Full Transcript

Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. This is the advertised time and place for the Thursday, September 17th, 2026 Planning Board Meeting. Please join the board in standing for 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. Okay, thank you and welcome everyone. We have no public hearings tonight, so we're going to go right into discussion items. Discussion item number one is Hampton Motors with Matt Chartas. Okay, Matt Chartas, Senior Planner for the town of Riverhead. I can invite the applicant and their design team and their attorney up to the table if they'd like to come up while I introduce the application. So this is a site plan application which seeks approval to construct a 2,197 square foot addition to an existing auto body repair shop. So if you see the site plan on the ceiling, I have the screens here. That's this addition as well as a 2,900-square-foot, one-story metal accessory storage building, which is here. The project area is a 1.192-acre parcel. It's improved with an existing auto body repair shop, 300 Mill Road, Riverhead. More particularly, identified as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 600-119-1-12.1 and 41. if the board understands where this is for the public we have stop and chop across the street Hampton Motors here existing gas station on 58 this is where Pulaski Street used to come into Mill Road it now terminates where they did Pulaski Street extension down by the new car wash half of the former Pulaski Street was abandoned and went to the applicant moving through my staff report page show we have a nice arrow the property which you can see how it's used I'll note that this is a pre-existing structure within the light industrial zoning use district this was changed to light industrial as a result of the recommendations of the comp plan so they do benefit from some pre-existing setbacks in terms of secrets and unlisted action resolution to adopt an egg deck today without court without coordinated review in terms of in terms of compliance with the light industrial zone the use is permitted within the zone like i said earlier a lot of the existing setbacks are pre-existing but they do need relief for the new structure which are called out my report so they'll need a rear yard it's a little confusing because there's a lot of yards here but we would say and i believe this is how rob can correct me me if I'm wrong to see how he set it up front here we're here side yeah we we actually had that conversation during a Tuesday meeting and basically one of the questions of discussion was we need to know how to determine the yards for this particular project so that's kind of what was derived during that meeting and And that's the way the application was, you know, applied. With a little bit more front over here for Pulaski Street. So they'll need relief for a 15-foot rear yard where the requirement is 50 and a 10-foot setback for the side yard where the requirement is 20. I will note that they have a preexisting impervious surface coverage of over 80%, which they're actually reducing. That will come down to 71% where only 60% is allowed. You know by press practice if someone's reducing a pre-existing not conforming condition. We don't make them get a additional relief for that

Eric Russo, I'm the applicant's attorney Van Brunches. We are can Russo with offices 140 Main Street, Fable, New York one one seven eight two Robert Stromsky, I'm the architect for the project uh scrum sea architecture as a business and uh we reside in uh riverhead at 400 australia avenue barry rubio hampton motors 300 mill road and i'm the property owner and business owner thank you all right so moving through the design standards of the uh zoning use code uh one that i do note on here that's going to be a little bit of a to work to comply with just due to the pre-existing nature of the of the lot and the setbacks are the transition yard requirement that's adopted so there's a 25 foot transition yard requirement uh where the property faces on a public road obviously that's going to be very hard to do where there's a zero foot setback but anywhere we can capture that transition yard where we can get some screening to screen the outdoor storage or any of the parking from view is going to be helpful we don't have a formal landscape plan we do have a landscape calculation so these those are these areas you see in here One area of the plan shows 28.3%, another says 25%, so we'll just need clarity to what's accurate. The landscape plan will just need to call out all species, and we will have a condition that says they can't use any species that are either on the New York State prohibited list or the county do not sell list. Parking calculations, it looks like they did calculate their parking correctly with 37 spaces. Again, just looking for clarity here. the applicant is using some of the bays as parking spaces which the board has traditionally done I'm just asking that we see that on like a floor plan so we can count see what spaces are where but that's pretty straightforward all the spaces need to be 10 by 20 I didn't see an ADA parking stall either pursuant to town code I believe they need to the two can share to a van adjacent area in terms of access as I stated before we have an access on Pulaski Street and we have the open curb cut onto Mill Road here and here where there's some parking. Another thought I had where there's there's some traditional perpendicular parking here that backs out directly into Mill. If it's possible to change those to an angled parking spot just to pull in and pull out a little bit more gradually. I'm not sure if there's any bays in this location. It just might help with traffic. You'll be able to see somebody who's coming behind you and I think you could fit it in we'll need to see the dumpster location in terms of ARB we did get some basic elevations it looks like it's brick so this will need to be reviewed by the ARB we do have specific design criteria for light industrial in the code which I'm asking the applicant to review there's an existing water service on the main building I wasn't sure if there was a water service going to the new building or not or it's totally dry that's good So we'll have to go to the town engineer. Their short EAF did note that they're going to utilize the existing drainage and install more as needed. We don't have a grading and drainage plan, so we're just asking for that as well. Where's the sewer? Sewer? I believe they're outside of the sewer district. Correct. They're going to have to go to the health department. Correct. Yes. So the sewer district sort of surrounds the property, but they are outside. We have to identify where the existing cesspools are on the property still, and then once we know that and what their capacity is, from there we'll be able to determine what we have to add in order to comply with health department standards and make application to the Southern County Department of Health Services. Is the site dark sky compliant? It'll need to be. I'm not sure that it is now, but that's a requirement on all site plans that come in. You have to make it dark skies. We don't have a formal lighting plan, so we'll need that as well. it's in jurisdiction of wetlands if you can see to the I guess that would be