Full Transcript

Thank you.

Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to Brubad Town. This is the advertised time and place for the Thursday, June 18th, 2026 Planning Board Meeting. Please join the board in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, we're welcome. We have no public hearings tonight, so we're going to get right into discussion items. Heather, come on up and tell us about 1175 West Main Street, please. Before I start, do we have anyone for the application here? Billy? If you want to just come up, take a seat, and introduce yourself for the record. Hi, Heather.

If you could just state your name. Yeah, we have a ceiling mic. It's fine. Good afternoon. I'm Billy Imperial from New Dwell Architecture here on behalf of the owners of 1175 West Main Street. Mr. His name is Billy Imperial from New Dwell Architecture. He is the design professional for the applicant. Okay. So this is a site plan application for 1175 West Main Street. If everyone is familiar with the property, it was most formerly occupied by Bowie One. There was also a spa in the back. It was a myriad of different uses throughout the years, including, I think, some sort of like truck repair shop. So what the application is looking to do, they had started some facade work on the building, and then they were looking to also do some repaving and repair in the parking lot, actually delineate parking stalls because based on aerial imaging I don't think there were any sort of demarcated parking areas on that property they're going to do some landscaping a couple of building mounted lights so they did have to go to the zoning board of appeals for a special exception the Bowie one restaurant and fish market was a pre-existing non-conforming use as was the spa in the back of the building the zoning board did grant them the special exception to go from those non-conforming uses to the new non-conforming use being a showroom storage and offices for a heating and air conditioning business that was granted by appeal number 2026-001 dated February 26 of this year. So currently they have building permits to do interior alterations to accommodate the new incoming business. They would like to do some site work to just clean up the site. No major like building additions or anything. They did replace the roof. So because of the preexisting nonconforming nature of the site, they wanna be able to utilize the southern entrance on Main Street. They do have two existing curb cuts. Originally they were gonna make it for two-way traffic, but they just don't have the width to meet the 24 foot wide minimum requirements. So they're going to have a one-way access here and formalize this. This used to be where the outdoor seating was for Buoy 1 and some storage areas in the back of the building. This will be assuming an employee entrance. So they have a couple of angled stalls towards the front. And then they have additional stalls in the back and then on the other side of the building. So the site circulation will follow that one-way access, go around the building, and employees will exit this way. The front area where the two-way curb cut is, that'll be the customer entrance. And it's my understanding that the operation is by appointment only for customers. That's what was stated on the record at the ZBA hearing. And in order to delineate sort of the area for customer parking versus employee parking, they're proposing some evergreen plantings across here. So that'll hide all of your employee parking. I did refer it over to the fire marshal's office. The chief fire marshal had no issues with the site circulation as proposed. I did leave the resolution that I have on before the board this afternoon just open-ended in case he has any additional comments. But he said as long as the security gates that are proposed have either a NOX lock or if they're electric, just put in the access codes for emergency vehicles, he doesn't have an issue with it other than that they're cleaning up the site they're making it less non-conforming than what it is the only thing that i did notice during the review we do have screening and buffering requirements between commercial business industrial properties and residential properties again this is non-conforming so there's no screening or buffering between this parcel and the neighboring parcels so I felt that if the applicant could achieve some sort of screening to the extent practical practicable they are doing a chain link fence around the entire property with privacy slats so if they could add some plantings on the south side and then maybe bump out the parking stalls on the opposite side of the property and do some evergreen plantings along there that would work I don't know if the board has any opinions or suggestions I spoke to Frank the other day they are doing a phenomenal job with the building and then we walked the property and he was telling me what there you guys are going to do and he did say the difference between the the Green Giants or the Leland Cypress and he was going to completely do that in the whole back area to screen all of that okay so along the property lines i mean it's hard because they don't have a ton of room on the south side um i think they're showing 16 feet for their one-way access so if they're going to do additional planting on top of the chain link fence with the privacy slats yeah that is really tight there yeah yeah so like this side you'll definitely have room to do some evergreen plantings i mean if you want to add some stuff here near where the the curb cut is i think you'd have um i know sky pencil holly is not native but it it fits well in tight spaces um and you know you're proposing leland cypress here i know member silnicki really likes the green giants um just because they can be maintained a little bit easier they're slow growing i have a condition in the resolution to sort of leave the planting plan up to the discretion of the planning department because there are areas that are going to be landscaped they're proposing some grass areas but again they're taking a lot of the existing asphalt out and they're going to clean up the front of the building so other than that there are some details that i just wanted added to the site plan pending additional comments from the fire marshal and also the ARB. It was white CMU, and they changed it to gray stucco, so the ARB will take a look at the building next week. If they have any tweaks that they wanted or changes, those can get worked into a plan revision. But other than that, I think, as proposed, the site's going to function much better, and it's a less intense use than what was previously there when Bowie 1 occupied space. Is the entire site dark sky compliant? I know you're putting a few new lights up. The existing lights I'm not sure about. I do have my general provision