Full Transcript

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. So this is for additional discussion from a town board referral for amendments to site plan review as you all know and as the public is likely aware this is the one of two boards in the town of a rather review site plans urban renewal areas are responsibility of the town board and the planning board has all the rest of the site plan so this code amendment was discussed back in March just give everyone sort of the lay of the land here we discussed going from what we have now which is a three-step process to a two-step process which in the state of New York that's what most people do pre-submission and then final approval what you have before you is the final bit of tweaks that I'd like to call it on page four and page five so if you wanted to flip to page four of what I sent to you it's just going over to minimus review so in our code as it is now we don't really have a good definition or really good thing that's captured and what's really covers de minimus so what it says now is this de minimus which is a form of site plan approval shall be limited to the carrying out for maintenance improvement or other alteration you that does not material affect the external appearance of the building okay Justin is there a problem with that okay work on my elocution so this is really adding more of a definition and criteria for what covers under you know it's contemplated under contemplated under de minimus so this would all be at the discretion of the town planning and development administrator if you're qualified for de minimis so we'd have to notify the applicant whether the qualifier for de minimis or whatever level of site plan review they do qualify for being either de minimis expedited or full site plan so the performance criteria which you have is amendments or modifications to previously approved site plans that don't change impervious service by 10% or a thousand square feet whichever is less floor area increases that are increased or decreased by more than 10% or a thousand square feet the footprint of the building would have to be within 90% of the original approval and then whatever amendment they're seeking has to conform with the zoning at the time of the de minimis application this also covers changes of use and interior renovations that might change parking so it's got to be ten spaces or less but you're still bound by the threshold of 10% or a thousand square feet in terms of the improvement so it's really really small stuff that's would be reviewed by staff but still referred out pursuant to our normal referral policy so that's going to go to the state health department County anybody else that might need to go to by code and then the other change is very minor so what we are already doing now in terms of what we consider an administrative review really isn't administrative at all because it does go to you or the town board for a resolution that would be called expedited and if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them and I'll be back in a minute we have no other questions it wasn't one comment yeah Joe's comment to add New York State licensed as a requirement for engineers architects or other design professional which is a good get they should go to the town board today which was received well and it will have a public hearing I would say shortly within the next month or so that I agree with these proposals just too many times just small minor things have to come in front of us when you guys right in the office can take care of there's no reason to bring it in front of the board and if it's something that's even small that might you know have a little bit more interest we could still always give it to the board all right thank you Thank You Matt okay next up we have Woodhull residents and with that we have Heather Trojanowski do we have anyone here for the applicant? Yes if you could just state your names clearly for the record Chris Cole Cole environmental services agent for the applicant Summer Looney Cole environmental services so this is pretty straightforward this is a chapter 219 application seeking to remove invasive species both on the bluff base and also in upland areas and install native plantings in order to stabilize the bluff and upland sloped areas at 506 Soundshore Road in Jamesport Suffolk County tax up number 600-7-1-21 this is within the residents a 40 zoning use district and then pursuant to chapter 219 the removal of invasive species and planting is a permitted act by the Planning Board so they're looking in the upland areas they'll be replanting they'll be replanting the plantings that are in the upland areas they'll be replanting they'll be removing Japanese knotweed and I think it's a multi floor rows and then replacing with black oak scarlet oak white oak eastern red cedar black cherries red maples they'll be removing the same in the bluff areas and replacing with northern bayberries black cherry shining sumac eastern red cedar marsh elder and grounsel bush so they do have an application in with the DEC currently pending I know that the DEC is currently in the process of implementing the application but I don't know if they're going to be able to do that in the next couple of weeks I'm just wondering if there's any information that you have on that that they received a notice of complete back in April of 2025 the plans that they submitted with their 2019 application actually reflect the changes that the DEC wanted so I think you're just waiting to hear back from them at this point that's right and to give the board a little bit of background Japanese knotweed in particular is a noxious invasive species it grows in very like thick thickets and it pushes out native species that other wise stabilize the bluff areas and sloped areas they have long sort of tenderly rhizomes and they spread very easily so it's hard to get rid of them so they'll have to be dug out with machinery they're not using any sort of pesticides or anything and then they'll be planting with the native species that I listed one thing that I had requested and that would be a condition of approval and the resolution you have before you is that they provide protection around the areas that do have native plantings when they're going in if you looked at the map there are several areas that will be removing these invasive species from and they have a clear path for the machinery to take across the parcel so I just wanted to make sure that any other areas that are going to remain undisturbed be protected in addition they'll need their applicable permit from the New York State DEC they'll have to adhere to any conditions of DEC in the future and they'll have to be protected from any other species that they may have to take on the site so I just wanted to make sure that you know that you know that you're not going to be !

off-site we know that any small fragment of it will cause a new infestation so how long did you project this project to how long I would take the actual construction like the the digging and everything I would think probably within a week and then there would be ongoing stewardship just to see if there's any new sprouts coming up but the actual construction should take that and then the new plantings will be will follow yeah exactly okay so while you're doing the work you're going to have to apply a lot of work to get that done so quite ahead of the budget budget and it takes a while to re-leaf out, so to speak, in the warmer months. So you get these exposed areas of soil, and when you have steep slopes and heavy rains, it causes erosion. So that's why it's important to get it removed and replanted. But I would recommend installing some erosion control. How much soil importation do you expect to have? We're not going to bring in any. We're just removing the knotweed. We have to take some of the soil out with the roots. How do you clean up? Because, I mean, they leave a residue. I know I'm stuck with it because I don't live in an area like that. Yeah. You can't get rid of that stuff. So they're digging it out, and then what they're doing is routinely coming back and seeing if there's any new sprouts. And part of it is the maintenance ongoing. They'll get most of it out with digging, but then you have to just stay on top of it to make sure if there's any new sprouts. You're addressing those, digging them out, pulling them out. You're doing them as needed. And hopefully once the native plantings are established, they create a dense fibrous root mat. And that helps not only stabilize the soil, but will maybe prevent any new growth of the invasive species if it's under control well enough. Yeah, that's the idea. The replanting crowds out the space for the native plants and holds the soil. That washout on Figure 2, is that the area that... Yeah. I know that. I noticed that there's a town right of way on the next property, but then it goes into your property near the beach. And I'm just wondering if that area is where the washout was. He's talking about Photo 5. Yeah, which is here. There definitely is a washout next to the client's property that's totally separate from his land. I think there might be... There might have been some clearing done either with permits or not with permits next to there, which is added to that erosion there. Okay. It just looks like it's part of... I'm looking at the map, and it looks like it's part of... You're referring to the dirt path or to the wood walk that's to the west? There's a right of way on the previous property. Okay. Prior property. And then it goes onto you. It looks like it goes onto the... And I thought that might be where the washout... This has been... That's on Figure 1, the aerial view.