to the south it's been a hundred feet yeah it's within to DC's jurisdictions 100 towns is 150 so those will need to go to CAC for the new building parking we will get a drainage plan to we'll get a drainage plan that's what I'm asking for so any revisions I think we have enough for them to go to zoning board to get their relief but all this other stuff will need prior to scheduling a public yarn. Matt, I'm with Barry and Rob. Any of the parking on the pervious surface instead of striping, can we use just like the concrete low bumpers just to designate a parking spot, you know, on any type of gravel and then stripe any pervious? You know what I mean, Rob? Currently right now all the parking is paved. So what we did is when you look at what's hatched, That was original asphalt that exists on the site that we are reclaiming as part of the landscape area. So the whole idea was with the nature of the facility being an auto repair shop and to be able to deal with stone removal and so forth, we just felt to keep the parking on the paved areas and just reduce as much as we could and create curved areas where right now there's really no curbing. And it's just kind of like wide open. Just on Mill Road, just on the west side of the fence, I thought that was like gravel area. Yeah, some of it is. Most of that area is being taken up by the building and new landscaping in that southern, southeastern portion. So in that area we're putting the proposed storage building, and that was probably a good portion of what we've reclaimed to be landscape area. Which is that area to the south, if you're looking at the plan up there that Matt has pointed to? Right, so that area that you see hatched is most of the reclaimed area that we're now bringing into a landscaped area, and that happens to be what borders the wetlands, so we felt that it more appropriate to try and take the parking away from there as much as we could and replant that as much as possible. And then anything that we do plant in there where we want to make sure it's a wetland or wetland-adjacent species, no fertilizer or anything like that, that will come through CAC. So is the purpose of the new building exactly vehicle storage? What is the purpose? There's two. The new building is going to be vehicle storage in the back corner. That's where that's going to be set up for. And then the other piece off is the attachment to the existing building just to need more space. Because you seem to be busy. We're very busy, thank God. You seem to be busy. I was hoping that you would say that because you could use storage space. My next question was going to be how much of it I see you advertise vehicle storage. We have it in off-site, though. We don't really store many vehicles there. You don't store vehicles? No, not a lot of stuff there right now because we don't have the facility for it. So we rented an off-site location to market the vehicles. Just too much. We have too much space this small. We've got to keep the stuff going in and out for the rotation. But it's a beautiful-looking facility. Yes, it is. Good job. Cleaned up well. It worked. Hard on it. Any questions? General? Good luck. Yes, sir. Can we do the resolution for the seat? Thank you very much for your time. As long as you're doing it, I'm happy. Have a good day. I definitely will. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I'll be seeing her tonight, so I will definitely let her know. I'm going to hold you and say hello. I definitely will. Don't worry about it. Okay. Discussion item number two. We've had the parents of pad sites, Greg Berman.

If you could just give your names for the record, please. Bill Phillips International, property management company for the shopping center. Chairman, Andrew Kelly with EHB Engineering, project manager. We call this 100 Motor Parkway in Hoppins. Sorry, I forgot the address there. I was cutting turning the applicant for five gripping Avenue Riverhead welcome all right thank you for the record Greg Bergman senior planner with the planning department so what we have is a site plan application proposing two new pad site buildings at the Riverhead Plaza site you may know it as the former Walmart current restaurant depot there's also the Ollie's retail Fifth Avenue furniture, several other retailers and restaurants. So the application proposes two new pad site restaurants up near the Old Country Road frontage, County Route 58. One of the restaurants is proposed to be a 2,600 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru window. The other building is a 5,000 square foot restaurant, which is proposed to be divided into two tenant spaces, each having spaces of 2,500 square feet. Additional site improvements including landscaping, lighting, and drainage throughout the site are proposed. They are going to connect to existing Riverhead Water District infrastructure as well as Riverhead Sewer District infrastructure. So the Restaurant Depot site right now is comprised of seven different tax map parcels. This specific site is identified as tax map number 600-104-2-16. The entire site is located within the shopping center zoning use district. Surrounding properties are generally all residential along Ostrander, Oliver Street, and then Kings Drive to the south. You've got to the west, you know, there's the Firestone Retail, the Firestone Tire Store. You've got some other commercial uses across the street further to the west. the action is a type 1 action pursuant to SECRA as it proposes parking spaces in excess of 50 I distributed SECRA lead agency coordination materials to involved agencies at the end of last month they went to all the town departments that are going to be involved in this, went to the planning commission Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County DPW PSEG and National Grid so in terms of approval this application it will require the application of transfer of development rights as the board will recall at the last meeting of the planning board the board authorized the uh the transfer of the existing certificate i believe that was number 15.01 the current the owners of this site made a deal with the owner of that certificate to purchase the remaining credits i believe that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.91 credits in terms of what will need to be redeemed to approve this application. The code currently allows up to a floor area ratio up to 30% of the total site with the use of TDRs. The existing square footage on the site is about 208,228 square feet. They are going to be adding 7,600 square feet, so that will require 2.53 TDRs. So there will be a separate process to apply those TDRs. There will need to be some recording that will happen with the county clerk for that. One of the things that we looked at for this application we were required to look at is parking. Based on the total amalgam of uses on the site as well as the new restaurants being proposed, per our town code, it requires 954 parking stalls. That's based on our parking schedule. Again, there's a mix of retail, restaurant, medical office on the site. The site currently provides a total of 892 parking stalls, including eight land bank stalls, which are proposed right here behind the Firestone. And they're also going to formalize right now the area behind the supermarket