in my resolutions that says all existing and proposed lighting has to be dark sky compliant. They provided cut sheets for the two building mounted lighting fixtures that they're proposing. Those are dark sky compliant. So we'll just need to know about the existing lighting. yeah I can't I don't know that off the top of my head but we can find out for you it's got your compliant okay okay so the spa be a separate use that's done so the buoy one and the spa coexisted I mean I don't know if it was the same time but based on the building department records the spa was in the back that was built by the owner years and years ago yes so where the spa was they're actually doing offices to support the heating and air conditioning business the front of the building will be the showroom and then the middle of the building where i think a lot of the prior storage for whatever uses they had that's just going to remain storage but for the heating and air conditioning one thing that the zoning board of appeals did bring up during the hearing this site is sort of a mess in terms of informal cross-accesses so they're not seeking to try to formalize any of those that's why they're putting the chain link fence up because the neighboring properties I think it was all owned by Roy Osmond or the Osmond family at one point so they just sort of crisscrossed over all of these properties but this is a new owner new business again they want to keep their site secure which is understandable you have two residential properties that have bought this so I don't think that any sort of formalized cross access would even be a good planning standpoint so I think the chain link fence will definitely clean that up and then the only other thing that the zoning board had recommended is that any sort of outdoor areas for storage be identified they do have this grass and dirt area in the back that looks like it was being used again by maybe the adjacent property owners or by buoy one at one point i have no issue if they needed to like have some of their trucks there provided it suitably screened they are fencing it in but if they wanted to add some additional landscaping back there you can't see it from the road that but that is something that the zoning board had brought up and wanted the planning board to address yeah they're doing a great job so far it looks somebody all the time it looks really good great um i had two questions actually three One was with the handicapped parking. If that zebra-striped area could either be put between 17 and 18, so if somebody comes in in a handicapped van, they would have access from the passenger side. Yeah, so if you were to scoot this over between 17 and 18, this... And then if somebody parked in 17, it doesn't have to be designated handicapped, but it would give them the room to get out of the car if for some reason they needed assistance. provided I mean these are all I know they're all 10 by 20 it needs to be shown on the site plan I scaled everything out and this is the 8 foot wide adjacent aisle so if you just switch these spaces you wouldn't be you know making either stall smaller you wouldn't be losing a stall so that that isn't an issue that's a simple plan revision if you guys are good with it yeah where the in and outs is on to the right hand side of the plan it looks like it's a European version the inn is on the left side and the right is on the out is that oh yeah the arrows need to be the direction of the arrows yes we can take care of that okay and just one more thing on the roof you had from the aerial photos that you had you took out looks like some heating units and mechanical equipment on the roof and some skylights where's the mechanical equipment going to sit now so he's referring to that's what was there before and this is what's there now that that would be we'd have to talk to ownership i don't know where they put the i would imagine mechanical they found somewhere to put the mechanicals in if nothing's on the roof that's it i don't i don't know what that where that wound up it might end up being in their storage area so this is the floor plan showroom here and then this looks like a sort of back of house area and then you have storage storage and your offices yeah I just didn't know if it was going to be outside or if it's going to be going back up on the roof after everything's I have to talk to them and get back I mean if you don't mind I can include it as an additional plan revision so for the handicap stole we can just so we could have so on page two of the resolution condition 9a 3 that deals with your drive I'll listen parking stall so plan shall be revised to delineate dry vial list between parking areas in the existing building and 10 by 20 stalls and we could say additionally directional arrows at two-way curb cut shall be corrected and accessible van adjacent aisle shall be between spots 17 and 18 so that takes care of that and then we could just add an additional number there so it'll be 9a 7 plan shall indicate location of I guess mechanical equipment that would be if it's located outside correct if everything is inside its exterior I don't know if there's like a mechanical closet that might have that might have been converted to take on an air handling unit. And it would have to condense. It would have to be outside if it was a split system. Yeah, so there could be a heat pump. Yeah, you're right. All right, so I'll just leave it general. Plan shall indicate location of mechanical equipment. So if it's all interior, you could just do that as a note. He's right. There's got to be a heat pump. I could show the heat pump on the site plan. That's fine. Yeah, I just don't know the quantity to find that. All right, so that takes care of those three things. anything else the board want to change can are you good with their plantings at my discretion okay whatever you choose I have a question the site plan seems to show or rather the thinking one on your staff report seems to show that there's a residential residential I was part of this project or part of the site plan so it's separate I know it's hard to tell from the lines on your maps and they're not entirely accurate in terms of the property lines but if you're looking at figure one so this would be this way just to sort of match it up so figure one this is the commercial property then there's a residential property to the north here that'll be separated by a fence they already have their own entrance and there's also one to the south here well I know they'd be wanted further south but i just didn't know about the north yeah so there is there is a house over here but it is a separate lot okay any other questions okay okay okay thank you wish you good luck thank you okay good job thank you all right item number two calvin industrial subdivision also known as Ostat with Greg.

