grows, you know, it's more of a wholesale. Nursery stock. Nursery. And they're looking to kind of go a little bit more retail. From what I understand, you would have to bring in all the produce. So, I think that, I know last year they failed at the corn. Plants and corn failed at it. But they are looking to grow some, definitely change a little bit more operations wise. And include a retail side of things. Where they're going to be growing more flowers and things that they can sell to the general public. Instead of just the wholesale industry of mostly, they've been mostly marketing tree shrubs. That kind of stuff to the wholesale side of things. Yeah, I also have, I mean, I'm not completely positive. But from what I see on, we have from our near maps, there is an area that looks like it was armed. Not only. This is the area that's in parallel. The rear part that talks about all the shrubs and trees that were planted that they were doing the wholesaling. And it looks like there was an area, like Allison was just saying, that they tried to plant. So, they are looking to do that again and give it another go. And hoping to sell their produce there. I did refer to the plans and the application to the engineering department. They had no comments. I also referred it to Suffolk County Department of Health. As there is a proposed bathroom in there. So, they responded back that an application would need to be made in order for them to further address. And get any further review and any approval from there. I also did refer it to the water district. And the water district did advise that the property currently does not have public water. So, and then the Ag advisory was my last thing. But we already seem to cover that part. It's going to be discussed further. So, the recommendation that I just have is to withhold granting the approval until at least Ag advisory grants their approval for the farm stand. So, would you have a well? We have well water there. Yeah. So, you're not looking to hook up to the town? They'd like to stay on the well water. They've been on the well water for a while. Okay. For a very long time. But since you're open to the public, does it have to go to town? So, I believe that's going to be ultimately based on Suffolk County Department of Health. When they go and submit the application. I don't want to quote them and say that something has to, that it will. That's mainly up to the county to decide. I have a phone call to them for various on this property. I'm just waiting to hear back from them. I'll call Suffolk County Department of Health. I'm just waiting to hear back from them on that issue as well as what they need on the bathroom and things like that. So, yeah. That's just at this time. It was more up for discussion. And then I just talked about getting a revised plan. Again, for the purposes of the show, for the discussion, it was the proposed parking area. But we did further discuss. But we did further discuss that. I just need something that further shows the actual ADA. The delineation of it. This was just because I was away and wanted to give her an idea for what's going on. So per farm stand code, there isn't exactly a number of parking stalls needed for farm stands. But I know that in the past, and it has been delineated, that at least one ADA accessible parking stall should be for any farm stand. So that's what we're working on right now. All good? Yeah. Okay, good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, right now we're going to discuss public comments on resolutions, if anybody wants to speak.

Hi, good afternoon. Josh Sarfman, 25, Fox Chaser Place. Just a couple comments on the Summerwind Farms resolution, which unfortunately I've not had the chance to see in full detail, but just from the discussion. First, we'd like to thank the Board of Trustees for their support. Thank Greg and the staff and the Planning Board and Vince and his team on the no cannabis. That's really a tremendous step forward, and I think we all appreciate that. On the fence for the right-of-way, I just want to clarify a couple things and maybe ask for a clarification maybe from Greg as to where the language is landing on that fence. One of the things, the reasons that we as a community have been seeking that is to make sure that new neighbors along the west side of the right-of-way, don't put up fencing that starts to interfere with the vistas that a lot of the work here has been about protecting. And so it's not just about having that fence, it's literally about what fence is able to be put in there. So it was a little confusing in the dialogue as to where that language is landing. It's also not, there's only, I think, the first agricultural parcel, that's five, and then two, seven and eight, that actually touch it. So we're not talking about all 16 parcels. Okay. So it does seem like there's a solution that can be found relative to this. And then lastly, I would just flag, we had asked to make sure that 17 Foxchaser had some protections from that new driveway that's coming off of Peconic Bay Boulevard and was not sure if that was in the resolution, any requirement for a tree buffer or anything just to protect our neighbors from headlights and other things. Thank you. Is that in the resolution, the tree buffer? So there's nothing in for the tree buffer. I mean, you know, the way the, let me pull up my iPad. Okay.

So 17 Foxchaser. I mean, again, very, roughly scaling out. Justin, can you zoom out on this map a bit?

Justin? Thank you. All right. So, I mean, if I had to guess, the house at 17 Foxchaser is oriented a little more. Yeah. Keep going. Okay. So, I mean, just based on an aerial of the site, 17 Foxchaser, the house is located a little bit closer to that northern property boundary. So that house is roughly here. Again, I'm not a surveyor, so don't quote me, but just based on aerials, that house is roughly located there. So, I mean, the location of the driveway where people are going to be coming in and out, I don't know. It's not like the driveway is pointing right at the back of the house. So I don't know that a tree buffer here would really, Okay. Okay. accomplish much. I mean, again, it's not like it's pointing, it's not like the common driveway is oriented in a fashion that it would be pointing right at the house. So headlights would not necessarily be directly aimed at that residence at 17 Foxchaser.