here and the other retailers. Right now it's kind of a free-for-all. They're going to stripe a total of 53 parking stalls behind that. presumably for employees so where that leaves us is right now based on the town code there is a 53 parking stall deficiency so again they required 954 um i believe the code there was some slight discrepancy the plan says 892 i counted 889 again i think we just need to fine-tune sharpen our pencils there a little bit but they are deficient from the code right now the planning department we're going to be discussing with the code revision committee right now in the town's business center hamlet center village center and business CR districts those zoning districts allow up to a 20% reduction in the required parking when there's a multiple uses basically an applicant needs to provide some verifiable data you know from a licensed traffic engineer or traffic counts. Essentially, you know, they did a traffic count and parking utilization study on this site. I believe it was done in January of this year. So they conducted counts on a Wednesday, January 14th. They counted the utilization of the parking lot at 1.30 p.m. They found that 211 out of those 954 stalls were occupied or approximately 22 percent utilized. They did another count on Saturday, January 17th, again at 1.30 p.m., and found that 245 out of the 954 parking stalls were being occupied, approximately 26% utilization. Essentially, this is a sea of asphalt that is severely underutilized. This was a common theme. We looked at it through the comprehensive plan. One of the recommendations was to look at either the parking standards or come up with ways for shared parking. I will acknowledge now the counts were done in January, which is probably not the peak time for retail usage and utilization of the parking area. Even that being said, I mean, a discrepancy of about 700 parking stalls still being unoccupied. I'm hard-pressed to think that even on a busy day, you're going to get another 700 cars there. so right now we can not we're not the planning board's not able to apply that 20% reduction we're gonna draft a code amendment we're gonna discuss with code revision that will require an act of the town board will have a public hearing on that proposed code revision basically it would make sense to allow for that 20% reduction anyway there's multiple uses so we're not going to move forward on any sort of action until we clear that up with the town board but again I would have just based on the counts you know I have no would have no qualms or issues with allowing that reduction just based on the amount of parking that they've got on the site when you're calculating the parking when people come in to do the quick takeout you know they have like three or four spaces how does that factor in when you're doing the parking calculation does that count or is that meaning for the rest like if someone was to come in restaurant like people are getting quick takeout they pull in it does those spots count in the overall I would think so I mean maybe you could just speak to the methodology of the parking analysis and how you did how you how you did the counts so in the existing condition we we literally just counted there is no kind of restaurant or fast-food use at least drive-through wise there today so that count was a strictly existing count versus what was what was utilized on-site for the proposed use to answer your question any of the parking stalls that are proposed could be used by someone coming in to grab a quick meal and leave for instance the proposed 5,000 square foot building is potentially still no set tenants yet but potentially a fast casual type use so like a Chipotle or something of that nature where someone would utilize one of the regular stalls come in and get their meal and designated spots then that's not proposed currently right now I think a lot of it, if I could just interject, is driven by the tenant. So if we get a tenant and they require three designated spots, 15-minute parking for a pickup, they'll drive that decision with us, and then we'll come to the town and we'll show it on a plan. Okay? I mean, regardless, even if there was some designated, you know, like how they do like curbside service or, you know, your quick run in, the bottom line is there's still several hundred parking stalls in this parking lot. So, I mean, in the event that you had several people coming in to get that quick meal, there's no shortage of parking on this site where someone can park. Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, we're trying to utilize these, you know, we're trying to get some development in these underutilized parking lots. And each specific pad site does provide enough parking for that specific use in its individual areas as well. Yeah, I did note that right now there's no plans to subdivide it, but they are essentially, like Mr. Kelly said, they're essentially self-contained. So in the event that down the road they wanted to subdivide the property and sell off individual parcels, this restaurant provides enough parking to be self-sufficient for them. this site provides enough parking to be self-sufficient for this site. Real quick, your parking is according to the amount of seating that you have? Correct. So, yes, there's a mix. Our code right now does not have a shopping center parking designation. Other towns do have like a small shopping center, regional, sub-regional shopping centers that are just based on a square footage amount. that provides a little bit of flexibility in those shopping centers so that we don't have to get down to like the detail of, well, this is a restaurant, this is a retail, this is an off, you know, it provides greater flexibility. But right now, our code, we just, they provided all of the uses here. You know, if it's a restaurant, they indicated the number of seats. If it's retail, they indicated the square footage. Medical indicated the square footage. So that's how they arrived at that required parking calculation. But yes, to your point, Mr. Zelnicki, the parking requirement for a restaurant is one parking stall per three seats. So moving on to landscaping, they do propose landscape beds in areas throughout the proposed area of redevelopment. One of the things I brought up was the existing street trees. So right now there's five existing street trees along Old Country Road between the parking lot and the Old Country Road roadway. Those trees are actually located right now fully within the right-of-way. There was a dedication that was done to the county when we came in for the Restaurant Depot redevelopment. So as a result of that, those trees now after that dedication are now in the right-of-way. the plan right now does not account for the potential loss of those trees which you know i just tried to i thought it was appropriate to sort of look into the future let's try to address that you know have some kind of plan subsequent to the publication of my staff report and distribution of the report i got comments back from the department of public works the dpw you know they had some of the standard comments they need a 239f form they need a permit One of the comments was revised plans to show the construction of an eastbound right turn lane into the development. Now, they did not indicate