Full Transcript

Thank you.

Good evening. This is the advertised time and the advertised place for the Thursday, August 6th planning board meeting. Please join the board in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge 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 and welcome. We have no public hearings tonight. We'll go right into discussion items. Is there anybody here from the Cavett Realty LLC? Anybody from Cavett? You know, okay. at the applicant's request it's been taped okay just want to make sure okay thank you mr. Cuddy discussion item number two Warrington Farms minus subdivision with Marissa? Yep. And then I believe I have Mr. Cuddy and Tom coming up, actually.

How you doing? Hot! Okay, if we could just get everybody's name first, please. That's Charles Cuddy for the applicant. Thomas Wolpert for the associates for the applicant. Justin, can we get the volume up a little bit, please?

Wendy Fine, Wendington Realty. Okay, thank you. Welcome, everybody. Great. And then obviously for the record, Marissa Danowski, site plan reviewer. So I have in front of you guys today, it's a minor subdivision application. It is a 188 acre parcel of land that's going to be subdivided into four parcels located at 1284 Main Road in Jamesport. Just a little bit of information in regards to the subject parcels. It's on the north side of Main Road within the hamlet of Jamesport. It's a split zone property. So if you see in the front, it's actually RLC, which is rural corridor. And then the back half, which is also the majority of the parcels, are APZ, which is agricultural protection zoning. um so i have a it's a total of a four-page uh subdivision plan entitled white and farms from young associates with the last revision date of may 13th 2026 um oh so in regards to the proposed um lot i'm gonna take you a little bit on a journey because i'm gonna do it a little bit backwards so um we're gonna start with lot three and lot four um so lot three and lot four um is also known as um lot three is known as suffolk county tax map number 600-68-1-16.2 um so it's a 20.45 acre parcel and the development rights were sold in 1987. um when you take a look at it up on the map um it's actually that little car it's a little carve out with a right away and um that puts it together. So that is lot three. The reason that I'm going to have lot three and lot four part of this subdivision is because both the county rights were sold, both the development rights were sold to Suffolk County. It was between, lot three was sold in 1987. It was sold Suffolk County in lot four was 1978 and 79 the Suffolk County the Suffolk County farmland bought the development rights so with that when they got the development rights it was usually determined by meets and bounds and for that reason we just needed to come in and get legalized so we're just having them legalize that subdivision lot four is exactly the same as I said before about lot three. It's identified as Suffolk County tax map number 600-48-3-18.1. And it's that big lot that wraps around the whole back of the parcel. So that is legalizing those two. They're already as they are. Again, just a legalization, which leaves you with Suffolk County tax map number 600-68-1-16.1. So that lot is what's actually going to be proposed into a two lot minor subdivision. So they are looking to propose lot one is going to be the front half and it's going to be 23.28 acres. It's currently improved with two single family dwellings and there's a couple of accessory structures on there and that is the parcel that's also split zones with RLC and APZ. Proposed lot two is going to be 11.91 acres so it is the back half of the subject parcel of 16.1. It's currently improved with accessory structures and there is the they are proposing to have a single single family dwelling on lot two with the subdivision so with that a little bit more information all lots all proposed lots conform with both the RLC and APZ zoning districts in regards to secrets, a type 2 action per town code chapter 225. I will make note in regards to on the maps, there is some fence encroachments to all the proposed and legalizations of lots, just there's some fences that go over property lines. So that would just have to be rectified prior to filing the map, either of moving the fence lines to be on all on one parcel. They're kind of split in between all four parcels. So that would have to be rectified, and possibly that would cause them to go get approval from Suffolk County Farmland, just because some of the fences are also on the development rights sold properties. um so um i will also make note about proposed um lot three which is suff county tax map number six uh 668 1 16.2 um so currently the plan that i have it does show a 33 foot right of way However, I just need it to be determined that per New York State Town Law 280A, that there needs to be sufficient frontage for parcels. So it would either be the 55-foot right-of-way per town code. There's a 15-foot flag law. so maybe dedicate I don't know if we wanted to talk about possibly dedicating making a flag lot out of lot three or to merge with lot four it's just a couple ideas I was throwing around out there but other than that there wasn't really much in regards to things needed to be talked about in regards to lot three and for um i will say lot two um when you when the creation of lot two um does come into play um it's the discussion is about um once lot two is created there's all accessory structures um on a lot with no primary structure so um i would want to further discuss um what the options are in regards to if CBA is needed or if there is some other alternative means to get that going just because we can't have accessory structures without a primary structure and all the primary