Right of way there? Was it low... It's called low drive? Low drive. Yeah, so I don't know if it's actually a recorded right of way that goes onto this property. I know... So if you... If the board remembers, this was actually... An application for subdivision came in. Matt Charters reviewed it. And I don't believe there was any sort of formalized easement for access from the property to the west to this property. So even though the near maps aerial shows that as some sort of drive, I don't know if it's an actual right of way or not. Well, I'm just thinking of drainage, actually, because everything goes right on down. Okay. So then when the work is complete, you're just working... Yes. You work your way out where the machine went in and do the clearing and just work your way back out and dig that. Is that it? And do the planting on your way out? Yep, planting, working our way back. And, yeah, we're seeking to, you know, leave everything replanted and stable, you know, after the removal of the... And Heather, DEC gets final approval on that site. Yeah, so because they're going to need a DEC permit on this, I'm expecting that they'll probably need to make an inspection to make sure that you're in conformance with all of this. Okay.

you pull a permit with the building department and then get a certificate of compliance when the work's complete. Okay. So you'll be double covered between the building department and the DEC on this one. And the DEC typically wants survivability, so we'll be maintaining any of those conditions at the DEC. They don't want us going in there and disturbing everything and letting all the native plantings die, so we'll be complying with that as well. So it's pretty well defined, the areas. Yes. Yep, definitely. And if you see the site, it is a jungle from this knotweed. It just takes over and really, really causes a big problem. Yeah, and the multiflora rose, again, has similar issues. It doesn't grow quite as tall, but it's more vine-like, so if there are native trees on the property, it could potentially grow up the trees and choke them out, so it's important to remove them. Okay. Anybody else have anything? No. Good. Great. Thank you very much, Heather. We're not going anywhere. Morris Olinda. We've had the church now. I forgot to print myself a copy of the staff report on this one, so I'll just try to go from memory as best as I can. No, I'll be okay. So this is a similar Chapter 219 application. Oh, thank you. Sure. So the property is just due east of 506, so this is for 510 and 516 Soundshore Road, two contiguous parcels. They are only removing Japanese knotweed. I don't think any multiflora rose was identified on the site. And the area of work was limited to between the top of the bluff where there's a retaining wall and then the existing bulkheading at the toe of the bluff. So they did receive a letter of no. jurisdiction from the New York State DEC so they're covered in that respect they still need to the Planning Board to approve their chapter 219 permit the purpose is the same they are removing the invasive species and planting native species on the bluff base the plantings are limited to the northern bayberry black cherry eastern redcedar marsh elder and groundsel bush the access is pretty straightforward they do go down a shared driveway so one thing that I noted is that the property to the west of 510 I believe it's 504 shares this driveway access so I just want to make sure that when they're staging their machinery and any like plant materials that they're not blocking the access to this parcel to the east I mean to the west and that they have full access to the 510 and 516 so I mean other than other than that it's pretty much the same purpose and intent as the other applications now Heather who oversees this project not to DEC they don't need a permit DEC issued a letter of no jurisdiction so it would be Planning Board and then again you would follow up with a building permit but I don't think that the homeowners who contracted to have all this work done would want to plant native plants and then just watch them die so I'm thinking that as I said with 506 survivability is going to be a big thing making sure that the Japanese knotweed does not come back and that your native plants are going to be able to survive over a certain period of time until until they're established one thing I did know is that in the DEC letter of no jurisdiction they mentioned the clearing limitations or tree cutting limitations because there are occurrences of the northern long-eared bat so I did put that into the resolution just they're not proposing any tree cutting but for whatever reason if a tree has to be cut down during the process it can only occur between November and November 1st and March 30th of any calendar year or is it November 30th and March 1st I can't quite remember it's in the resolution it was stated in there I remember reading it no cutting of trees during March 1st and November 30th so yeah no tree clearing between March 1st and November 30th so if a tree has to be cut down which is not proposed they should be abiding by those restrictions you have to know that is the equipment since it's going between the two houses is it going to cause any problems anyway it shouldn't shouldn't cause any any problems they'll have to you know come from the top of the bluff for this one you know behind the retaining wall I'm just thinking of because between two houses just getting in yeah just getting in there yeah we have a machine access route that's like there's about twelve and a half feet between the two houses and it's a relatively small machine you know needs to be kind of kind of nimble to get in there and take all that stuff out because I'm assuming you're probably gonna go over the retaining wall down the bluff base and go from the bottom up yeah we're going back so exactly so I have the two approval resolutions on with conditions obviously and they'll be getting me revised plans to reflect the changes that I wanted very good thank you Heather good luck thank you thank you next up we have 54 pennies road with Greg Bergman

right good afternoon right so this one will be very quick the board will remember back in September of 2019 this board approved a three lot minor subdivision for a approximately eight acre tract of land which is located on the northeast corner of Sound Avenue and pennies road that was the Henry Silverman minor subdivision it was approved by resolution number 2019 dash 0 1 0 included as a condition of approval for that within that resolution it stated that prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on lot one or two the property owner shall submit a site plan application for further review and approval by the planning board and approval by the building inspector pursuant to riverhead town code 217-6K so the applicant has made applications to the planning department made a site plan application this applicant has received approval from the Suffolk County department of health services they're going to install a new IA wastewater management system the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. They're going to install a new IA wastewater management system. They have received approval from the New York State DEC. They've received a freshwater wetlands permit. They got that on November 13, 2024. And the plans were also reviewed and approved by the Town of Riverhead Conservation Advisory Council. That decision was dated September 15, 2025. Construction of a single-family residence is a Type 2 action pursuant to SECRA. So we're just here before the Board to approve the proposed residential site plan for Lot 1 of the Henry Silverman subdivision. It did just include one condition that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide drainage with calculations for all impervious surfaces. But other than that, they've obtained all the relevant approvals from outside agencies. So we're here to just approve a residential site plan. Just curiosity, you said this is a three-lot subdivision. How about the other two-lot subdivisions? It's a three-lot subdivision? Yeah. So Lot 2 is currently vacant. There is a house and a barn. Is Lot 1 improved? No, actually. I don't know about Lot 1. I'm sorry.