the length of the turn lane that they're looking for, but it's safe to assume that at least one, maybe two or more of those trees would be immediately impacted by the construction of that eastbound right turn lane. They don't consider the lot between Firestone and the new building, that road going in. they don't consider that egress from the... So right now they're not proposing any modifications. The traffic study didn't recommend any modifications. This is something that the plans will need to be revised to show that turn lane into it. But this is right turn only. So there's no westbound turn lane, you know, egress from the site. But what the county is looking for is an eastbound. If you're traveling east on Old Country Road, they're looking for basically a deceleration and a turning lane into that site. The gist of this is ultimately it's going to require redesign of that 58 roadway frontage. So we need to really come up with a plan for the replacement of those tree trees. I don't know if they're too large to relocate, come in with a big tree spade and relocate it. They are pretty, I think the plan indicates that some of them are about 20 inches diameter at breast height. If there's any way to retain those and relocate them, that would be really nice. If not, I think they would just need to address the front yard landscaping. Again, down the road, right now there are no major improvements proposed in this section of Old Country Road. I believe the traffic study, it looked out like 10 years. There's no major capital improvements. There's no major traffic improvement plan. And so, again, it's not for right now for the whole stretch, but we need to see, one, what the plan looks like with the relocation and the installation of that turning lane. And there needs to be some street trees. We need to come up with some kind of plan for the eventuality of that. Do you think that they'd ever require sidewalks? So there are sidewalks. They actually recently replaced them when the Restaurant Depot site came in. So they updated all the sidewalks. So, unfortunately, they're going to be ripping out, you know, basically a brand-new sidewalk and replacing a brand-new sidewalk. But it is what it is. That's what the DPW is looking for. Great. Like we talked about what BJ's is doing, could we approximate that the amount of running feet would almost be the same so you can almost tell? So I did look back at the BJ's gas station development plan. The comments from the DPW at that time specifically required a 175-foot turn lane. I don't know. They didn't indicate, like I said, they didn't indicate the length of the required turn lane. I expect that's something the applicant's going to have discussions with the DPW about to see what they're looking for. So, you know, we'll have to see ultimately what the length of that, again. So at minimum one, I would imagine probably maybe two or three of those trees would immediately be affected. So let's, I would like to just the applicant to come up with a plan, redesign it, and address the landscaping and the street trees in the redesign. We did get comments from the Planning Commission. They considered it a matter for local determination, and they provided comments. I went over the DPW. We got comments back from the Department of Health Services. It was a little odd. I just based on the timing of submission of this application I think the Health Department when they were referencing this they might have been looking at a prior project because they indicated that this project was approved I don't know it's so we looked into that that application number that they referenced was a tenant application from the existing tenants so our application to the Health Department for these two pad sites is pending but we are into and started initial coordination with the Riverhead sewer district so we've had initial discussions with them which were worse we're well and we've filed applications to them as well for availability and connection connection is going to be to all of the street our connection will be to all industry connection right I'm sorry brand-new connection that'll be it'll be a new main connection through our site to Oliver Street that's correct home station right now we were not anticipating the need for home station what you already So I spoke with Tim Allen, the sewer district superintendent. I got some of the initial conversations with the applicant in the sewer district. I think they're possibly nearing capacity at the Ostrander collection facility. So the superintendent requested to go out to Oliver because they have more capacity out that way. That is correct. That's the conversations we have. So rather than upgrade the sewer district pump station, it was probably more economical to just go out to Oliver Street. I did speak with the superintendent. They will issue a letter of sewer availability. I'll get that and obviously provide that to the board. The fire marshal reviewed the comment, the plan. They had no comments on the plan. And we did get a letter back from the Riverhead Water District. There's a number of requirements. They do have the ability to serve the proposed development. but there's a number of conditions that they need to meet and satisfy before they will issue a connection permit and I do have the plans of bring up the architectural real quick we do have the application scheduled to go before the architectural review board at its meeting on the 23rd Justin can we zoom in a little bit on this portion here on the right side of the page so here's the elevations you can just zoom out a little bit and then I'll move the picture Justin thank you good all right so here's the elevations for the 5,000 square foot restaurant so this would be the Western elevation southern elevation northern elevation so that'll be the elevation facing old country road obviously you know this is why landscaping is important you know this is the main entrance to the building will be facing west so it'll be facing firestone um you know i anticipate comments from the arb um so this is the northern facade so anything they can do to spruce that up and you know enhance the visual appeal will go a long way um that's where the landscaping is really important correct right and we do show a significant buffer there there in the landscape plan on the north side of the frontage there within the buffer and then this is the these are the proposed elevations for the 2600 square foot drive-through so this is the south end of the building so that'll be facing the main shopping center the western facade of the building again so this will be facing the back end of the 5 000 square foot restaurant we've got the northern facade so again this is what's going to be facing old country road and then you've got the eastern elevation which again this would be the main entrance that would be facing the parking lot for that restaurant with the drive-through so like i said they are on the arb's calendar for the meeting next week on the 23rd If you could just let the ARB know that we're definitely concerned about the weather side of the project. Just two comments, if I may. We have acquired the TDRs. We paid for them. We have them. Secondly, we're still working with the DPW. We haven't conceded that we need to cut in at the end. I understand.