structures will be on proposed lot one so for at that point it would just be further discussion is needed with the town attorney at that point other than that this uh it's compliant with all the zoning use districts I just asked that there's a zoning compliance chart on the map prior to signature a rec fee prior to signature as one new law is being created. I did refer this out to all agencies. They're Riverhead Water. They said as proposed lot one, the front, I'm sorry, the front single family house is going to be converted from the existing house to an antique shop. So it was noted from Riverhead Water that if it was to be changed from residential to commercial that a RPC device would be needed at that time. But they, Riverhead Water also just let me know that they would need fire marshal's comments in order to make any further comments in regards to lot two because of the distance requirements from the road They didn't know in regards to hydrants and water and how all that came into play. So I was still waiting on comments from Fire Marshal. I spoke with them quickly today. They, again, just made the general comment of it may need multiple hydrants. And that was pretty much it. DOT made the comments to submit an application for a separate application directly to them for comments. Suffolk County Planning Commission said it was up for local determination. And that was about it. The recommendations I have is just to, until getting a little bit more information about whether zoning board is going to be needed in regards to proposed lot two, to not do any further action until we investigate what the next step is in the process moving forward. You make mention of a zoning compliance chart. Do you need that still? Yeah, so that's going to be for the purpose of Lot 2. When they do the proposed single-family dwelling, I just need a chart that demonstrates that it is compliant and it will meet the setbacks but what we propose is on lot two the reason for that lot is so we can build a house there right now it has accessory structures we have mr wolpert has a map with him to show where the house will be and so for the time being we at least have a house on that lot that is to show it we really want to get to a point where we can move forward with this so we we can get a building permit, I'm willing to give a letter to the town to indicate that we're not going to use the accessory structures until we get a building permit. We just want to be in a position to move forward with this map. That's the whole point of this, to build a house on lot number two. And so I don't think we need to go to the zoning board if we're going to say to this board, that's what we intend to do. We'll give you a letter indicating that. I'll sign it. My client will sign it. We will show it on the map. We have a map actually tonight with it on. But we would like to go ahead. We're going to have public water in the house, a good distance, but that's what we're going to do. So we just want to proceed. 133 of these acres is preserved. So we're talking about 40-plus acres. and on those 40 plus acres the front one again has an RLC part of it I'm going to use it for a store of some kind one that we're concerned about is lot number two which is virtually 11 acres and we want to get a house on that lot and that's the reason we're doing the whole subdivision so if I can give you that and the board would be satisfied would help us a great deal to move forward So I don't know if a letter would be sufficient because if the subdivision map is finalized, you know, then with the, it would create a non-conforming plot. So we can't finalize the subdivision. and then it's almost a catch-22 because at the same time they can't go to the building department right now for a building permit because they can't create two houses on the same lot. So I think the only option here would be the ZBA, and maybe potentially a ZBA determination with some conditions relying upon obtaining a CO and after you know you built the house and get the CEO and if the structure is never built then you have to remove the accessory structures that's the reason I was giving the letter because we're doing the same thing in the zoning board that we're just talking that is to try and get this to a position where we can get a subdivision finished and going to the zoning board is going to essentially do the same thing that we just talked about which is saying can we have this even though we don't have the house there. I mean, that's the problem. And we're trying to say we are going to have a house there and we're going to show you the house and we're going to commit to building a house. That's the whole reason we're doing this subdivision. So it just makes it harder and more time for us to go through that. It's not that we can't do it. Instead, it seems to me that's just duplicating what we're announcing to you right now. They can't make it a condition of the subdivision approval that you obtain a building permit. They need to approve the subdivision in order for you to get the building permit. So I can discuss it with you further in terms of what your letter states and things like that. But in my mind, it's the way.

I think we're going around, but it just seems to me that all we're trying to do is to find a way to get a house on that lot. If somebody would give us a building permit, we'd start the building today, but we can't get that. So we're just saying to you, how do we get there by doing something that I thought was pretty direct and simple, and to say that's exactly what we're going to do, and the owner's going to sign that. I think that the owner is the one taking the risk at this point because she's saying, I'm going to build a house there. and she'd be saying the same thing to the zoning board.