I think we're on Lot 1. This is Lot 2, which hasn't been developed. And Lot 3 already has a residence with some accessory barns. Oh, quite a line yeah that's that was a DEC request they just told us bump that in a little bit because you're gonna need the area for excavation yeah the building envelope is is fine not touching the wetlands or anything so yeah it was review they've got their DEC permit as well as the town of Riverhead Conservation Advisory Council which reviews any type of development or construction applications within wetlands jurisdiction so a little unusual for a single-family residence to come before the board when there's not significant engineering or grading and drainage plans but it was I do recall that subdivision was a little bit lengthy so I think there was just a level of caution on the board but they've ticked all the boxes they've addressed all outside agencies so I have a resolution for the board to approve the residential site plan

okay next up we have fun churros you grow Marissa and I'll be good hello hello how are you guys I just want to set up a big can you take me please sure my name is Michael more billow architect my firm is inspired design group my office is located at 4964 Express Drive South in Montconclo New York thank you very much thank you all right so um the planning department received and reviewed a site plan application for fun shows so currently the site plan application is approved by the City of

so currently the site plan application is approved by the City of the city of�� Currently, it was built without permits, and they're looking to legalize this. Additionally, there is a roof overhang that was enclosed that they are looking to legalize as well. Besides the things to legalize, they also are proposing improvements, which include landscaped areas to reseal and restripe the existing paving areas, along with the dumpster locations are proposed to be relocated. With that, just a little bit of information, background on the parcel. Approximately a 24,300 square foot lot. It's in the PRC zoning, and it's located at 1156 West Main Street, also known as Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-125. Currently, the lot is improved with, like I said, two commercial buildings, one more towards the north, known as Fun Shows, and building number two is known as Snowflake Ice Cream. Both have letters of pre-existing use, as they were built prior to 1965. The parcel is located on the north side of East Main Street. Also, it's easier to say the south. East intersection of Mill Road and West Main Street. I'm sorry, I said East Main Street before. Located on the north side of West Main Street. The proposed site plan is a type two action, and no further environmental review is required at this time. To go a little bit further in depth of what exactly is being proposed, I'm going to start with the Fun Shows building one. Like I said, they are looking to legalize the, um, awning area. They're looking to actually modify it as it currently encroaches on the neighboring property. So they're going to bring that back a little bit to get it off the property line. And then additionally, the enclosed walls that are around the roof overhang is what they're legalizing. Additionally, the rear service area. So as it currently sits, the walk-in cooler, which I'm pointing out, is a little bit of a problem. It's a little bit of a problem. And there's three sheds in the rear service area. It's a mixture of being on the neighboring property, slash it just needs to be pushed in a little bit more to be on the subject parcel. So they're looking to relocate these sheds and the walk-in cooler. And with that, there will need to be a ZBA variance, as they don't meet the setbacks, the proper setbacks. So there will be a variance that's needed in order to get the necessary setbacks for that. Additionally, there's going to be proposing a landscaped area in the front. So as of right now, I believe it's a gravel type, and there's seating out there. So we actually asked for them to put the landscaping back, as that once was there. So they're looking to put that back. The existing sign is going to remain, has a CO. And the same width down towards the south side, there is a proposed grass area that is to come back. It was once there, and then I think over the years it just happily faded away. So that's proposing to come back as well. And then let me see. Going over the site a little bit. So they're looking to the existing dumpster enclosures. I actually can show a photo. They're a little bit off and encroaching onto the neighboring property. I'll show you here. So they're a little bit onto the neighboring property right now. So they're looking to actually relocate them and put them on the subject parcel. I'll show one back here. For fun. So they're looking to relocate them. And then this one as well for Snowflake. With that, they are resealing and restriping the paved areas that are to remain. They only need nine parking stalls. However, they're providing 25 with two handicap stalls. Both Funchos and Snowflake, they are very busy. They do very well. And so I have no problem with them doing the extra space. The parking spaces as they do. That site is currently is always very busy. With that, the traffic pattern of the site. So like I said, it's a non-conforming. It's a pre-existing non-conforming lot. To help with the traffic congestion, they are proposing a one-way do not enter sign. Right. It would be north of building two. Trying to get rid of the traffic that congestion that goes on there. It's a little. We have people coming in and out of the site. So we're trying to help as much as we can to get. I don't want to have any problems and don't want anyone to get hurt. So we're trying to mitigate the traffic congestion and making this so it's actually a one way. One way which way? It would be a one way back behind building two. So it would. Nobody's allowed to enter. So they would. All just it's only a one way going north and exiting. And then I referred. I've heard this plans to a couple of different. A couple of different places. So one, it had to go to the Suffolk County Department of Health as it shows the increase in commercial space. They the. Comments that came back was to that they haven't received an application yet. And so that proper approval would be needed from them. I also made note from the Suffolk County Department of Health that they have a total of 15 seats. And I did confirm that with the health department. And the. I show that right now there is about 15 seats on here. However, the floor plans that were also submitted showed eight. So I just want clarification in regards to the total. Amount of seats to be proposed. Interior and exterior. The. New York state DEC. This parcel is located within the wild, scenic and recreation rivers act. So within that corridor, it had to be referred out to DEC. And they said to obtain to contact them in regards to receiving a permit for from DEC as well. The town of Riverhead, engineering. And the. The.

should be repaired along with the site frontage. So furthermore, any of the work, they're going to need a highway work permit from DOT as well. So my recommendations overall, I just kind of wanted everyone to get their eyes on this. It's going to have to go to ZBA first before all, but any notes, comments that you guys may have, I wanted to bring it in front of you just because it may alter the ZBA because we have to write a denial letter out for them so that they can go to ZBA. So I just wanted to bring it to you guys to see if you have any questions, concerns. So who's going to have, say, where the exits and entrances are going to be off of West Main Street? Is that going to be to DOT? I believe that's going to be DOT, who's going to make the overall, because they do have to submit to New York State DOT to receive that permit. I just have a couple of questions. Sure. The gravel area where you have seating right now should go back to... parking or plantings? It's going to go back to plantings. Back to plantings. I believe it's 10 to 12 foot away from the road. You know, I don't mind the seating that you have next to the building is fine. You have a shed, a 6 by 9 inch shed that is directly on the boundary line in the back. Is that coming out? That one.