Any thoughts on what Greg said? Yeah. I mean, we all, you know, being there all the time, even the headlights for, for, for our neighbor coming down Peconic Bay Boulevard are visible on his property and in his house. So, so I hear you, Greg, on the point, but I think it'd be, a few trees would go a long way. Yeah, I agree. In protecting one vulnerable spot. Yeah. So, I mean, really, would the, the buffer, would the tree buffer, would you look for it along the driveway here? Yeah, right there. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we'd have to look at if there's a planting range there or something. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we'd have to look at if there's a planting range there or something, but it's worth exploring. What are you thinking? I mean, so, I mean, so, so that is, that is a valid point. I mean, you know, this is a 16-foot right-of-way that we just had discussions on, shall not, you know, no structure shall not be impeded to go and say we want to put a landscape buffer in that 16-foot right-of-way. Would be. Put it on the west side. Oh, yeah, but that, that would be then, I mean. That would be a different. Unlikely. middle of the driveway that would stop feed from entering i mean the property owner can contact the developer and see if they can just on the on the property owner's side just plant some trees maybe buy some trees or something maybe you know split the difference something like that because you're only looking at one lot to do that yeah i think it'd be helpful i mean if we know that we could on behalf of our neighbors work together to to solve that and then july great could you clarify what the changes to the fence language will be uh so where we left off is there there was no no no fence that was going to be proposed just because then as we discussed it would prevent the owner from then having access to that which i mean may likely end up being access for farm equipment along that road you know along the right of way um however and we're going to have to make sure that we're going to have a lot of work done on that and know going forward i don't know what type of agricultural activity is going to be happening on lot five you know i mean if they wanted to grow any type of agricultural commodity they could come in for an application for if they wanted to put up deer fencing to protect an agricultural crop you know i mean obviously it would have to be outside of the right of way it couldn't impede it but you know there could be if they're growing something there they could come in for an application for deer fencing um so where we left off after the discussion that the four foot split rail would be the only way to get the deer fencing to be able to get to the right of way was not going to be required we were just going to sort of solidify and you know reinforce the fact that no structures or impediments shall be constructed or placed within the 16 foot wide right of way on the eastern side of the property okay

it'd be great to have something just to again for the agricultural piece but for the rest just a little protection that somebody's not going to come in and put in you understand

um so thank you and and i hope that for um vince you and your team will continue to work with us on problem solving beyond what comes up in the purview of the board thank you thank you

nathan i'm michael arnone i'm from 73 fox chaser the last time we were here we were discussing the need or lack of need for for the lighting on that private driveway? And where are we? Was there any discussion about it? No, I don't think there was. So any lighting that's proposed would have to comply with the town's dark skies ordinance. So I mean, there can be no light trespass, there can be no up lighting, everything would have to comply with the town's dark skies ordinance. Is the lighting required? So lighting is required on the town right of way. I mean, there's nothing, we don't have anything on our code that requires it along a common driveway. I mean, however, given the size and the length, putting some lighting there so that people can safely pass on their driveway. Again, there's no prohibition on it, there's no requirement on it. But again, any lighting has to comply with the town's dark skies ordinance. So it's not gonna be spotlights, it's not gonna be like, you know. You understand the concept of dark skies lighting? Just goes down, doesn't go up? The discussion was about safety on that driveway. It's a driveway. It's not a highway. That really doesn't have to be lit. And you're looking at all of these houses now, they don't have lights back there. I'm sorry? I agree with you 100%. It's not required on the four or five lots, but it is required on the town road. You know, the road is gonna be dedicated to the town. But the road's not gonna be dedicated to the town that's a private driveway. This road is gonna be dedicated to the town. That's not a problem. That's required. I'm talking about the one lot, one driveway. One through four. You don't have to, he doesn't have to do it if it is wanted. He doesn't want to do it. No, I don't have to do it, but I'm not hearing any agreement that they will not do it. I mean, doesn't it have these small lights that you have driveway lights, and you can put a little in there. Even one per lot. That's up to the applicant. Well, I mean, if the board wants to prohibit street lighting on that common driveway, I think you could do so. Or if you want to set conditions on what type of lighting. Again, if it was, if you had like landscape lighting, you know, like low sort of path lights just to provide some type of illumination. I mean, I think the board would be empowered to make that decision. That's kind of tough in the winter, and snow removal and everything, and then you don't see them. And I don't think I would ever tell them that they can't because you don't know how dark it's gonna be. I mean, any car driving at night is gonna have headlights on, so you're gonna, Yeah. You want to prohibit street lighting on the common driveway?