So, yeah, kind of amongst this is where I, this is like the matter of why I just kind of wanted to get it in front of everybody's faces just so that we could further discuss about, we can discuss it. Just there was minor tweaks, And then obviously this is the biggest part, the biggest hurdle, as the town attorney said, it's kind of like the chicken or the egg, just because of the factor of the accessory structures versus the primary structures. So I would say at this point, maybe just between legals to further discuss it, and then either we can get the denial letter if it's going to go to ZBA, or if they figure out a method that it could be, we can schedule it for a public hearing, and I'll set a resolution at that point when it's determined of which route it's going to be taken. Mr. Cuddy, can you meet with Danielle during the week? I was going to say, can we put this over to the next meeting? And in that time, maybe we can come to a resolution. Yes, perhaps instead of a letter, there could be a covenant. That's fine. We don't have any problem doing that. We can even maybe note the file map, too, that that structure needs to be removed within X years. Yes. We just want to get to a point where we can do that. Yes, a covenant would be certainly acceptable. Yes, we can. So if this could be on the next meeting so we could just tell you where we are. I noticed that you haven't had any comments from the consulting engineer, fire marshal. Yes, so I referred those out to them. What I honestly believe is that I know that fire marshal has, I think they've been out, the chief fire marshal, I believe he's been out the past couple days. been referred out. I'm waiting to hear the comments back. Like I said, planning commissioned. They actually gave me a call because they wanted to make sure that they were looking at the map correctly. And they were a little confused. So I think what it's the matter of how it was chopped up by the county all those years ago between 1978 and 1987. And I think there's just a little bit, It looks a little funky. It's pretty straightforward, to be honest. If you take out the components of the development rights parcels, it's a two-lot minor subdivision. But I think it's just looking at it, it kind of gets everybody confused and it takes them a second to actually figure out what's going on. So I think I'm just waiting to hear comments back because they're further trying to address exactly what is taking place. Just two questions. Tom, the proposed house on lot 2, that's just to the east side of the swimming pool, I believe. That's where you have the proposed house on lot 2. And Marissa, on that right-of-way, the Earthstone Road, that stops at lot 3. Does that have to continue to lot 4, or are you going off of tunnels for lot 4? so that's the matter of what is determined as uh what the applicant design professionals they choose to do um like i said like in the staff report um i actually made notes that there's a couple of different things that you can do um the town for a right-of-way they require 55 feet um so if that was the option of going from main road they would have to provide 55 feet for a right-of-way down to lot 3 or you can do a flag lot with lot 3 just to get the frontage on main road or we can choose if it's possible with the county the possible idea of merging 16.2 and 18.1 it's ultimately another thing that we have to determine to get a little bit more information but that's ultimately up to whoever decides. Anything else, John? Good. Good, guys? Okay. You can meet with Danielle and Mr. Cuddy and find a mechanism to make it work. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, Seacrest State Major Subdivision with Greg.

As I realize the eye in the sky is not working, I'll just talk you guys through this quickly. As the board will recall, back in October of 2023, the planning board approved the 13-lot major subdivision of Seacrest Estates. At the time, it was known as Villas at Roanoke. It was a 13-lot clustered major subdivision of an approximately 11-acre tract. The property was split-zoned between the Residence A40 and the Residence A80 zoning use district. The clustered map was a requirement because the property was partially located in the RA80 zone, which requires mandatory clustering. So as a result of the cluster map, instead of lots being created having the minimum sizes of 40,000 square feet or 80,000 square feet in those respective zonius districts, the lot sizes were made smaller in order to provide the open space buffer around the perimeter of the subdivision. Just as a necessary function of the clustering with the lots getting smaller, the final plat included a schedule of dimensional regulation specific to this subdivision. which included reduced front side rear yard setbacks and increased impervious surface coverage. Unfortunately, just kind of due to everyone's slight oversight, the plat did not include setbacks for accessory structures. So the developer made an application to put a pool on one of the lots that they're currently developing in that subdivision. The building department flagged it that right now they're subject to a 20-foot setback. where the RA80 zoning use district would have had a more, basically they're trying to comply with the larger zoning use district on a smaller block. Is it 20 feet from the property line or the non-disturbance area? So the property line follows the non-disturbance property. So it's 20 feet from the property line, which is difficult to obtain when you've inherently created a smaller lot than the zoning allows. So being that the zoning code requires a minimum of 40 or 80,000 square feet and the final plat produced lots that range in size from 16,922 up to 29,729, which is roughly 50 to 70% of the size that's required in that zoning use district. I found it appropriate to just memorialize an accessory setback by resolution of the planning board so that we don't have to kind of go to the ZBA every single time they want to develop a lot and put up a pool or a shed or anything like that. So I do have a resolution for the board to establish accessory setbacks. That would be 10 feet from the property line, 10 feet from any other building, and 35 feet from a side street and rear line. The 35 feet from the side street and rear line would really only come into play up on lot one, which is up on Soundshore Road that 35 feet essentially mirrors that required front yard setback so that if someone's traveling down Soundshore Road you wouldn't have an accessory structure 10 feet off that property line it would it would be in line with the the residents so resolution for the board to establish those setbacks and then the building department can just review their applications as they come in. Okay, sounds good. We'll get a vote on it later. At this time we're going to open up to discussion on resolutions. Anybody that wants to speak, come on up.