I believe. I mean, it's right in the middle. Is it? Oh, you're talking about over here? This is being moved off. Yeah, so this one's going to be moved off and relocated onto the subject property. However, they're still going to need relief from ZBA at that point. And the walk area from your property to the neighboring building, is it legal? Because you can't be using, you know, a business and then another piece of property. So that's proposing to be removed, and I believe, that they're not going to be using that area any further. I will make the recommendation that maybe a fence or some type of landscape buffer, maybe trees of some sort, should go up in this area. Just because if it's open, I mean, maybe there's something that's some way. So to further prevent that, not trespassing, but going over the encroachment onto the neighboring property, so maybe that could be a recommendation that I can bring forth and talk and tell the ZBA also about, so that they further. And the last thing is that just visiting the site in the last two weeks, you have quite a bit of cars parking on the easement for the PSEG. We as a board can't tell you whether you can have it there or not, but you certainly don't want people that are using the ZBA, are using the ice cream or fun shows to actually park there. If somebody gets hurt, you know, you're not on your property. Absolutely. I just think it's, you know, something that the town should just say. You know, we're not responsible, but. Yeah. Absolutely. And I think the striping is going to help, you know, to delineate where parking should be. I think that one of the issues is there is nothing or whatever it was there faded many years ago. So they just, they park willy-nilly. And I do believe when that brings up a good point from what he was just stating as well. I wrote in the staff report as well when they are looking at that area that I recommended that some, again, I had some type of buffer here, but maybe some sort of buffer here to indicate that because we would hate that if we had some sort of buffer here. I think that's what I was trying to say was that, you know, somebody's parking here you don't want them to be over the property line so maybe a delineation of some sort so you brought up a good point maybe a row of green giants or something just yeah yeah just to show the separation of the properties of some sort but that would probably be nice yeah either that or or business stops or something to prevent people really well just it's getting a little out of hand in the back there yeah was a there was a remark made by the Health Department about and we bought number B that said should not think the subdivision without Health Department approval is there plans to subdivide this I think it was just a typo through the unfortunately through the Health Department and it was supposed to be for a site plan there is no subdivision taking place now yeah that's gonna be it's staying one piece so I just have on that again like I said it's mainly for discussion purposes for you guys um and they just at this point we're gonna have for setbacks relief a denial letter for them to go in front of the ZBA all right parking that could mirror the parking that you have at Snowflake to flip this to have two basically two spaces if it's a handicapped van yeah person exiting would be able to go into a strike area as opposed to a parking space understood so before on the other one we have it yeah yeah so he's saying as this one is same way to flip this area in that area have it to the end to the right side thank you all right okay thank you guys thank you thank you okay number six we have brother bear canna greenhouse with Greg Bergman please good afternoon there you go can you sit down sit down one step yes okay thank you

P.W. Grocer here representing Brother Bear. John Anzalone from Harris Beach Merthyr Attorneys representing Brother Bear. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. So this is a, we're bringing this back to the Planning Board for discussion of revised plans for the Brother Bear Canada application. We're seeking approval to construct an approximately 31,000 square foot one-story greenhouse and related site improvements including a new sanitary system, an asphalt driveway, drainage system, site lighting, and related mechanical equipment. As the Board will recall, this application went before the Zoning Board of Appeals late last year. They were seeking variances for an eight foot deer fence as well as exceeding the allowable impervious surface coverage for the APZ Zoning Use District. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied that appeal number. That was appeal number 2025-035. They denied both of those variances in their entirety. In response to that, the applicant has revised the plans as follows. They eliminated the improved asphalt parking areas and instead are proposing to park on dirt and grass. The parking area will be delineated in front of the building by an eight-inch railroad, eight-inch railroad ties just to provide some order. I'm sure they can be marked out along those railroad ties to just identify specific stalls. Plans now call for the demolition of the existing residence and a detached garage on property. There were two barns located on the northern end of the property that were always proposed to be removed. The greenhouse was moved further south. It is now proposed 61 feet from the front property line, which still meets the required setback. Previous proposal was a 111 foot setback approximately. I will note one issue that has been identified in this subsequent resubmittal. I'm going to bring it out to the board on this first page here. Justin, can you just zoom out a little bit, please? Thank you. All right. So the revised plan identified these areas that are shaded in blue were identified as areas that exceed 15 percent slope. The initial application submission did not include the slope analysis, which is a requirement on our site plan checklist. Those areas in excess of 15 percent slope are identified as having a total area of about 18,100 square feet. Town code section 301-307A states that permitted coverage shall only be calculated based on buildable area of a site, wetlands, slopes in excess of 15 percent, cross-easements for roads, and other such areas shall be deemed non-buildable. So essentially, the application right now identifies a impervious coverage of 14.96 percent. That does not exclude that approximately 18,000 square feet. So when that 18,000 square feet comes out, it brings the actual plot coverage up to about 16.22 percent. I have discussed that with the applicant. I believe they are prepared to revise the application. They could probably speak to that, what their plans are, in order to meet the zoning. So to meet the zoning on that, there are several bays in the greenhouse. So what we'll be doing is taking out what are the northwestern bays in the corner, which is generally here in one of those bays, and we'll be eliminating them. And by eliminating them, we'll limit them at 2,700 square feet, which gets us to about 15,000 square feet. So that's the plan. We haven't seen those plans yet, but purportedly, if they remove that 2,700 square feet, they would meet that maximum 15 percent threshold. Previously discussed, and we've gone over and I've issued a zoning determination, and it was provided to the board back in December. We've already addressed cannabis cultivation generally within the agricultural protection zone. So that includes the with a representative from the Ag and Markets. She asked me to amend that letter. What I was actually seeking was an agricultural in nature opinion, so I sent a follow-up letter to the Department of Ag and Markets on January 6th of 2026, clarifying that request. They were provided with copies of the site plan, the EAF, the local site plan application, as well as a cover letter describing the proposed use, describing the greenhouse, describing the concrete pads, the mechanical equipment, the HVAC equipment. I won't read the entire letter because it is included on the website, but I will just for the board, I will read a small section of it. So part of this letter from the Department of Ag and Markets dated March 20th, 2026, states that Section 301, Subsection 11 of the Ag and Markets Law defines the term farm operation as including, including all on-farm buildings, equipment, and practices that contribute to the production, preparation, and marketing of crops. The Department considers agricultural commodities produced on-farm to include crops produced by a farmer on his or her farm operation. Under Ag and Markets Law, Section 301, Subsection 2, Sub M, cannabis, when cultivated in accordance with the cannabis law, is considered a crop. Regarding activities within a controlled climate environment, the Ag and Markets said, you inquired whether an indoor controlled climate environment for cultivating cannabis is, quote, agricultural in nature. The cultivation of on-farm grown cannabis and the associated on-farm buildings, equipment, and parking areas, including an indoor controlled climate structure, would be considered part of a farm operation. In conclusion, based upon the information provided, applicable law, and upon consultation with the Advisory Council on Agriculture, it is my opinion that to the extent an indoor climate controlled facility is used for cultivating on-farm grown cannabis, the facility and associated equipment and parking areas are considered agricultural in nature under Ag and Markets Law, Section 308, Subsection 4. And that is signed by Richard Boll, who is the Commissioner of the Department of Ag and Markets, and that letter is dated March 20, 2026. So based on all of the zoning determination, the Ag and Nature opinion from the Ag and Markets, I mean, this operation is considered agricultural in nature. It is not an industrial use. It is not a manufacturing use, you know, based on the Ag and Markets opinion. So that sort of addresses that significant issue. The application is adjacent to freshwater wetlands, which are located on the preserved town of Riverhead property, which is located basically along the east side and the north side of the property. We got a letter from the DEC in January 8th of 2026, indicating that the parcel contains freshwater wetlands, and or freshwater wetland adjacent areas regulated by the DEC, pursuant to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law. We received a further letter dated May 1st, 2026, and they stated that the DEC indicated that the construction depicted on the October 2025 survey prepared by DiMauro Engineering and Surveying is more than 100 feet from DEC-regulated freshwater wetlands, therefore no permit is required for this project pursuant to Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24, and its implementing regulations. 6 NYCRR Part 663. The letter does indicate that the proposed on-site irrigation wells, which there are two wells which are proposed on the northern side of the property, north of the greenhouse, the on-site irrigation wells fall below the New York State DEC's permitting threshold of 45 gallons per minute. The letter does, however, indicate that the general area of the proposed site has been impacted by a fluorinated compound, and recommends contacting the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for more information. Thank you. So I did refer the application to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. They indicated a contact. I haven't gotten a response yet, but the applicant does have PW Groesser. You know, any time we hear, you know, PFAS, PFOA, obviously it raises some alarms. So I'll let the applicant speak to their consultant and how they plan to address the extraction of water that's potentially impacted by these compounds. Sure. So, yeah, so we did receive that letter. We are aware of the concerns, and we are prepared to treat the water, although we don't necessarily think that that is an agricultural requirement. We are willing to go above and beyond and put some sort of carbon treatment or other filtration system on the irrigation water and to treat that for the PFAS concerns. So that is something that we're currently exploring. We can provide more information. You haven't put the wells in here, have you? We have not. No. So what I would ask, and, you know, I don't know how far along they are in identifying the types of systems. If they could, once they've sort of formalized a method for this filtration, if they could just provide a brief narrative, I would like to refer that to our water district superintendent just to, you know, make sure that he concurs that, you know, essentially if they're going to be extracting water, that it would be returned to the ground in a better state than it's found.