I'd like to hear from other people, you know, in the area, and the applicant. My whole block is here. Thank you. Thank you. I'd also like to hear from the applicant. You know, that's just where you maybe can nip it in the bud. My name is Lois Leonard. I'm the third house in on Fox Tracer, number 43. I don't understand what, nobody walks, it's gone. I don't understand why they're going to be walking in there at night. If they are walking, they're going to have their phones. And also, if you're driving there at night, you have your headlights. Why do you need unnecessary lighting? That's what I have to say. It's ridiculous. Nobody even walks down Fox Tracer. You know, we have our cars, and we have our headlights, and that's more than enough. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I certainly understand the neighbors' concerns when it comes to lighting up the roadway. But beyond having your cell phone light on, people do traverse roadways in the dark. There's a reason why the town requires street lighting on publicly dedicated streets. And it's for safety of traversing those streets. The fact that there are only five houses on what is going to be retained as a private road doesn't in any way negate the need for lighting for safety. Now, we fully understand that all lights and street lighting will have to be proposed as dark skies compliant. We are in no way trying to make or impede on any of the quality of life of any of the neighbors. But if it's perfectly fair for someone who's living on a publicly dedicated road to have adequate street lighting to walk their dogs, to take out their garbage, to enjoy walking home on the end of a long walk, it should be perfectly reasonable that someone who's living on a privately held roadway to be able to enjoy the same safety as well. And again, these will be the same safety safety rules. We, no one is looking to uplight or to put lighting in any way that impedes on the neighbors. We are seeking to be good neighbors. That said, we do have to consider the future safety. And this is also, we have to remember, is also a fire apparatus access road. This isn't just a driveway. It is true, it is not fully to town specs because it is not going to be publicly dedicated. But at the same point, there will be five houses. There will be traffic for five houses. There will be access for five houses. There will be deliveries for the five houses. And we feel strongly that some lighting along that roadway needs to be provided. You're entitled to do it. Thank you. You had to ask. Understood.

Ruth Arnon, 73 Fox Chaser Place. We understand you need lights on the public road. Fox Chaser is a public road. There are absolutely no street lights. We walk in the dark, up and down the block, no problem. The houses are lit. We walk, we drive our cars to and from our homes, absolutely no problem. It's a much longer street, public street, than this private driveway will be, point number one. Point number two, first time we spoke to Mr. Calvo, so regarding those lights, he told us he would remove them. Then he changed his tune and now is requiring them. Second or third, the homeowner, the homeowner, the homeowner, the homeowner, the homeowner, the homeowner, the homeowner, the homeowners who live there will be responsible for these lights. Now you're straddling them, not only with maintaining a private driveway that surfaces all these houses, but now they need to install, maintain, and pay for electricity for lights that are not required, nor needed. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Yes.

! Good afternoon. My name is Donna Probst. I'm kind of late to this whole process and everything. This is in reference to, but not really, your impact study for that one driveway just after the bend. I know everybody's been very concerned about the bend. What I'm concerned about is that you have one sign that says narrow bridge. It's a very narrow bridge. There is no reflectors. There was one reflector that is no longer there. There is a sign there to let people know to slow down. So I'd like to see, I know it's not your responsibility, but the towns, the highway department, to put up some kind of reflector tapes on the guardrails, another sign to say slow down. You just have something saying narrow bridge. And it's a really sharp bend. And cars do come very close to each other all the time. And now you're going to have an entrance that all of a sudden you're going to have to slam on your brakes to if they're waiting to get in there. Sounds like a good idea to me. Thank you. Thank you. That is a comment. I mean, I could transmit that to the Traffic Safety Committee. You know, they meet several times a year. That is something of concern. I mean, if there is new development, I can relay that concern to the Traffic Safety Committee. Okay. Good point. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Gentlemen, can we go to resolutions, please? Yes. I move Resolution 26017, granting extension of the approval for minor subdivision of Vincent Franklin. Second. Move and second. Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Bair? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. Resolution 2026018, Summerwind Farms Major Subdivision, discussion of a preliminary plat for 16-lot major residential subdivision. So, just before we vote on this, I would just, again, the amendment that we're looking on page 8 of the resolution, condition number 5 towards the top of the page, that condition will be amended to read number 5, that no structures or impediments shall be constructed or placed within the 16-foot wide right of way on the eastern side of the property. Yeah. Second it, Joe? I'll second, yes. Moved and second, Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Bair? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. At this point, any comment on public matters of any kind? Okay, not seeing any. How about the minutes? I'll move minutes of February 19th. So moved. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Bair? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. Minutes on March 5, 2026. So moved. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Bair? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. No secret actions tonight, Greg? No. Any other business, folks? No? Good job, everybody, as usual. No correspondence. Our next meeting date will be Thursday, April 2nd, right here at 6 p.m. Have a great weekend, everybody. Motion to close? Motion to close. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. All opposed?

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.