So that's all we've got here. Again, no action on the application. We are going to work on that revision regarding the parking. They're going to go to the ARB, get comments from the ARB, and we'll be back once we've got some more information on DPW, how that's going to work and what the redesign of that's going to look like. I'll be back to discuss the application further. Just a quick question, comment. On the north side of the building, we are planning on doing more landscaping, trees and bushes. i noticed on the print that's where the fire department connections are going to be so just not to obstruct those or make it so it's obvious when there's room for them to connect to the siamese yep yep yeah there are hydrants too to that point just west and just east of the two buildings as well and on the main right away so it's important to note that yep thank you hey good luck we'll see you again we'll see you again here's the wheel All right, item number three, Great Rock Holdings LLC, hole 17 improvement plan. Once again with Greg.

Welcome. Could you gentlemen just state your name for the record please? I'm a ski consultant for the golf course. Christopher Vinay, owner. I'm Doug Adams, young associates engineer. Okay, welcome. Alright Justin, can we just zoom out a little bit so we can get a wider shot? A little bit more? Thank you. Alright, so this will be a quick one. So there was a, we received an application that's seeking to construct improvements for the Great Rock Golf Course. There were violations issued. They did some of the clearing without the necessary site plan approval. The course is located at 15 Fairway Drive. It's located in the Residence B80 Zoning Use District. Described as Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-57-1-1.32. So the area of clearing, the proposed improvements took place just north of Fairway Drive. There's a little error I've got to correct. So Marissa did a lot of research. She went through all these files. the Soundbreeze subdivision site plan applications for the Great Rock. Initially, we were a little confused as to how this buffer got established and whether it was a formal buffer. We looked through the records. I couldn't find any recording of any sort of formal easements or buffer areas really in connection with anything. There may have been some connection in Nexus when a site plan application was made for tents on the property. This is going back years and years. It seems as though that's when this buffer was sort of established. I don't know if the purpose of it was noise attenuation or what the purpose was, but nothing that I can find was ever formally recorded saying, you know, this is a required natural buffer. There is a meets and bounds description and a justice indicated as buffer A. so really the the creation of that buffer is still a little questionable it is a little odd just the way it's shaped because this site did have an existing wooded tree line and you would common sense would sort of dictate if you have an existing wooded tree line typically a buffer area would follow the existing course of that tree line in this case it did not so it was kind of a little bit of a where to come from kind of deal. So in the absence of anything formal that I can find that recording of this, you know, required to be natural, you know, be kept natural, et cetera. Again, I can't really, can't really enforce something that's not formal or hasn't been recorded. So to that end, they are proposing some fairway improvements. They're proposing new sand trap with drainage, diffusion wells regrading, they are going to plant a new berm. What I would say, being that at this moment there's nothing formal recorded preserving that easement, what I would say that in order to maintain whatever buffer is still remaining, I think the planning board would be well suited to formalize some sort of buffer. And, you know, whether it follows the existing tree line or we come up with, you know, some other reasonable location for that, I think now would be an appropriate location and time to formalize that buffer and preserve whatever sort of privacy screening and, you know, separation from the residences to the golf course that ever exists. Greg, what would that be, like 25, 30 feet, 50 feet from the residence? I mean. Something like that? I would recommend, I mean, again, you know, like common sense sort of dictates that if you have an existing buffer, that should remain. So what I would recommend if the board's amenable, the existing wood line should be mapped, provided with a legal description, and a buffer should be placed on that. I will note that there is a resident on Fairway Drive that appears to have encroached into the buffer. and again, it's really kind of more of an issue between the two neighbors, but there is a fence and there is some plantings that are very clearly were constructed onto the golf course from the neighboring resident in the buffer. Again, they didn't do that. That was done by the resident, but that's something that I think the golf course can address with that neighbor. But what I would recommend would be the existing wood line should be mapped, a legal