The applicant did provide a, they did a noise study. They went to a cannabis cultivation facility, which is located in Hagerstown, Maryland, and took sound reading levels. I will note they are obviously, it's not exactly apples to oranges. The facility down in Maryland, I believe, was a repurposed industrial facility. But they took sound readings at different distances from that facility. The results of those sound studies and sound data found that at 10 feet from this building, it was 66 decibels. At 100 feet from the facility, it was 59 decibels. At 300 feet, it was 52 decibels. And then they took a reading at 600 feet, which was 53.7, which is kind of counterintuitive that you go farther away and it got louder. But they note that that was across a, essentially like a main arterial road in there. So they were probably picking up some, you know, ambient traffic. The important measurement I think there is when you get to 300 feet, 52 decibels. If you look at what the equivalent noise level for 52 decibels is like a light rainfall or a low conversation, like a dishwasher, so it's not really, you know, significant noise impact. Regarding the exterior lighting, they are no longer proposing the pole-mounted lighting fixtures. The site plan now just proposes full, full, full cutoff LED mounted lighting fixtures along the building at 12 feet above grade. They're 3000 degree Kelvin. Most of these lighting fixtures are motion activated. So they'll only be turned on when people are walking by them. But they are full cutoff. They comply with the town's exterior lighting requirements. As I stated, the deer fencing and the gates along the previously proposed driveway are all being removed. They did, they do still provide a landscaping plan, which provides landscaping along the middle row and along the eastern side of the property. I do note that there is a, there is a note on the plans here on the landscaping sheet that says improvements per town code section 301-236 are not applicable for agricultural uses. That is referencing a section of the, it's the supplemental use regulations regarding buffers. But there is still a section in our site plan approval section, that's 301-307B, that states the, we want to promote protection of residential areas by ensuring that appropriate buffer landscaping, natural screening and fencing are to be provided in order to protect neighborhood tranquility, community character and property values. Again, to the extent that this is a greenhouse and an agricultural operation, they are providing a pretty robust landscaping plan. We did get comments from the fire marshal and the town engineer, as well as the planning commission. The planning commission, they are saying that they are not going to be able to provide any additional work on the landscaping plan. The planning commission, in a letter dated December 11, 2025, considered the application to be a matter for local determination, and they just included some comments. So that is a recap of the significant updates and the modifications to the project. We have no action before the board today. Again, the applicant does need to revise those plans to eliminate the need for a variance before we can move forward with any potential public hearings. We want to bring it before the board, get feedback, provide you an update on the revised plans, and give you a status update. So that is where we are at. I just want to go on the record. I spoke with Eddie Deniseski before, and he said he wants to speak with you about the process. He wants to be part of what is going on here. He could not make it today, unfortunately. Absolutely. Okay, thank you. Does anybody have any questions? No? Okay. So the billing will be shorter? Yeah, it would be. Or narrower? Narrow or in one spot. In the northwest corner, particularly. Basically, 2,700 square feet smaller. And that would comply with the dimensional requirements. Greg, all these measurements, everything, APZ zone, all allowed by New York State ag and markets. Is that correct? Well, the ag and markets has nothing to do with setbacks, dimensional regulations of APZ. Right. So the ag and markets provided an opinion on the nature of the operation. Again, there were concerns on the board's part. I had heard comments from members of the public, again, calling this an industrial use, a factory, a manufacturing use. So to really sort of address that issue fully, sent it to the Department of Ag and Markets. And again, they considered, even with the parking area, they considered the entire operation to be agricultural in nature. You know, regardless of really the act before the board, they considered it to be agricultural. The act before the board today is for a greenhouse. What the applicant is growing in that greenhouse does not really have a bearing on the site plan review. More than any other greenhouse in town, what they're growing in that greenhouse. Okay. So I guess what we would do, again, a couple of issues. You know, I would like to just see something from PW Grocer detailing the method of filtration. I would just like to refer that to our water district superintendent just to give the board a level of comfort for that, to make sure we're not going to exacerbate a situation. The plans obviously need to be revised to demonstrate compliance with the dimensional requirements, cut back that building, and then we could bring it back before the board for a resolution to schedule a public hearing. As far as the entrance to the site, it's just the asphalt driveway, period? Yeah, so the asphalt driveway looks like it would be for, this is for like a loading bay, so I think this would be more for deliveries and pickups. Employee entrance, I mean, there can be, I don't necessarily think we need like a concrete apron or something, but there could be some type of formalization, whether it's through railroad ties, just to sort of, you know, specifically identify an area where the employees would enter and exit. But there's no curbing, no sidewalks, no major roadway improvements. Where will the employees park? So, yeah, employees would park in this area. So this black line is a proposed eight-inch railroad tie. Again, I would recommend, I did sort of scale it out on another sheet here. It could probably fit about 19 parking stalls given the length and width of the site. Obviously, these corners are sort of rendered irrelevant. You can't really have people park blocking in, but five spaces along here. Another one, two, three, four, five, six spaces here. Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight spaces there. So for a total of approximately 19 stalls that they could facilitate within that area. There's still no possibility of retail operation, correct? Retail sales are not allowed at a cultivation site. That's under OCM. That's under the cannabis law. They're not allowed to have retail on site. Is that it? The location of those parking spots, that's going to be a gravel driveway? It would be an unimproved area. Okay. So they won't mark any of the spots at all, right? No. I mean, what I would recommend, I mean, if I was the applicant, just to provide some order, I mean, I would paint the railroad ties just to identify, provide some order to call out or put a little marking paint on the ground just to provide some delineation as to where the cars are. Okay. Does it have to be handicapped also? I was just going to ask. Well, there's no parking required for an agricultural use, so. For a handicap? For anything. There's no parking required period for the use. Yeah, there is no. Our schedule of parking, dimensional regulations doesn't have a requirement for agricultural uses. I mean, there's a number of greenhouses throughout town that have completely unimproved, you know, just park on dirt, park on grass. Again, I'm hard-boiled, but I'm not going to say that it's a good idea to have a parking zone. I mean, I don't think it's a good idea to have a parking zone. Anybody else? No. No? No. Alright, Greg, thank you very much. Thank you. Alright, Greg, thank you very much. Thank you. Alright, Greg, thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next up we have public comments on resolutions. Let's go with the resolutions. Yeah, okay. I'll move. I'll move resolution 2025-031 for the residential site plan for lot one of Henry Solemn minus subdivision, so moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Behr? Yes. Mr. DeNarro? Aye. I'm a yes, resolution adopted. And I will move, sorry. I will move. I'll move resolution 2026-032, which is chapter 219, coastal erosion hazard permit for wood hole residents. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Behr? Yes. Mr. DeNarro? Aye. An aye, resolution adopted. Resolution 2026-033, Morris Olander, chapter 219 resolution granting a chapter 219 coastal erosion hazard permit. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Behr? Yes. Mr. DeNarro? Aye. An aye, yes, resolution adopted. Okay, now we come to public comments on all matters. Okay. I'm going to call on Bianca Bading-Hallow. There is no microphone. Sorry. It was my understanding at a prior meeting that, Jim, I was not able to get a job, and I was not able to get a job. I'm sorry. Oh, thank you.