I know we can count on you Claudette. Evening, Claudette Bianco, Baiting Hollow. I would like to ask the property owner to do some maintenance, because the grass is as tall as I am. There's a tree that's been hanging down since the storm in the winter, and it's looking blighted. What resolution is your comment? 50, I believe. Brother Bear. Number eight, Canna Bear, big brother. I don't know if there's a representative here tonight from Brother Bear. Can the board ask them to do some property maintenance? Thank you.

Hi, Chairman Densieski and members of the planning board. I urge you to adopt resolution 2026-050 tonight. This project is not ordinary farm construction. It is a massive, mechanically intensive place of employment. Beside publicly owned open space, calling it a greenhouse does not erase its size, its equipment, its wastewater, its truck activity, or what will happen inside it. Type 1 classification is not a judgment against the applicant. It is a decision to examine the entire project before approving it. please if you do not already have done so correct the dates and square footage discrepancies describe the whole operation accurately and pass this resolution for months residents have been asking one basic question why was a building of this size and complexity being allowed to escape environmental review resolution 2026-050 finally answers that question a project exceeding 25 000 square feet beside town-owned open space deserves a full environmental assessment form and coordinated agency review that is exactly what secret requires please adopt the resolution tonight let the facts be developed before any decision is made that Riverhead may have to live with for decades. Thank you.

Thank you very much but we didn't get your name. Gaudi o see I'm at Winchrist okay very good thank you good evening I'm George camera I live at the wing Christie's development and I'd like to again thank this board for its time and attention to the matter specifically as it relates to the proposed resolution on the eight with brother bear canna I do believe that the board passing this resolution and designated this as a secret to a requiring an environmental impact study is appropriate and I do believe that the case law would back up this board specifically in Framington closed condominium board of managers versus incorporated village of South Hampton 205 AD 2nd, 623, 613 NYS 2nd, 257. This is a 2017 case. It states specifically that an determination of significance of reviewing the agency must look at impacts which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action and compare them against an illustrative list of criteria, which is provided in 6 NYCRR 617.11. The list contains indicators of significant effects on the environment and includes actions which result in a substantial adverse change in existing traffic, noise levels, and or encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days compared to the number of people who would come to such a place absent the action and a substantial change in the use or identity of the use of the land, including agricultural, open space, or recreational resources. So it would be my position that this case law here specifically, and there's several cases I'm going to spare the board the time of me reading them all, that do support this position. This is a case where the actual land has been fallow for about 40 years. There has been no farming. There has been no growing. It is zoned residential. There is a one-family residence on the property. The changes that Brother Bear is proposing are significant in the fact that they're going to have a 24-7 operation. they're going to have constant consistent lighting that is going to create a glow which is going to disturb the natural light sky this will obviously be more prominent during the winter months when it is dark at 430 in the afternoon this is going to bring trucks traffic employees which at brother bears estimate would be approximately 25 I find it to believe probably a lot greater based on the size and scope of the activity that they're proposing as well as the revenue that they're going to be generating or proposed revenue that they would generate all of these changes of what the property is what the property has been to the uses that are going to be used are enough to trigger the secret to and require them to do the environmental impact studies of land of an of water of the traffic use of the land use the the Their road is limited as to tonnage even. So there has to be restrictions on the types of trucks that would come in and out of there. All along that you've been hearing from the folks here at Wing Crest, since this Brother Bear has come to town, you have heard from us repeatedly about this being an industrial operation that's being dressed up as a farm because they're putting a translucent top on a 31,000 square foot building. This is not just a farm. This is not your traditional farming. This is not traditional farming under the ag and markets rules. This is not traditional farming under Riverhead's town code. And that the actions that they're proposing and doing with this 5.3 acre property are definitely and clearly within this board's discretion to submit it down for a CQA 2. And I ask that you do that. Thank you. Good evening. Taki Church and Greater Calverton Civic Association President. I would like to read to you a very brief one-pager from Group for the East. Before I do that, should you think that only Windcrest East is here, or maybe not all the people in the room here are from Calverton, Could you raise your hand if you're from Northwoods Road, Foxwoods, or Wincrest East? There you go. Thank you. And Deep Hole Road. So this letter is to address the resolution tonight, number 050, and it is from the group for the East End. on behalf of the group of the East End I write to lend strong support for resolution number 206050 classifying the Big Brother Bear Canada application I heard Big Brother earlier I think really we mean Brother Bear so we'll just go with that application as a type 1 action pursuant to Seegra the resolution correctly classifies a proposal as a type 1 action according to section 617.4 b10 the subject application is clearly not a standard greenhouse facility it is critically important that the town of Riverhead understands and defines what the proposed structure is and what it is not before further processing of the application the industrial nature of the project proposed within the APZ if permitted poses precedent-setting implications this is not something new to you I know it's not on each of your minds a completed full environmental assessment form feaf will help to determine the potential environmental impacts of resource consumption groundwater community character and protected open space and further define additional characteristics purposes and intended uses of the proposed structure thank you in advance for supporting resolution number 20 26050 please let me know if you have any comments or questions I can be reached at Jen at the group org so Jen Hartnagle thank you very much thanks for keeping your shields up we feel it thank you Good evening. How are you? Christine Lynch. I live at 1508 Middle Road, directly next door to 1458. I have here a resolution that was adopted by the town in November. 20th of 2007, which is when the land was sold for the Open Space Committee. So it used to be part of a 46-acre parcel, which five of it was taken out and turned into a residential parcel. So in your decision, I would like you to go back and look at this resolution and realize that the town has spent significant money to keep it residential. And that's why the five acres was taken out. And to me, the decision was made 20 years ago. So.