Enlighten us, Greg. I don't know why we don't have... I had shared this with the applicants, environmental consultants, as well as the attorney. I'm not sure why they're not here. What I would recommend being that the applicants' representatives aren't here. I can discuss the draft finding statement. I would recommend holding off any sort of comments or feedback until we can have representatives here for the application. But they were made aware of this, so I can't explain their absence. Make sense. Go ahead. So this is the discussion of a draft finding statement for the Calverton-Ostat Industrial Subdivision, which is the approximately 131 acres located directly to the west of Splish Splash. The address is 3511 Middle Country Road. As the Board will recall, this is a major industrial subdivision seeking to subdivide the existing 131-acre tract into seven different lots. There will be three industrial building lots. One is 36.3 acres, one is 35.38 acres, and 17.4 acres. There is an approximately 4.7 acres, which would be used as a stormwater recharge basin. There would be a 20.3, I'm sorry, the 4.7 acres would be the STP site. Lot 5 would be a 20.4 acre open space preserve, which is the wooded area, the wooded portion of the site located to the south abutting the LIE. Lot number 6 would contain the stormwater management area and the proposed right of way. And there is a proposed four-acre well site proposed for a future Riverhead Water District water supply well. So the board issued the positive declaration for this application back in 2022. It went through scoping. We received a draft environmental impact statement in late 2023. The board accepted that at the beginning of 2024. And then if the board will recall, the town board issued the Calvert and Industrial Moratorium, so it sort of paused the review on the project. Once that moratorium was lifted, the board issued a subsequent positive declaration requiring the preparation of a draft supplemental EIS to analyze the changes that were done to the zoning district at the time. We had public hearings on both the draft EIS, the supplemental EIS, as well as the subdivision application itself. Those were held in November of 2025, and then we accepted the final environmental impact statement on May 7th of this year. There were a number of potentially significant environmental impacts that were identified by the Planning Board in its positive declaration, including impacts on land, groundwater, air, plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, resources, historic and archaeological resources, critical environmental areas, transportation, energy, noise, odor, and light, and consistency with community character. So I will just sort of briefly sum up each of those sections and go through it. So regarding impacts on land, obviously the immediate development would require the construction of the roadway, recharge basin, and sewage treatment plant. The subsequent build-out of the individual lots would happen at an unknown time, as such lots come in for future development. There would be a exportation permit that would be required from the town board for the exportation of approximately 29,000 cubic yards of soil and other excavated materials. Stonewater pollution prevention plan will be developed in accordance with state requirements. Accordingly, the lead agency finds there will be no significant negative impacts from the development nor from the build-out of the industrial lots. Regarding impacts to groundwater I do have to just make some minor changes to the allowable sanitary flow my calculations are a little bit wrong so I will fix those once we get to a final final version of this document but the site is going to provide an on-site sewage treatment facility which will be using sequencing battery reactor technology that will serve the entirety of the subdivision that will be in accordance with the health department standards and is expected to reduce nitrogen concentration from effluent to a level of less than 10 milligrams per liter. They had a map and plan report prepared by H2M architects and engineers, which are the consulting engineers for the Riverhead Water District. The Water District found that they do need new water supply sources in order to strengthen its infrastructure, hence the incorporation of the four acres set aside for a potential future well site. Accordingly, the lead agency finds the proposed action will not have significant negative impacts on groundwater based on the mitigation measures provided by the sewage treatment plant and the approval of the water district extension as described in the map and plan report. Regarding impacts on air, there will be expected short-term impacts from construction such as vehicle trips, building related infrastructure in the long term including HVAC, hot water emissions. The DEIS and the DES EIS both spoke about utilizing clean low sulfur diesel for construction activities and the ability to deploy what are called portable noise mitigation measures. So I found the you know the board finds no expected significant impacts however the board requires the board finds a future development of the industrial sites must evaluate the feasibility of incorporating renewable energy technologies including but not limited to rooftop solar and geothermal heating systems. In the end, you're going to end up with potentially 1.1 million square feet of industrial development. If that can incorporate some rooftop solar, it'll just help offset any type of increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding plants and animals, the project site contains five different distinct ecological categories. Most of it is currently a sod farm. As I said, there are some successional old field shrubland, southern hardwoods, and pitch pine oak forest. With the incorporation of the approximately 20.4 acre block of existing forested habitat at the south and southeast corner of the property, the lead agency finds that there's no significant impacts provided that covenant language preserving that 20 acres of perpetuity is implemented in terms of agricultural resources although the property does contain prime agricultural resources the site's been utilized for agricultural production most recently as a sod farm the property is currently located within towns Calverton industrial zoning use district was previously zoned industrial a and before that it was known as the commercial industrial park zoning use district pursuant to the 73 comprehensive plan being that the town's planning efforts have identified this property as being industrially zoned for over 50 years and was never included as any targeted farmland preservation plans the loss of agricultural production at the project site as the project site is redeveloped has been anticipated as a result of the town's historical planning efforts and thus finds that there are no significant negative impacts from the loss of agricultural soils at the site. Regarding aesthetic resources, the site's currently a sod farm. The surrounding area can be categorized as a mix of agricultural and rural, residential, commercial, and institutional uses, including Splish Splash Water Park, Riverhead Charter School, and other industrial uses, including the pods, storage warehouse, FedEx distribution center, and others. And while the subdivision of the roadways and infrastructure itself is not expected to significantly alter the existing aesthetics of the site. Development of the industrial lots has the potential to alter view sheds. However, the revised subdivision plan, which is included in the DSEIS and Appendix B, identifies 50-foot landscaped buffers along the property's frontage with Middle Country Road, the Long Island Expressway, as well as the internal subdivision roadways. Also of significance is that 20.4-acre open space preserve at the southern end of the property, which will help to screen proposed development. Accordingly, with the incorporation of the buffers in the open space, no significant negative impacts are expected to result from aesthetic resources. There was research done. They did a phase one archaeological survey on the property. That was referred to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. they provided a letter dated February 13th of 2023 finding that the project's potential impacts to they had no concerns regarding the project's potential impacts to historic archaeological resources and issued the opinion that no properties including archaeological resources listed in or eligible for the New York State or National Registers of Historic Places would be impacted accordingly the lead agency finds there's no significant negative impacts to archaeological or historic resources critical environmental areas the site is located proximate to the Suffolk Pine Barrens and Peconic Bay environs critical environmental areas however there was a figure in the draft EIS showed that that showed the property is not located within either one of these areas it's only proximate to and therefore there's no significant negative impacts to these critical environmental areas. Transportation is a big topic. So the DSEIS and the DEIS analyzed a number of intersections. Middle Country Road and Edwards Avenue, Middle Country Road at Splish Splash Drive, Manor Road, West Main Street at Splish Splash Drive, Old Country Road at Tanger Entrance, Long Island Expressway eastbound off ramp at exit 71, and the Long Island Expressway westbound on ramp at Edwards Avenue. So the project did recommend mitigating measures, including the following. Construction of an eastbound right turn lane on Middle Country Road at Edwards Avenue with signal timing and phasing to be optimized. At Middle Country Road and Splish Splash Drive, the construction of an eastbound through and right turn lane, the construction of a westbound right turn lane, the construction of a southbound left turn lane, as well as optimization of signal timing and phasing. It recommended the installation of a signal with optimized signal timing and phasing at the eastbound off ramp at Edwards Avenue, that's exit 71 off the LIE. And then it recommended at the site's access on Middle Country Road construction of a three-legged intersection with an eastbound approach consisting of a through lane, a shared through right turn lane, and a westbound approach consisting of a dedicated left turn and through lane, northbound approach consisting of separate left turn and right turn lanes, and signalization with optimized timing and phasing on all. So the – with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the lead agency finds that the potential impact in increasing traffic would be mitigated by the incorporation of those measures. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that permits and approvals from outside agencies, including the New York State DOT and Suffolk County Department of Public Works for the proposed roadway improvements will be made a condition of approval of the subdivision prior to filing of the map with the Suffolk County Clerk. I will just broach the topic with the board because it was raised to me by the applicant. I do just want the board to think about it and consider this. The applicant had proposed amending that language to state that prior to the issuance of building permits on the lots that those permits from the DOT and the DPW would be acquired. When we looked at the entirety of the environmental review record of this project, there was never a sort of phased development plan that was proposed. In my mind, it's sort of difficult to reconcile the fact that if we allow this map to be signed and finalized and filed with the county clerk, those lots then exist. Those lots can then be sold off to a future developer. I think it would affect ultimately the marketability of the property and the ability to develop if the purchaser of maybe that 36-acre lot comes in for a building permit, and then that individual owner or developer is then responsible for all the mitigation that's proposed. you know we looked at this as being the entire action right the subdivision and potential future build out I just don't think it's right to then potentially burden a someone who's looking to develop a smaller portion of that property with all of the mitigation measures that were proposed as part of the whole build out so again being that the applicants representatives aren't here that's just a fact that I know they want to discuss so I want the board to kind of consider that and you know ruminate on what the appropriate timing of the requiring for those mitigation measure permits are regarding energy again there will be an increase in anticipated energy demand however the based on the previous comments the developments must incorporate analyze the feasibility of incorporating renewable technologies including but not limited to rooftop solar panels and geothermal heating systems regarding impacts to noise, odor, and light. They analyzed potential impacts from noise during construction and traffic from the operation of the development was expected to result in an increase of no more than three decibels at any of the measured locations. They did not recommend any mitigation for the operational phase of the project. However, during construction they recommended some mitigating measures including replacing backup alarms on truck with strobes as a load allowed by ocean regulations ensure that equipment is functioning properly and equipped with mufflers or noise mitigating features locating noise equipment far away from sensitive receptors using quieter construction equipment and smaller backhoes and excavators using noise control measures such as portable enclosures for small equipment building portable noise walls around construction areas limiting periods of time when construction may occur including adhering to the town of regret noise code and maintaining communication and public outreach with adjacent neighbors and informing property owners of construction activities so planning board finds is no lead aid no significant impacts from the from these however reserves the right to require the implementation of certain noise mitigating measures including portable noise walls in the event that we get complaints from neighbors property owners and then consistent consistency with community character again the area is a mix of rural agricultural residential commercial industrial and institutional uses the town's effort planning efforts have identified this area as industrially zoned for over 50 years not being a target of any targeted farmland preservation efforts and finds that there'll be no significant impacts to the community character from the proposed project the environmental review did also look at four alternative development plans. There was a no action alternative, which is sort of a baseline that's reviewed in every DEIS, essentially the no action where nothing is built. That's just to sort of establish a baseline of existing conditions. They analyzed a proposed yield map with 38 lots in accordance with the prevailing zoning, a single user under the existing zoning, and then providing a rail spur to connect to the Long Island Railroads Ronk Kankama branch. During the review of the DEIS and the supplemental, lead agency received no substantive comments on the alternative development plans. The no action alternative is no compelling reason as it does not achieve the goals of the project sponsor, nor is it consistent with the purpose and intent of the Calverton Industrial Zoning District. No compelling reason to pursue the 38-lot yield map, nor the single user proposal, as neither of these actions would result in a significant departure from the impacts that we analyzed. In other words, if they developed the entire lot as one user, the impacts would still be consistent with the subdivision that we reviewed in the subsequent build-out. And similarly, with a 38-lot subdivision, if they were just building out smaller lots, ultimately the impacts would still be similar and the mitigation measures would still remain in place. That said, the applicant would not be precluded if they wanted to, down the road, pursue a 38-lot yield map. If they came in, if they find that the market would look for smaller industrial spaces rather than those large 36, 35-acre lots, they could submit a 38-lot yield map. The board would just need to do a consistency analysis, but the impact and mitigation would essentially remain the same. So they're not precluded from that. It's just not a compelling reason to require them to do that at this time. And then the rail spur connection to the railroads around Concord Branch presented a number of technical and practical difficulties, including grade changes, radii for turning into the site, as well as takings and numerous involvements between the DOT, Long Island Railroad, etc. And for those reasons, it was deemed to be not feasible for the project sponsor. In terms of cumulative impacts, the EIS and the supplemental reviewed cumulative impacts from all of the proposed development that the Board is currently reviewing in the surrounding area, including some projects that have since been abandoned or withdrawn. So the lead agency finds that the cumulative impacts find no significant impacts from those projects. In terms of needs and benefits, the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Calverton Industrial Zoning Use District, which is intended to allow for a mix of light industrial development and office campuses in the area of the boundary of the Enterprise Park. The Calverton Industrial Zone is intended to provide for moderate-sized businesses to maintain industrially zoned lands outside of Enterprise Park, while concurrently minimizing potential impacts to surrounding areas by eliminating or significantly restricting the uses permitted in the former Industrial A Zoning Use District. It allows and encourages commercial recreational business. The use of generous landscaping and open space buffers is intended to help protect the rural appearance and minimize views of development from the expressway and arterial roads. So that wraps it up. You know, this would be the finding statement that the board would potentially adopt, again, with some minor amendments to those sanitary calculations in the groundwater section. Again, I apologize that the project sponsor is not here. I would like to have a further discussion to get some of their feedback, but in all this would be the draft finding statement The board has any feedback now. I can take it or if you want to we can Schedule this for a future future meeting when the applicants here Great Your point that the applicant should be responsible for the project before Selling any of the other properties. I totally agree with that whether he goes to the 38 You know lots subdivision or the larger Lots he should be responsible for road water everything else not You know someone else to cover the entire area