You could see the reports from other locations which were very far away, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, something like that. Did you get those reports from the developer? We just got a report about the sound right now. We got a report about the sound, and I actually contacted the planning director for the East Haverstown, Maryland, planning department. I inquired about this site. He had actually never even heard of it, so he passed me off to a code enforcement official. And that location, granted it's not an identical reproduction of this facility, they had never had any complaints about odor. Right, but it's not an identical system. That's what Chairman Dennis Eskey asked for, an identical system in other locations and any problems they had to foresee the problems before they built the actual greenhouse. Well, if there's not an identical system out there, maybe we have nothing to do with it. They said there was, but it was up further north. In a neighborhood? In a state not close to here. It was a much older, can't compare the two. Well, the reason that I'm asking is because I and many other people are concerned. They have stated that anything they grow in the greenhouse will not, smells will not be emitted. There are no venting systems. They won't get out. You won't know it's there. I'd like some proof of that. I'm not just going to. I'm going to take their word for it. Because after they build it and it does emit a smell, what do we do about it? So it's better to head it off at the pass before it happens, no? That's my thinking anyway.

Are there systems out there that they could provide reports about? I guess we'll have to. I'm hearing I'm sure they're going to have to cover that. Well, I'll bring it up. We'll have to see what we can get. Thank you. Thank you very much. Linda Nemeth, Calvertown. I have a question about the number. I have air conditioners in my community. Okay. And every time those air conditioners go on, and they're pretty small. About 4300 or something. I'm not even sure. They're tiny. They're proposing... 24 or 28 air conditioning units on pads. They are huge. They're industrial air conditioners, I'm sorry. How are we going to go from a very peaceful farming area community with a few tractors every day to a construction that's going to have nonstop air conditioning usage? And if the electric goes off, they have to have a generator. It possibly could be a diesel generator. And if you even have a house generator, you know what it sounds like when it kicks off. This has to be massive. I just ask you to question that.

There's no microphone. I'll have to yell. Speak. My name is Barbara Ripple, and I live with most of these people. And these are people. And I understand that business is a very important thing in an area. But the number of people who will be damaged by this project is huge compared to the number of people who are going to make a profit. Money is wonderful. It seems to be the big rule these days. I want to see a real guarantee, like these asked for. I'm 83 years old. How long am I going to be in my house? That is my primary investment. I don't know. I hope for a while. But it is what I have to give to my children and to my grandchildren. Are you guys going to tell me and him that when I go to the great beyond, my children are going to have something to benefit from? Are you going to tell me that my electric bill, my water bill, my gas bill, will not be affected by this project? The whole thing is beneficial to a few people, and the rest of us will pay the bill. I hope you think about that. I assume all of you live in Riverhead. Maybe, I don't know, maybe some of you live on Middle Road. But this is a very damaging thing to the people who live in this area. I moved here. Not quite. Not quite four years ago to live in this community. I know it's changing. Downtown has become a circus. But like I said, I want to guarantee not, oh yes, that will happen. I want to guarantee that my investments, my lifestyle is not going to be damaged by this wonderful project.