description provided and that buffer should remain because again you know if it keeps kind of chipping away and getting you know closer and closer to the residences at some point there's not going to be much of a buffer left um and go ahead with what we have planned there for the for the 17th hole yeah yeah okay um so then which lot is encroaching uh so right here uh lot number 122 I don't know the address of that property of those correspond to the original subdivision lots but lot 122 when you see here there's a fence and I think yeah a little bit on lot 121 yeah oh and one twist all right so you got three neighbors so that could just be a matter of them there's no swimming pools on there no it looks like just a fence it looks like there's a garden so maybe I mean, there's some railroad ties back, a little raised bed, and a frame shed. So those improvements, again, I feel like the golf course can handle any sort of dispute with their neighbor. But, I mean, there shouldn't be any structures from a residential property onto their course. What's the next step in the process? So what I would recommend, if the board's amenable, I think the existing tree line should be mapped. There should be a legal description provided for that. And I would have no issue. I mean approving the plans you know proving the modification subject to the filing of a you know a non disturbance easement along that existing would it buffer okay yeah and again like you know whatever the existing tree line is map it provide a description of that this the tree line that surrounds the property not on the interior of the golf course right correct this is this is just you No, the existing wooded buffer around Fairway Drive. Okay, all right. Okay. With that, I mean, it seems like an equitable win. You know, the golf course can do the improvements, and there's still some privacy and, you know. I added this to respect to the neighbors, obviously. The Burman buffer. And then the evergreens that are deer resistant from there. Yeah, I mean, it's still, I would say, probably, that's 50. I mean, there's still probably about 75 to 100 feet in this closest area. There's no ball traffic. You know, 18 is a different story. I even re-vegged over here to help these neighbors. I am a neighbor, too. So this is all about drainage, and these guys getting flooded, and we're getting flooded. So that's the only reason we went in there. But there's not one golf ball in any one of these backyards. are you sure because mine could be in there yeah sorry on the in the all the way in the beginning the beginning of 17 i actually planted 25 foot evergreens to help that neighbor instead of having that ugly fence so i've been working with every neighbor since i've been there since june of 21. i think in speaking to the buffers too because we were involved with the subdivision originally and and helping with the site plan or at least later on with the golf course and i think these buffer areas I know there's one here there's one of this in the West if they were more opportunistic at the time that they came in they said let's put some buffers on some of these areas where the golf course doesn't come close to the property lines where we have some meat right and we can put these buffers and this one along here because they had already had this to get to a this was where I would be processing some grass and stuff like that there so it stayed out of that and then came after we got past this we went out to where the golf course so that's where that shape came from originally but this was all drainage driven and i think that even in the golf course design they expected to use that little pond that's in there that low area and it just hasn't been able to do the job so that's what this is about yeah and they've been addressing them and i remember when i worked on the uh i don't know if mr verne owned the course at the time but when the when great rock came in for the clubhouse expansion several years ago i remember there were drainage issues on deer run we got we got comments and david they've addressed they've installed additional drainage and i haven't gotten more complaints about that so they've been working to address the drainage issues and by the way on that project we got all the permits all the inspections and even the planning boards all checked off we have a co yeah that was part of that that was part of the original uh site plan amendment to add the enclosed golf course and we have an active building permit for the expansion of the golf course so it's all everything is up to date right I just have a question can this go right to a resolution or we have to have a I mean I can prepare a resolution for the next meeting and again the condition will just say existing tree line you know be mapped legal description and you know a concert you know I'd not disturb its buffer to the satisfaction of the town eternity would be filed with the county clerk all right so and the reason I ass is because it's growing season now and Chris wants to finish planting all the grass and landscaping and stuff that has to be done. Yeah so I can I can have that resolution for the next meeting. Good luck gentlemen.