Very thorough I will follow up with the applicant and I will bring them back For follow-up and then have a resolution to adopt that Okay, moving on discussion item number three brother bear Canada also I think we have a representative from the application here.

Yes, sir. Can you just identify yourself? Sure. John Edsallone, law firm of Harris Beach, Merthyr, 333 Earl Ovington Boulevard, Suite 901, Uniondale, New York, 11553, attorney for the applicant. All right. So this is a follow-up from the discussion that was held last month regarding the Brother Bear Canada greenhouse application. As the board will recall, there was some new information that was discovered at that last meeting regarding the steep slopes and the permissible lot coverage requirements within the APC Zoning Use District. The project has been revised. They eliminated approximately 2,640 square feet of lot coverage through the site. They scaled the greenhouse back. The greenhouse was previously proposed at 31,782 square feet, now proposed at 27,489 square feet. That's a delta of approximately 4,300 square feet, roughly. The total delta for impervious coverage is about 2,640 square feet, bringing the total lot coverage for the site to 14.99%, so it complies with the APZ zoning use district. They did reconfigure the driveway a little bit to sort of, I guess, remove some of the length of the impervious coverage required there. We did also receive some additional information regarding the HVAC equipment and noise controls. There was a neighborhood sound study submitted by AGS, and then there was a memo from eNoiseControl. Again, the neighborhood sound study sort of supplemented the initial memo. Initially, that was provided to the planning board several months ago. They looked at the facility in Maryland. There's comments in here about the types of condenser fans that are used, indication that the study location compressors are larger, with a statement that this project will be quieter than the study location. Noted similarities in the unit construction, the same orientation on the side of the building. the building's side wall construction being insulated metal panels as well as similar exterior conditions on both buildings. There is a map on that in that study that shows the location of the condenser units. Sound samples were taken at 10 feet, 100 feet, and 300 feet as well as 600 feet which was across a highway. There are images just showing the layout of the microphones in relation to the sound equipment. And then the results of those, the results of the data from that sound level found that at 10 feet the expected noise levels were 66.3 decibels. At 100 feet it was 59 decibels. At 300 feet it was 52 decibels. And at 600 feet it was 53.7. is noted that is slightly odd to see an increase as the study location is further away from the source however that could probably be accredited to the fact that they were picking up some noise from the adjacent highway and then there is a memo from the noise control essentially attesting to the noise we'll note for the board I mean there is no I know at the last planning board meeting when we discuss this application there were some comments about acoustic noise modeling study i don't disagree that you know well this study may have some merits i don't think it gives the board any sort of empirical data to see what the existing ambient noise levels at this site are um you know what the potential impacts from this building you know the orientation of the building are um i will note the initial i believe it was the initial submission of the plan one of the versions showed uh five feet concrete masonry unit wall i believe it was on the south side and the north side of the building it's my recollection now they were proposing that as part of noise mitigation those many those measures are no longer shown in the plan so again I'm just not sure why they were initially proposed or why they were then removed so that's where we're at you know that's the document documentation we've received and we also did receive a memo from Mark Faber, who is a member of AGS Solutions, which are the manufacturers for the HVAC units. I'm a little concerned about that study because it says the Neighborhood Sound Study for Brother Bear HVAC, and it shows a beautiful, typical greenhouse, waterfront property, no mechanicals, no lights, no fans, no nothing. So I don't know what was your study. This is probably more similar to what they propose than what the sound study showed. That's the facility that was studied in Maryland that you see on the second page. The first page, the second study page you're looking at is the facility that's in Maryland. That's the one that they studied. Then the full glass building, yeah, that's a stock photograph that's put there. So why were the walls admitted? Why were the walls taken out? The sound walls were taken out as part of the ZBA denial of the maximum impervious area. They were part of the initial coverage of that. Could they be put back in for speaking to the applicant? The answer is yes. They would just remove some area of that K-turn in the parking area. On your noise study at the cannabis down in Maryland, you have a microphone and there are 14 units. Is the microphone only gearing to one unit or all? The microphone picks up everything and all sounds that come to it from that location. Wait, is this one unit running or all 14? Every unit at that facility was running at 100% capacity. And then your unit on Middle Road, I believe, has 26 units, which would be double what this is. The facility that we have has two primary units that cause the most sound, which are the condenser units. those are the units that generate the most sound and those are what you pick up in those distances that Greg was noting earlier. My point is, the sound that you get from one, is it multiplied by 26? Is it more volume of noise? I'm not saying, because I really don't know. Is it louder or is the volume? No, sound does not do that. It doesn't add up to itself. You have one unit next to the other one. you will have it each sound has attenuation between itself and then you're attenuating from that perspective from that spot on your property and every doubling of distance it goes down uh a course of about six dba which is basically when you go from one meter past from what your sound is measured from it's supposed to drop on uh six dba when you have one person singing you can hear yes you're hearing an application of that choir singing it's correct So one thing that stands out that the board should really take into consideration, so the removal of those walls, if that was done in response to the ZBA, I mean, that still doesn't address the fact of why the walls were there in the first place. And if, in fact, those walls were there as part of noise mitigation measures, I don't think it's appropriate to remove those walls just to comply with the ZBA determination and then not address the mitigation measures that were supplied by those. So the reason those walls were put in there was for mitigation, as Greg noted. That was part of a religion of conversations I had with planning before I was brought on to the project. The site does comply with the standards that are in place for agriculture, which does exclude agricultural uses from ordinary noise ordinance. it's actually in the code that is excluded from that. So these were done as a pro-offer as a mitigation to the neighbors. That's why the original SAML was proposed, and they are willing to put it back in, if this board so requires. So this is a point, and this was relevant in my discussion with the New York State Ag and Markets Department. Protected farm practices are in our code, and those are there to protect existing farm practices. Right now at this site, this is not an active farm. There is no agricultural activity for which a protected farm practice determination could be sought. The Department of Ag and Markets was very clear when I raised some of these concerns. They were very clear that the agricultural and nature opinion was not sort of like a get-out-of-jail-free card or a carte blanche. You know, what's before the board right now is a site plan application, and the board has a responsibility to look at site plan issues, one of them being noise. You know, the town code does have a noise ordinance. It does have maximum permissible sound levels at, you know, receiving properties, identifies them as either, you know, industrial, commercial, residential, et cetera. So just the fact that someone is proposing an agricultural use does not essentially allow them to... I understand what you're saying, and I support agri-markets as a vital tool for that here, but I disagree with an industrialization of farming, and I don't care if it's cannabis or carrots. In my opinion, agri-markets got it wrong. I think this is an industrial use. I'm sure when it comes up but I do think and August has it wrong on this well so I mean I would defer to counsel on this as well the the Planning Board was provided with because some of these concerns were raised early on in the review the Planning Board was provided with a written zoning determination with the use. I mean, I don't really know how to reconcile those two. I mean, you know, a written zoning determination that the board never sent it to the zoning board for an interpretation. I just, again, farming is an industrial use. You know, I've spoke to the former Long Island Farm Bureau director, Rob Carpenter, very clear on that. You know, farming is not just a farmer sitting on a porch looking at a field. Farming requires heavy machinery. You know, you go past farms, there's diesel generators that are powering irrigation pumps there's noise there's heavy equipment just machinery agricultural agricultural production is an industrial use yes it's not a it's not a factory it's not a steel foundry but I mean agricultural production is an industrial use it's not a quiet clean use there are I mean that's why there are right to farm practice protected practices in our code specifically talking about noise vibration dust odor smells pesticides spraying of chemicals so I don't really know how to I don't really know how we how we reconcile those two points of view between a rock and a hard spot all right look for an acoustic modeling study at least so the one thing I'll notice in section 251 six of your noise ordinance provisions expressly say they shall not apply to agricultural operations doesn't say which ones you can apply it to and not apply it to go into site plan I note that in your site plan ordinance the word noise and sound does not exist it's also not in the town law on-site plan I think it's a good idea George I think we owe it to yeah we owe it to us constituents to at least do that I don't care what the I don't care what that statute says I got a question about the sound of each company do they have their own technique of doing sound testing like I notice here on your picture, the microphone is about a foot up off the ground, where the average person is probably 5 feet 10 inches. Should it be, do they do them all the same? For the most part, they do do them the same. It's to keep them in consistency in the way that they're done. So that the results are consistent in how they're picked up. And how do you determine where that microphone is placed? You know, you have a building that's 300 and something feet long. So they try to pace it where the points of sound are. And the points of sound on these facilities is the condensing unit. The condensing units are the main point of sound. They're the highest particular sound-generating machinery on these sites. I do note that they are required by the Office of Cannabis Management for all cannabis greenhouses, as well as all other cannabis uses. So that's where they try to take it. They try to locate it where the point of sound is and measure it from there. Because they want to take it from the maximum point of sound location rather than from, say, some point in the middle of it where there will be attenuation. With sound that's coming off these units, does it have a tendency to travel up, travel down, travel out? So if you're in a field, the answer would be no. When you're in a building, there is a building that reverberates against the building. and that's also part of the reason why the site in Hagerston was sought and was studied is because similar to this proposed facility at 1458 The condensing units are on the ground next to a building wall So they will reverberate against the wall and that's what you're picking up So you're picking up that because it does create a different sound than it would say attenuating it like a field