Any other speakers?

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Helen Runnels. I live in West East, 38 Golden Spruce. I just want to say that I care so much about what's going to happen or not happen at this lot. I'm selling the house, but I still care very, very deeply of what happens to our community. I read in today's Newsday about Babylon. I don't know if you were aware of that. I thought it was a very interesting article in preparation for what is to come in the future. They're passing resolutions now so that in the future they don't get caught in this discussion and argument. And they are proposing right now that indoor agriculture facilities will now be limited to industrial zoned areas and not be located within 500 feet radius of lots zoned residential or of another indoor agricultural business. All indoor agriculture business must now obtain a special exception use permit from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. It is going to cover all different kinds of agriculture indoors, and it's going to be aeroponics, aquaponics, hydroponics, vertical farming. They're doing this to prevent the future of destruction by these particular warehouse farmers. So I really do encourage you to think about the residents in Long Island itself because this is going to spread across, and it's not going to be a good thing for our citizens. So please take into consideration the people who do care about this place. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

This is an encore blush of what everybody else wants to do. And the future of our environment, too, that was one of the points that was made, is going to be, because of global warming, this is going to be our future in farming. Thank you.

Any other speakers?

Hi, my name is Paul Thompson. I'm at 7 Black Pine in Windcrest East and I've been in security all my life. My grandfather started a business in 1917. My whole family's been involved with it and we know that when you have a lot of security, you're concerned about protection against undesirables. and I think this type of product will bring a lot of undesirables do we want undesirables just trust the board please yes thank you okay so I'm asking you just to kill this thing thank you Any other speakers? All right, gentlemen, let's do resolutions.