Okay that's the end of discussion items if there's anybody that want to speak on public comments on resolutions feel free to come up. What about public comments on general matters? A little bit wrong. Right after the resolutions. We only have one resolution. Thank you. Gentlemen. I'll move resolution. Excuse me. 2025-061 for Hampton Motors to classify an action as unlisted pursuant to secret and to issue a negative deck for the site plan. Second. I move and second. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. An aye vote, aye to motion. carries okay at this point we'd welcome public comments uh thank you ron hariri uh good afternoon i own 730 main road located in the town of Aquabog immediately adjacent to the self-proclaimed Long Island weed delivery project for which a site plan was approved at 720 Main Road in Aquabog. I'm not here to argue about cannabis, which as you know remains illegal under federal court. And I'm not here to ask the board to change its mind about anything. I am here to tell this board that it did not have the power or jurisdiction to approve this application the way it did and the documents proving it are in the board's own file which i just received earlier this week thanks to mr howard's intervention specifically the basis for a purported informal review was that the property was less than 4,000 or the building was less than 4,000 feet. That is belied by the public record and it is belied by the documents within the town's own file namely sheet sp1 the sheet you approved says the building is 4159 square feet it says it twice the same figure is on sp4 sp5 and sp6 the town code specifically section 301 304 b 3g limits informal review to no greater than 4,000 square feet. Ceiling is 4,000 square feet. The drawing says 4,159 square feet. The applicants, or the arithmetic here, is the applicant's own. So informal review was not available. It was not a matter of discretion. It's a matter of the town's own rules. So what this fabricated conclusion that the site or the building was less than 4,000 square feet accomplished, which are both a jurisdictional defect in the entire process, is it eliminated any public hearing because Section 301, 305, B6 mandates a public hearing as a condition precedent. plus publication, a posted sign, and certified mail to every owner within 200 square feet, with proof filed before you could even proceed. All that is jurisdiction. This failure to hold a public hearing and to represent that the structure was less than 4,000 square feet also eliminated environmental review, which is also required. And I would just note that there is no EF in the file. The CEQA blocks on the applicant's own checklist is blank. And note the contradiction. The staff applied the parking ratio for both the basement level and the first floor. the basement counted for parking and did not count for the threshold both cannot be right so here's what you also were not told the adjoining lot including mine is zoned residential and I recall actually specifically that one member of the board specifically asked your staff whether it was whether it was residential. That's kind of an important point. In addition to my lot, which is zoned residential, the lot to the north, the lot to the west is also zoned residential. The county health department had no application. In a letter of July 15, 2025, three weeks before your vote, the department has not received a commercial wastewater application as required by Article 6. Your own engineer found mathematical errors in the SP4 drainage calculations of the same date. You were proved three weeks later, and the Area 3 error is still on the drawings today. The town's own fire marshal required a 20-foot access road on July 17, 2025. The aisles are only 18 feet. They were never widened. The New York State Department of Transportation said one driveway only. However, the two curb cuts you approved could never have been built. There was no referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, and in fact, this is yet another jurisdictional defect and not a procedural irregularity. I also want to point out that there was no license, no cannabis license for this project when you voted to approve it. Specifically in August 25, you approved a cannabis dispensary, which incidentally, if you look to the social media publications regarding Planet Nuck, you'll see it's not merely a dispensary. It is an island-wide, in their own words, weed delivery service throughout Long Island. On February 23, 2025, your own code had deemed the application abandoned because under Section 301-283-20D, 90 days have run from the town's opinion letter with no license filed. And finally, a week ago, a license was issued to a separate entity, never mentioned in the application or any of the documents pertaining to the application. The license was issued to Total Cannabis, Inc., a company that appears nowhere on any of the application documents. I remind you that under the law, an application granted without jurisdiction is void ab initio. It was never valid. It confers no right. Nothing vests in it. Reliance on a void approval cannot have stopped the town. And I would refer the board and council to matter of Parkview Associates versus City of New York, 71 New York 2nd, 282 of 1988. and because Section 301, 303D forbids a building permit until a site plan is approved, every permit issued on this void approval is void ab initio. Rescinding this is not a favor to me. It's not an admission of anything. Clearly, you relied on staff recommendations. your professionals who work very hard, but there are multiple deficiencies and defect. This application is a nullity, and I would urge you to do the following. Declare that the resolution of August 25 and the amendment from 26 were in excess of the town's jurisdiction. rescind these resolutions, declare that every building permit and approval issued in reliance is void, direct the building department not to issue a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or compliance, and refer this matter to the building inspector for a full investigation and written determination of my stop work order request. Thank you. I don't think there's any discretion here. I would urge you to immediately issue a stop work order because every day that I have a self-proclaimed weed delivery system Going up, adjoining my residential lot on Aquabog's historic main road corridor injures my property and is certainly not consistent with what anybody thinks belongs on our historic agricultural thoroughfare in Aquabog. Thank you. Mr. Herrera, can I have a copy of your claims? Yes, absolutely. I've already given them to the town attorney. I'm not sure whether they've been shared, but I'm happy to be provided to you. Thank you. There's a lot of charges there, so I'm going to ask the department of law. And as you know, Ed, I'm a lawyer by trade. So we've looked at it very carefully, and we've discovered multiple defects. And let me also say that I know many of you. I respect many of you. The last thing I want to do is be in court with this, although I do it for a living. So I'd like to try to get your help and resolve it before it goes any further. So what I'm handing up to you is, and again, I appreciate Mr. Howard's effort in getting me the file, because since there was no public hearing and since I had no notice, I had no way of getting it except through a FOIA request. I finally got it Monday, and we acted promptly. So I have a letter addressed to Mr. Howard, Counselor, which outlines these issues. I also have prepared a notice of claim which I'll provide to you as well. Again, I'd like to... Is this separate from what you've already sent me? Excuse me? Is this different from what you've already sent me? No, it's not. Okay. But I also, for the record, have a separate notice of claim. I don't know if you've provided it to the members, but I'm happy to give that to you. Well, it does outline my concerns. and i appreciate your indulgence and i i would appreciate uh you looking into it uh carefully thank you very much folks thank you next speaker