So if there was soundproofing on the walls of the building then it could actually muffle the sound before it it vibrates back out into the outside yeah you would actually be better off with the sound wall than it said soundproofing the wall this is pushing against the wall you want it to sound you wanted to attenuate the to stop it from attenuating off the property so what i'm trying to say is that there was a sound absorbing material on the outside of the building itself would that affect the bathroom it's not going to materially affect it no the sound wall would be would actually get done more yes okay

so i just will i mean to to respond to some of the points noise and sound may not be explicitly mentioned in our site plan review code however there are a number of sections in our code section 301-307a physical compatibility the rural character and open space environment of the town shall be fostered by preserving whenever possible significant built-in natural features. Extensive breeding, cutting, filling, excavating, tree removal shall be avoided. Screening with trees or other plantings may be required for parking or other disturbed areas which are created. Permitted coverage shall only be calculated based on the buildable area of the site. Wetland slopes in excess of 15%, cross-seasons for roads, other such areas shall be deemed unbuildable. Protection of residential areas. appropriate buffer landscaping natural screening and fencing to be provided in order to protect neighborhood tranquility community character and property values you know I mean so when we talk about community character and property values I would I would argue that the operation of a site is absolutely within the purview of this planning board for a site plan review and that does include potential impacts again from noise odor light I would be forward it's a few gentlemen so Kenny are you looking for a sound review an acoustic modeling study now what question these units on your equipment engineer here says anyway from 14 to 30 ton units that is a big range what size units are they these units are it's noted on the second on this e noise study the noise one shows it at it is a 26 I believe 30 was site in Hagerson is smaller than that

I'm just saying I have a five ton unit at my house outside when it starts up it's it's a bit noisy there's no question that they are noise no we're not denying it any any HVAC unit is noise great noise there's not 26 of them there's two of them there's other units that you're seeing there they're not that's against rejected 26 units it's not 26 in density units it's two condenser units so you only have two air conditioners two air conditioners There's other material, there's other items that are associated with those, but they're not condensing units.

All right. Any other discussion items, guys? I don't think you're going to be able to answer the questions I have because I'm thinking more of the harvesting of this crop and what happens to it, where, let's say, the plant goes or certain parts of the plant are discharged, et cetera, et cetera. And I'd really like to get that information. I'm just looking at that for something else. Sure. So it's very limited what they're allowed to do here. They can't do, like, cannabinoid oil extraction or things of that nature by their license. Their license only allows them to do, and I can tell you, They're limited to harvesting, drying, and packaging, which means that they're limited to taking the crop out of the... That's what I'd like to talk about specifically. What happens to the plant, the individual plant, when you take it out? You cut some of it off, discharge it, you save some of it. I'd like to get into that. And how the plant is actually grown. Is it a harvesting? Not harvesting. Hydroponics? But it's done as it's put into a pot, which is a soil mixture. It's 90% soil. It's rich with something called peat. And that's what it's grown in. And from there, they drop water on top of it, and that's how it's grown. And then obviously there's split light, which means that it gets artificial and natural light, and that's a requirement of its regulations by OCM. Now when they harvest, do they put new crop in, soil in? Yeah, when the crop is removed from the soil, they take it out. They then go through the soil. If the soil is reusable, they would reuse it. Otherwise, they would replace it with a new bag. How do they do that? The bag soil, it's purchasable. It's something you can purchase online, actually, for that matter. it's a mixture that's sold commercially. And then, in fact, you bring in new soil. You bring new soil into pots, yes. And then what happens? What happens, let's say, to the crop itself? You have a root that you want to destroy. Of course. A similar concept that you would have in any farm when you have corn stalks. The corn stalk is not useful. It's the corn. You destroy the stalk. Same thing here. So they discard it somehow. Yes. So it's a solid waste. Yes, as what happens with virtually all farming. And then the remaining portion is wrapped up or something like that for export, or do they have to do more to it? So what they do is they have a drying process, and there's a whole facility. It's noted on your floor plan. There's curing areas, drying areas, packaging, trimming, which, I mean, that's all part of the zoning determination letter that I wrote, touched on the New York state law regarding what the state defines cultivation as. State law defined cultivation as agricultural production practices of soil preparation, planting, micropropagation, tissue culture, growing, cloning, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, and trimming of cannabis plants for sale to certain other categories of cannabis license permit holders. so I mean like the drying the curing packaging that's considered part of the cultivation operation I do just want to circle back quickly you said they're prohibit they're not permitted for extraction under their life not true for extraction of oils and things of that nature we talk about that extraction yeah that's something that absolutely we can address they're not permitted for extraction I don't know why you'd have almost a thousand square feet shown for extraction let's put let's put a pin in that and come back to that when they've got their design team back so Greg can you let the applicant know in writing that they're required for the acoustic study please for an acoustic modeling study for the project all right and I think what may also help I mean just because you know the site plan itself and I'll bring it up so that the board and the public can see what's maybe not really doing anybody a service. You know, like right now, we just see a number of concrete pads. The site plan doesn't specifically identify as a condenser unit or a fan. You know, it just shows concrete pads for equipment. What might help the board to understand, you know, the site plan a little better is to identify what equipment is going to be on those pads as opposed to just a pad. I can inform the applicant acoustic modeling study note on plans what's on the pads and we'll get somebody to verify all those numbers also details of licensing I just think they just also talk about the shipping and where exactly is the shipping because I see it as a PWR plan it shows shipping on the lower part so the so here's middle road on the site plan it shows the driveway and it shows I guess a loading bay here which does correspond to the southwest corner of the head house as a about 640 square foot shipping and receiving area and that's where everything is eventually winds up before the before it goes out is that right yes I would assume any any deliveries or you know deliveries inbound outbound I mean that's the only, based on the site plan, that's the only access point that any vehicle could access the building. Is any of my product considered hazardous, or is it a fire? It's organic waste. Organic waste of any farm is, any organic waste is potentially flammable. Yeah, okay, but I didn't say that. You know, when we do the corn, they bury it, so it helps the ground to be rejuvenated. you're not doing that here because the ground is there is no brown yes because it's in pot plants you're correct so it's the same concept as if you're doing it now so hazardous in the terms of is it a virus the answer is no because it's taken apart and thrown out and the building is also being constructed in accordance with the New York State Fire Code and there's also other fire regulations of regarding this regarding OCL. Have there been comments from the fire department? Fire Marshal looked at it. I don't have the memo. I'd have to look through. I do have, he did review. I got comments, I believe, there from October. There were comments about fire apparatus access road, potential on-site hydrant, and there may have been one other comment, but I can provide that to the board as well. Getting back to what George was saying, and so when you're getting ready to ship out this waste, where is it stored? Is it stored inside, outside? Is it stored in? It's supposed to be stored inside.