I'm not used to not having a microphone either. Hello, Taffy Turchin, Greater Calvertown Civic Association President. Just a question about the sound study. While I was listening, I recognized that it sounded like it's not quite similar. Is that, did I, am I understanding that right? That project that was measured? It was a repurposed industrial facility that is now used for cannabis cultivation. And you thought they were dissimilar, is that right? Not exactly similar, but similar in nature. Oh, okay. Yeah, we're, oh gee, similar in nature, not an exact replica of the facility. Right. And the extent of the measurements, were you satisfied with those, the extent that they measured, or do you suggest more, more measurements? To the extent that an agricultural operation needs a sound study, yes.

Just wondering if we can keep in mind, if, I'm sure it'll come up during the public hearing that if we could, keep in mind that maybe there'll be other measurements that people may want to hear, answers to your measurements. Just, just a thought, thanks for the information that's in the report.

Hi, my name is Carrie McKilla. I'm just wondering if we ever heard back on who the licensee is. Thank you. For the project? The license is not what's before the planning board. The planning board is reviewing a site plan application. Anything relating to cannabis licensing is handled through the Office of Cannabis Management. That's right. Correct. But the whole discussion, everybody keeps talking about, you wrote a letter to Ag and Markets about the topic. About the nature, not about the licensing. So, I mean, the planning board is reviewing a site plan to construct a greenhouse. The applicant could choose to grow flat, any agricultural crop in that greenhouse. The town does not approve or issue permits for cannabis cultivation. They're before the planning board for the site plan to construct a greenhouse. Not for the right group. You don't write letters to Ag and Markets about a greenhouse that's, you know, for Gabrielsons, you know. There's been a lot of talk about it. I didn't review a site plan for Gabrielsons Greenhouse. No, no, no, what I'm saying, in general, you don't write letters to Ag and Markets about cannabis. No, but when I hear, when my planning board members have relayed concerns to me about the nature of the operation, and I've heard concerns from the residents in the area regarding the nature of the operations, I felt it reasonable and prudent to send a letter to the Department of Ag and Markets to solicit an opinion, which is what I received. Okay. So, isn't it a good use of our time to confirm that an applicant actually has a license, and it's a legal license? Because the license that they referred to in the past is one that was held by a person in upstate New York, and may or may not have been transferred, and to this date, it's not showing up on any of the OCM lists, the worksheets of current licensees. I mean, I would refer to counsel. It would just save a lot of time. It would affect the property owner's ability to submit an application for a greenhouse. For a greenhouse in general. They could build a greenhouse. Right now and grow whatever they want. That property can build a greenhouse irrespective of what's being grown inside of it. Correct. So, when they start producing, when do we start caring whether or not they have a legal license? In a sense, we don't. That enforcement function is handled by the Office of Canvas Management. So, we don't want to do any due diligence? So, it's not, in a sense, our due diligence to do at this point. This is a site plan application to construct a structure, right? So, the analysis here is, is the use permitted in the zoning use district? Yes. Is the, and then you review and analyze the application pursuant to the criteria for site plan review. Yeah, I would have thought the same. But with retail operators, do we do the same thing? It's not a retail operation. Okay. But I'm saying, do we do due diligence prior to those facilities opening? To do that? We do due diligence related to our zoning. We do due diligence related to our zoning related to the permissibility of a retail location opening at that, but we don't have anything to do with the licensing of it. Yes, so someone on Route 58 can file a site plan application to build a structure that could be a Target, it could be a Walmart. For us, it doesn't so much matter if it's a Target or a Walmart, just the review of the structure and the plan. in the plan so the current one that's going up across from you know Giordano the fact that it's going to be cannabis facility like we're not that's it that's so that's a cannabis retailer so okay so we don't do any due diligence with that we don't check that they have a license we don't check that they have security all the other things they have to have to have a license to actually operate okay okay so to open to open it again selling cannabis products they have to happen not to build the building not to not to renovate the structure I mean that that's that's an already built structure but we did do some due diligence I guess that's what I'm asking in those cases well with the cannabis retail is a little bit different in that the applicant for a license provides us with notice and asks for an opinion we submit an opinion to the office of cannabis management as to whether a cannabis retail use is permitted in that location right so but then the licensing portion of it that's all handled by the office of cannabis management I guess I would suggest that it would be a good use of our time to do a little due diligence there there have been a lot of questions around it's really up to them to make sure that they have a licensed cannabis grower who's going to go into this space if they're going to build it right otherwise they're just left with a structure that they've built and they're not going to be able to do it right now. Oh yeah that might be a good use of the budget budget agricultural use and I don't see anything in our code that requires a partner you know we've got a number of farm there's farm operations all throughout town that have no physically delineated parking that have no formal asphalt gravel parking areas so they don't need to have handicap parking a person with a disability can never work in the greenhouse I mean they'll be okay I'm just throwing that out there yeah make it accessible for their workers or you know there's federal and state agencies for the workers to complain to yeah I'm just throwing that out there rather than dismisses it it's a valid concern we can't enforce handicap on one particular greenhouse when every other greenhouse in the town of rivette does not have a farmer does not have handicap right it's working it's just thank you Greg I have another question the state ag department considers this a farm because they're growing something correct does the fact that it's a 24-hour operation play in anywhere because no other farm that i know works 24 hours no you're wrong do that sure i grew up on a farm no i know you were we were available all the time but it's a business that's open 24 hours no i think the workers they have employees around the clock i don't think that they did i don't you said that the hours of operation of an agri where the town's not going to get into regulating the hours of a farm i mean that's the ag and markets opinion found that this is agricultural in nature did they consider the fact that they have employees 24 hours a day i don't know i don't think i don't think i don't think they would have bearing on whether the use is agricultural in nature or not okay so it wouldn't matter

good afternoon gentlemen my name is kevin donahue i'm a recently retired attorney my career was basically handling state and local government affairs at avon cosmetics i just got back from being away and i don't know what's gone on for the last few months but taking the pulse of of all my friends and neighbors and where i live and the people across the street that's several hundred homes they're all opposed to this project the property values are going to be diminished there's no doubt about it the property values are going to be diminished there's no doubt about it the property values are going to be diminished there's no doubt about it and the the odor i heard this uh in prior board meetings that the the odor is there and can be expected so i just wanted to raise the objections that we have and it's going to adversely affect so many people and there was so many vacant pieces of property where this could have been located which did not adversely affect homeowners and i think that's what's going to affect the property homeowners it's a shame it wasn't thank you