stay well you too good afternoon i'm linda joyce i live in acle bog bay woods uh this is is some the last thing I had been to some asking for some clarification I may not have understood someone project so I thank you for all your hard work I know it's a lot of stuff in the background we don't even know about don't want to know about but I was at the assumption that we were going to hear from you your proposals of the stop work order the fines the Builder and what's going to come forward I don't know that plan yet they're not do any disturbance of any land until they file with Suffolk County is that correct the map is filed okay fine so and how would we find out as no residents we can give you updates when we have our meetings you know our regular meetings we can update yeah to find out there's an update I don't want to miss it on the heels of Ron preventing any problems going forward. Preventing them now would be a much better idea. Yeah. Then to come back again. The map does not get filed until it has my signature on it. So we will be keeping a close eye on it. And we can give you biweekly updates when we have our meetings. Okay. Would I see that in the minutes? Would I see that in an email? Would I see it on the website? How would I... I mean, just... And an acknowledgement section for like assigned plans. I think that's reasonable to put in your... No, no, no. assigned plans I think that's reasonable to post on the agenda to say what's been signed. So like an agenda that was printed out today I would see it on that? There's not going to be any further work at the site while the stop work order is there. I understand that. So irrespective of anything else that happens, signed, filed, anything like that, the stop work order is there until it's removed. Until it's not. Yeah. I understand that. How would we find out before that happens that everything, all the ducks are in order so we don't go through another meeting. So the intention is prior to the removal of the stop work order, there will be fines paid for the code violations that occurred, and the applicant will have to acquire whatever permits they should have acquired before doing the work that they already did do. Is there a time frame involved that anybody knows of, or are we just waiting to see? It's fluid. Right now, the burden rests with the applicant to satisfy all the conditions of that final plat approval. So, I mean, they'll need to file easements. You know, they'll need to file water easements, drainage easements. I mean, in terms of, like, coming to a public meeting and saying everything is done for summer when the map's filed, that's not typically a process that we usually take. You know, I mean, we had a public hearing on the preliminary plat. We had a discussion on the final plat. typically the last act of the planning board is the approval of the resolution for the final plat. After that, it's really administrative functions to satisfy all those conditions. Once we've reviewed that and those conditions are satisfied, the chairman signs the map. But there's not usually a public acknowledgment of fines have been paid or these conditions have been satisfied. So we just see a house go up. Is that how we know? I mean, the chairman said, you know, we can get some acknowledgments. no problem but there will be houses there they will be building a road so I mean and that will happen but in terms of just notice it would be almost a courtesy on the board there's no real formal requirement for another public hearing or another public notice all right happy to keep you updated so if I had any further questions and I don't want to take any more of your time like the for example the barn that they construct how would I know the parameters of the barn well so there is right now there is no there is no barn proposed I mean on the on the AG lot there's nothing proposed right now residents is the only proposed right now they may they may build a barn but that the construction of a barn is not something that requires public notice if it's an agricultural lot someone can build come in and build a barn okay they would need a building permit but they okay I won't need any public public I mean like if you want I can give you my email address send you an email and if you want to just reach out to me and if you want to see some updates I can kind of give you the Jewish two first names Linda, if I hear anything, I can always call your husband, Gary. You can have it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Ruth Arnone, Fox Chaser. Two weeks ago when we were here and this plan was approved, you told us come back in two weeks and we'll let you know the plan for letting us know when that stop work order comes off. Because anyone could walk up to it right now, rip it right off the sign, work could continue. We just want to know, we're here two weeks later, what's the plan? And you can't answer that question. Do I need to come back every two weeks and sit through these meetings to find out? I mean, no, you didn't answer the question. The attorney who was here last time, legal representative, said, yes, you're right, that's a problem. We need to figure that out. system this is not a once-and-done issue apparently you have a lot of problems with a lot of your sites things being done that violate the approvals you're giving what we feel as residents is I totally respect the work you do what I object to is the developers going and spitting in your face and doing whatever the hell they want and then we gave them a stop work order I know that and all I I want to know is that when that stop work order comes down it wasn't because he chose to pull it off the sign because that's who we're dealing with you can pull it off the sign only once we have a stop work order if there's any work done on the parcel so please explain to me what I do if I see that there's work going on there I just who do I call how do I complain call the Planning Department the building department code enforcement the town attorney's office and call any of those offices and we'd be able to tell you if the stop work order has been actually lifted okay because I've already tried that once and I got told they couldn't give me any information about a stop work order over the phone and they left a message and I heard nothing so they call the town attorney's office and where you can email me and I will respond all right but if the stop work order is removed by anyone other than that's an additional violation Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. No minutes of the board this meeting. We do have a secret action. Riverhead PGC LLC pad site development. You're handling that, Greg? Yep. Okay. Other business staff? Good. Our next meeting date will be Thursday, October 1st, 2026 at 6pm. Anything else gentlemen? Motion to close. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Have a great weekend everybody. Aye. All opposed? Have a great weekend, everybody.