Package is here. Trim is here. So this is where it's being trimmed. Tent is right here. Package is here. Cure. That's where it is. Yeah. And then it would be taken out with the trash. So any waste would be stored inside. There would be no outdoor storage of any waste. So how long does it sit there then before it's removed? A week, a month, a day? It would depend on how much. Well, first of all, there's growing patterns. There's a period of time where it grows. So when the window is there, there's not always going to be waste. The waste is there when their period has grown. and that's at that point they have to create obviously they have to provide for on-site waste removal and things of that nature to kick it off so it's basically an on-demand issue as opposed to is the room that that's stored in is that a sprinkler room? I don't have a fire sprinkler plant in front of me but I would assume the answer to New York State Fire Code would be yes. Originally when I looked at the plans it was sprinkled in the building but I don't recall if it was in that room or not. Generally if the whole building is sprinkled. Yeah, we don't the planning board typically doesn't get a fire sprinkler diagram when we get a site plan or a floor plan.

Okay, thank you very much. Public comments on any resolution?

on resolutions this project is not on for resolution there are two resolutions that are on the agenda open comments will follow after the resolutions thank you is there a jurors about resolutions no nobody for resolutions gentlemen we're just running on resolutions resolution 2026 036 for 1175 west main street for the site plan And before we take a vote, it will be as amended per the added conditions, the plan revisions that we spoke about during the discussion. Second. Moving to second, Mr. Zanicki, Mr. Hogan, Mr. DeNiro. Mr. Baer? Yes. Can I vote aye? The motion carries. I'll move Resolution 203-206. Resolution number 37 classifies the action pursuant to CEQA and grants farm stand approval for the tri-state horticultural ink cart corporation. Second. Second, Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote aye. Motion carries. Public comments, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be back down. Thank you.

My name is George Palmer. I live at 4 Green Ash Street, which is in the complex immediately adjacent to the property that Brother Bear is proposing at 1458 Middle Road. Middle Road. And there were a lot of questions asked here by this board, and I commend you for the questions that you were asked. However, I don't believe that the answers you were getting were actually dispositive of what the actuality is. So it is my understanding the council was discussing about the storage of the used corn stalks as an identification of how things are going to be handled in relation to disposal of material and the storage of other material. Well, according to the cannabis law, specifically 9 NYCRR section 125.3, they are required a separate facility, a separate area within the facility to store disposable materials for this law under the cannabis law. They are additionally required to maintain a vault. That vault is to store all of the cannabis, including the times when it's being trimmed and maintained. The storage is going to be required to be in a locked, secure, safe, or vault within the licensed premises. I don't believe there was any vaults disclosed on the building plans. It is also my understanding that there needs to be 72 video cameras, or in a number thereof, based on the size of this building, that are required under the OCM law of 9 NYCR 125.3. These video cameras have to maintain a locked facility, and this facility is absolutely required to maintain a fence. This organization had come to the Planning Board and the ZBA in the past, and a part of their ZBA application was to seek a variance on the fencing that they wanted an 8-foot fence. Council specifically testified at the hearing stating that the 8-foot fence was solely for the purposes of foliage protection as they were going to plant evergreens or other types of trees of that nature. That is actually inaccurate. It is absolutely required that a perimeter security fence or breach detection device shall be installed and designed to prevent unauthorized entry with signs notifying observers that it is a limited access area. The fence must be constructed of metal or other similarly secure material measured at least eight feet from the ground up and have the posts that are securely anchored in the ground. so I don't know how they resolved the issues and the decision that came out of the ZBA on the 8 foot fence and I don't believe there was any discussion here today in regards to the 8 foot fence the ultimate, when you really read through the requirements of the cannabis law this is in fact entirely an industrial operation. There is no growing going on in the ground. There is no traditional farming activities. This is not farming. This is a 31,000 square foot facility that we're putting a translucent top on so we can call it a farm. That's not what this is. This is not a farm. This is an absolute industrial activity that will have trucks coming and going. It will have loading bays. It's got to have a vault built inside. It's going to have 26 HVAC units. I don't know a single farm where they grow corn that it has to be put in a vault.

Additionally, the licensee, which we still don't know who that is. We have not been given definitive information other than Brother Bear County LLC with an agent for service of process is the owner. We don't know who that owner is. It is my understanding that the license that Brother Bear is planning to work under is a license that was actually transferred from somewhere upstate New York by the Canadian border in an operation that has ceased since operations. It is also my understanding that it is illegal to transfer licenses like that and the governor of New York State governor Holcomb actually fired the Commissioner of OCM after realizing that license were being illegally transferred these are all issues that this board needs to look at there are three pages of security features that they need for their farm every single person enters the farm has to have an ID, it has to have a barcode, it has to be able to be identified, every door has to be locked, every part of that facility has to be scanned in and has to be acknowledged as to who is there, when they're there, why they're there, including visitors. There has to be a full log and that log needs to be presented to OCM when required. This is not a farm. This is an absolute industrial facility that is trying to put itself into a painting where it's a farm and it is not. Don't buy this painting. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Haber. I live at 78 Northwoods Road. I live around, maybe around a quarter of a mile where George lives. And George, can you do me a favor? Every morning that you wake up, you take your sweet time in shutting your alarm. The point that I'm trying to bring across to you, okay, you put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. I work with sound. I can get filters and I can give you statistics, okay? I can save this board a lot of time and money. Anytime that you want, you can come over to my house. We can either sit in the front of my house, or we can sit on the porch in the back. And you will be able to hear the LIE, Matter Road, Middle Road, 58 Sound Avenue. you okay that is how sound travels now one thing I'd like to yes please we're trying to listen to the speaker one thing that I'm concerned about they have these statistics over here was it during the winter or was it during the summer when you had foliage and you insist that this over here is a farm I don't know a farm that operates 24 hours a day seven days a week with turban okay so you're all welcome over to my house just give me a list of how you like your coffee in the morning thank you very much Linda Nemeth, Calverton, Windcrest East. Right on the other side of the field.