hi guys i wasn't planning to say anything today i pretty much know the the pulse of the just introduce yourself please can i state your name please carmine annabelle thank you okay i'm at the wing crest east um i've been involved to varying degrees from the day these guys walked into our community center and presented design development a number of um a number of facts were presented to us people knew enough about cannabis to be able to apply cannabis to be concerned about odor the original design documents specifications copy of which i have indicated that it would be 100 controlled that we should not be concerned about it as the as things developed as the site plans are being challenged as people are trying to understand the specifications the operating specs of this project which i don't think any of us really know because i haven't seen a set of documents that you could probably behead quite a uh specs of this project which i don't think any of us really know because i haven't seen a set of documents that you could really answer test and understand the mechanical operations of this of this project i hope they're forthcoming um but the filtration uh expectations over the course of the various meetings that we've uh we've attended uh went from 100 to 80 to 60 percent um i i addressed this the last time uh we were here it was a more more open meeting and there really was no response uh i'm not asking for a response right now but i think it needs to be notated this has been a moving target uh i think the um the issue of noise pollution some repurposed building in maryland may in fact be apples and oranges uh these guys should be able to get an acoustical engineer to look at the specifications when they finalize and do its scientific anal analysis to be able to project what the actual uh noise pollution is going to entail we don't know that um yeah there was some i may have missed this i may have missed craig right you said this aggie group who i don't know from home and wall indicated that this was a greenhouse by any definition and the i think the criteria was on farm use could you i don't know what the hell that means could you so i mean the the on today's planning on the website on today's planning board agenda it includes the opinion letter from the new york state department of agriculture and markets so what's i i'm looking for a definition of on-farm use product being being grown in those greenhouses and i think that's a stretch so every structure the parking the mechanical equipment everything proposed as part of this action is considered agricultural in nature specifically you said product that's being grown in there is for on-farm use what is on-farm use that suggests that it's being planted all g g g

And under Ag and Markets Law 301, subsection 2, subsection M, cannabis when cultivated in accordance with the cannabis law is considered a crop. So the cultivation of cannabis at the proposed facility is considered agricultural in nature. MR. Well, the only thing to state the obvious is this operation is a wholesale grower. This stuff is going to be sliced and diced and go out the back door. There isn't going to be any utilization on any farm on this earth. In that regard, I think it is very much industrial. What's suggested is it's a wholesale operation. It's a processing operation. This is like no greenhouse that I've ever seen. MR. I mean, vendor-wettering greenhouses, copper crest, all of these operations in town are wholesale operations. They produce a crop. They package a crop. They ship crop. They sell a crop. MR. The reason I solicited the opinion from the Department of Ag and Markets is because of issues and concerns that were raised by the board. I did not produce this opinion letter from the Department of Ag and Markets. THE COURT RECORDER. MR. The nature of this seems to really stem from the fact that the State Legislature amended the Ag and Markets Law to consider cannabis a crop. If that had not been done, this would not be moving forward. It wouldn't be considered agricultural production. To that end, the New York State Legislature amended the ag and markets law and the New York State Department of Ag and Markets issued an opinion relating to this operation. I did not issue this opinion. We've been going over this for over a year. I mean, just Greg and I, hours. I don't know if anybody here has contacted your Congressman, your Senator, the Governor. We as a board, we cannot deny something that is legal, that is by code, and otherwise it would be lawsuits and on the town of Riverhead would have to pay. Do I agree with this? Probably not. But ag and markets, the New York State Governor signed it in that cannabis is an agricultural product last January. We cannot deny it. It's in the agricultural protection zone. It is legal in the town of Riverhead's code. And I agree with you. There may be problems. There may not be problems. But the elephant that I see, if they go out of business, we still have a nice greenhouse that maybe a flower company can take over, tomatoes, something else. It's not a building that's going to look terrible. It's just greenhouses. It's just a building.

And there are a lot of greenhouses in the town of Riverhead. But I would say instead of putting the pressure on this board, contact your legislator, Senators, the Governor, and see what they say. Well, I guess this is over when it's over. Again, we have yet to see, or anybody that might become a consultant of ours, documents that you can hang your hat on. Who knows what they're going to be building there? We know roughly the types of equipment that are used in the industry. We can speculate how many tons of gas they're going to be using. We can speculate how many there are going to be. We have no idea what the noise pollution is going to be. I personally think that the odors that these types of facilities generate require a very sophisticated filtration system. And the only thing I've heard from day one is diminishing what you might expect from 100 to 80 to 60. Who knows? They haven't spoken yet. Maybe it's down to 50. I also brought up whether there was any backup filtration to back up the charcoals. I think that's a good question. Oh, thank you.

I just think there's an awful lot of unknowns and it will affect property values. There's no doubt about it. But I guess we see what develops. But I think this is going to be, like I said, they're going to slice and dice product. They're going to package it and they're going to sell it to ultimately it's going to go to retailers. And we'll be able to walk across the street and buy some. Thanks. Thank you. Hi. Once again. In talking about the economics that Mr. Donahue brought up, I will echo his remarks and Carmine's remarks that land values where our town derives our revenue are going to be affected by this product by this project detrimentally. Yes. The conversation that happened in front of the ZBA as to how much money this company would be grossing per year, I believe the applicant said something on the order of $6 million, perhaps $8 million. One of the board members said, try more like $20 million. The problem that people are going to have in addition to losing value in their homes is that if it's considered an ag, if it gets the ag discount for taxes, that means everyone in this room and everyone in Riverhead is going to be paying for that $20 million business because they're not going to be responsible for the taxes the way that an industrial company, industrial zone place would. It's a difficult position to be in. I understand the words of Mr. Zelnicki. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. writing to our representatives is one of the avenues that we can do and should do and I know that it's difficult at a state level that from what I've been hearing from representative good Leo they just don't understand Long Island they don't understand AG on Long Island and they're not interested there's not a lot of support it could have changed recently we hope it would but the sentiment in Riverhead is not for this project and if we have to foot the bill for it it's going to add insult to injury thank you

anybody else is there anybody on so there was no public hearing

we don't have any minutes all right no secret actions other business correspondences all right the next meeting that'll be June 4th 2026 at 6 p.m. motion to close

you