I'll move Resolution 2026-043, Richard Anderson, minor subdivision, granting approval, extension. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zanicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I'd like to move resolution 2026044, Grants Extension for the Miner Subdivision of Thomas Anderson. Second. Move to second. Mr. Zelnicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nero? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I'll move Resolution 2026045, North Shore Sprinkler Supply, FKA 2012-64, West Main, Resolution Granting Site Plan Approval for the Site Plan Application Entitled North Shore Sprinkler Supply. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zunicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Nenero. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. 2026046 is just tabled. Do we just table it, Greg? Yes. Oh, it's a chart. Move to adjourn. Second. Move to second. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye too, and I just want you to know that this is at the applicant's request, not the town's. Okay, number 47. I'll do that. 20-26-0-47. Horbs, Orchard Estate resolution determined that sketch plan 13 meets proposals of the code 301-288. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Narrow? Mr. Baer? Yes. I vote aye. Motion carries. I'll move resolution 2026-049 from Manilane Miner Subdivision, the granting extension of the Miner Subdivision. So moved. Wait, just wait. We missed one. You skipped one. You skipped 48 to it. I skipped it? Oh, I'm sorry. You've already moved 49, so maybe just vote on 49 and then go back to 48. We can do that. I'll second number 49. Moved and seconded, 49, Mr. Zernicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Narrow? Aye. Mr. Behr? Yes. And I vote aye, the motion carries. Let's go back to 48. Okay, move resolution 48, granting extension of approval for the minor subdivision of J, Jet 139 at Sound Avenue and J-40. Second. Mr. Zernicka? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenaro? Mr. Baer? Yes. Can I vote aye? The motion carries. Mr. Chairman, before we get to Resolution 50, I would just propose three minor amendments to correct typos. Page 1, I'm going to correct the date right here. It says August 4, 2026. We're going to correct that in two places to August 6. And then on page two, the last whereas on the page, incorrectly, list a square footage of 27,485. It should actually be 489. I do apologize. I am human. I write my own resolutions. So minor typos has no procedural effect on it, but we'll correct those typos. Okay. Has it ended? Yes. Okay. I'll move resolution number 20-26-050, Brother Bear County Greenhouse, resolution classifying a site plan application seeking to construct a 27,489 square foot greenhouse with related improvements. So moved. Second. We'll move to a second. Mr. Zelnicki. Yes, with amendments. Mr. Hogan. As amended, yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Resolution 2026-051, Seacrest Estate, Major Subdivision. Resolution establishing setbacks for accessory structures. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. De Niro. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. At this time, we'll open it up for public comments on anything you want to discuss.

Are you ready? Sure.

Does anybody want to make any comments on anything? Thank you. Okay, let's do some minutes, guys. I'll move the minutes of June 18th. So moved. Second. Move the second, Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Mr. Behr. Yes. And I vote aye, the motion carries. I'll move resolution. I'll move the minutes of June 2nd. July 2nd. Move in second, Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Aye. Mr. Baird? Yes. Right over to I, the motion carries. No secret actions tonight? No. Other business? No. I will go through correspondence, and I'll just read them off the record. Okay, thank you. We received an email from Evangeline Tuthill, entitled Email 57, 14.99 is not a planning philosophy. We received an email from Carol Hartung, entitled Email 37, backup alarms are noise 2, distribute to all planning board members for the record we see received four emails from robert gass regarding the brother bear canada site plan dated july 16th july 20th july 21st july 25th we received letters regarding 1458 middle road from we received three letters from frank cavallaro one from madeline buchinski melinda bantle donna reggio marx eric benson vicky and david payne Diane and Leon Godiosi, Paul Romer, Cynthia Arnold, Grace Blank, Chris and Maria Dorr, David Consul, Steve Haber, Carmine Annabelle, Catherine Annabelle, Charles and Janice Spey, Diane Shortall, Grace Fischetti, Janet Ficarra, Joseph Ficarra, Catherine Rae Jakubowski. We received two letters from Lisa Salvato as well as Tony Jacaruso. We received letters also regarding Brother Bear from Borges, from Deborah Corcoran, Stuart Rock, Elizabeth Nels, Jerome Dupain, Katrina Dupain, Barbara O'Callaghan, Kathleen Murray, Barbara O'Callaghan, Michael Lunuto, Robert Gass. We received an email from Holly Grieve entitled, Truck Movements Must Be Demonstrated. We received an email from Michael Laudo, says town experts should work for the town. We received an email from Kathleen Murray regarding APZ code. We received another email from Robert Gass regarding Brother Bear dated July 31st. We received an email from Mark Shortall regarding Brother Bear dated August 1st. We received another email from Robert Gass dated August 1st regarding Brother Bear. We received emails from Barbara and Kevin Donahue and Gary Shapshawn dated August 3rd regarding Brother Bear. We received another email from Robert Gass dated August 4th, 2026 regarding Brother Bear. And finally, we received an email from Frederick Houseman regarding Brother Bear dated July 31st. A lot of pen pals. A lot of pen pals, yes. That being said, our next meeting date will be Thursday, August 20th, 2026 at 3 p.m. right here. Do we have a motion? Move this second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Good night everybody.