I'm kicked up, just got to speak a little louder. Good. There are several issues that don't seem to be brought up. Number one, Windcrest was refused an irrigation well on the grounds that the water is so damaged under our ground that in putting that out, it might not be good for your health. However, they are getting a well, and they're going to disperse it onto something that people will ingest or smoke, whatever, and there's no problem. We are right next to a landfill. Friends of mine whose parents were farmers here told me of how many dumped barrels of DDT and everything went into that dump. It got covered. now there's a their solar system on it the more pressure you put on the aquifer by suctioning out water from that aquifer the more chance there is of all of that poison going down into our aquifer and further poisoning any potable water that we have there's a problem with that and they're going to use water undeniably without stopping our irrigation which has public water and we pay for it has to be controlled during drought now obviously within doors you're not going to have the same kind of condition so our water gets turned off if there's a drought our outside irrigation water gets turned off okay there's never does also the fact that they're saying that there's not going to be a noise problem what happens when all the power goes out in this huge generator the pad that they have for a D I'm assuming a diesel maybe I'm wrong generator to power up because they can't stop working what's that noise we haven't heard that yet and where is this warehouse or this other greenhouse is it in a residential area I'll guarantee you it's not I'll guarantee you that nobody lives right next door to it

my name is Kerry McKillop I also live on Northwoods Road and I just wanted to to read a little bit from the town code on APZ zoning use district. And I think, and I appreciate your comments so very much, because I think you're going down the right path. But part of it says, the intent of the agricultural protection zoning use district is to facilitate existing and future agricultural land uses and to preserve existing prime agricultural soils, It goes on to say, to maintain an agricultural vista, to promote agritourism, and to preserve the rural character of the town of Riverhead. There will be no agritourism. The vista will be horrible. They're not using the soil. They're more than likely going to pollute the soil. So again, I appreciate your comments and I think that's the right way to go also as far as using the right to farm as kind of a Free pass to do everything. That's a two-way street We looked into if and when this property was ever formed I have found no evidence of that the family that lives next door said in the current owners Ownership time it was never farmed her parents owned it previous to her it was never farmed I went on to the county GIS I could find no evidence of it never being farmed which makes sense the topography what are you gonna grow down there you know unless some kind of monkey crop so thank you I appreciate it good afternoon my name is Kevin Donahue I live at 40 Golden Spruce Drive and Windcrest East. Now, Windcrest East is right across the street from Foxwood Village. Between the two of us, two communities, we have hundreds of people who are going to be affected by this pot farm. Their property values will definitely decrease. and I think we're going to have noise pollution, light pollution, to say the least, and odor pollution. So I think everybody, almost everybody here today is in opposition to this applicant. Just wanted to give you our thoughts. Thank you, Kevin.

I talk be church and greater Calvert and Civic Association president I want to thank all the folks who are here today I know the applicant is not here I'm not sure if his attorney left he did leave that's unfortunate because he could then hear from us who are going to be his neighbors or his applicants neighbors but it would be good for him to hear from us and we want to thank you very much for the types of questions that you've drilled down on today and we look forward to more the number of people who are opposed to this project for not only site plan reasons is large and it is growing weekly it would be a message from us to the applicant and his representative if you're surrounded by 500 to 600 people who don't want you around why do you want to be there so badly perhaps you might want to look at another option another piece of land that might fit your project better so thank you very much for the job that you're doing if there's something that Calverton Civic the 1458 committee and the folks in the room can do to help this process through please let us know thank you so much keep the shields up sorry Linda Nemeth again the I understand they applied for a tax relief because I think they can get it as a farm so the town keeps saying that they wish to build the tax base for the town that's why they're allowing all of this in that tax base with everybody in that building will probably pay less tax than any one of our homes will pay so what's the tax base the detriment to the town compared to the tax they will get is certainly not worthwhile

good afternoon I've lived on Northwoods Road just get your name please Oh, Al Braunreuther, 24 Northwoods Road. I've listened to almost every meeting about this. And I'm there 23 years. This is not what I signed up for. Okay? This is not what I signed up for. They put 26 one-family homes. Everybody does what they want. Okay? Nothing gets done. I listen to this. How can you possibly take an $8 million business a year and then have the nerve to shortchange the town and the taxes? How do you have that nerve? I pay $14,000 a year for my one acre. These guys are looking for a deal. This is insane. insane it I don't see it and this is going to be in my backyard not his it's going to be in my backyard I think this I think I cannot believe the incredible balls onto people to do this thank you very much I'm sorry

Ralph Colbian, One Golden Spruce Trash. Hello, George. Quick question, just to propose to the board. You brought up the question about industrialization. Where is the equipment procured from? What was that? Where is the equipment procured from? If all this equipment is industrial equipment, okay, And 80% of that is going to be industrial equipment. How do we call it a farm? We call it industry. That's why you go shopping for it there. So I leave that with the board. Just consider that. If you want to measure this thing, measure it. When a farmer goes and buys a tractor, he goes to an ag supplier. When he goes and buys seed, he goes to an ag supplier. When these people go and buy HVAC systems, they go to an industrial facility, and they order systems and they said between 14 and 30 tons and it's going to come in at 26 tons at a minimum and we were on the higher end of the scale we're definitely on the higher end of the noise level you're gonna destroy what was once the beautification of Riverhead One thing that I forgot, I pass this property twice every day because I have to go to the store, what have you. And they want to be our neighbors. every neighbor that I know on Northwoods Road if a branch fell down from a tree six months ago that is not a person that I want to live next to let him clean up his property and maintain it and don't call me a neighbor until you do it thank you

I'll say something else. Go for it. Hi, my name is George Albano, and I live in Windcrest. And I'm concerned about the noise level that the trucks are going to be coming in. I understand bringing stuff in and moving stuff out. But we have sanitation trucks come in, and when they back up, you can hear them a quarter mile away. Now, we're going to have trucks backing in and out of there with the emergency alarm. you know so a safety device that's on all the trucks it's a state law how is that going to work out Thank you. Next speaker. Okay. No minutes? Question? Okay. Seeker actions, Greg. Okay. Other than correspondence, we have one from the Greater Califton Civic Association in reference to Brother Bear Cana. Oh, you want to speak? Yes. Oh, you want to speak? I live in Request East. I'm a 38. My name is Helen Reynolds. Was the word smell or odor was mentioned once by this lawyer or whoever he represents? Nobody addressed that. Tell me about the possibility of the smell. Sure, there's a possibility of the smell. No, I go anywhere and I can tell it immediately when somebody opens up their door that they've been smoking the funny stuff, and that's their business. But it's not my style, and I want that addressed. Because that was not. Noise, agreed. Smell. Ask them about it. Sure. Please. Thank you.

Everyone's done? Okay. We had two letters, one from the Greater Calvertine Civic Association in reference to Brother Bear and an email from Robert Gass, also involving Brother Bear Canada. That being said, our next meeting date is Thursday, July 2nd at 6 p.m. Pleasure of the board. Motion to close. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Meeting's over. Have a nice weekend, everybody. Thank you.