Full Transcript

Thank you.

Good afternoon everybody. This is the advertised time and place for Thursday, October 15th, 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. Thank you very much. We have no public hearings today, so we're going to go right to discussion items. Item number one, elite towers and Bading Hollow. Greg, if you could help us out with that, please. All right. If you could just introduce yourself to the board for the record. Again, for the record. For the record, my name is David Kenney, attorney with Snyder & Snyder, here today to represent the applicant Elite Towers in connection with this application for a wireless telecommunications facility at Bading Hollow Golf Course. Welcome. All right. Thank you. So this is a follow-up on a discussion for a new wireless communications tower. This was last before the board back in April. We commenced secret coordination. It is located at 100 Club Drive, the site of the Bading Hollow Club. The original application, the proposed 140-foot-tall monopole wireless communications tower with sectors for seven distinct carriers, along with ground-mounted equipment at the Bading Hollow Club property. After discussions with the applicant and some recommendations from the planning board, the plans were revised. So they've submitted a revised plan that now proposes a 120-foot tall tower. They reduced the height by 20 feet, reduced the number of carrier sectors to five. This property is located within the RA80 zoning district, so it does require a use variance. I commenced secret coordination. zoning board of appeals does not want lead agency so there's no challenge to the planning board's lead agency request yes I noticed that obviously there at the scenic and historic corridor do they need to get permission from any group so now so that the scenic and historic corridor the Sound Avenue scenic and historic corridor designation didn't really result in any concrete protections for the corridor I don't want to say it was symbolic obviously you know it carries great significance down to Avenue is important the character of the town but it didn't really result in any concrete committee or this is basically a public utility anyway I don't know if it would apply well it's a it's a wireless communications tower I don't want to call it a public utility it is a wireless communications tower does require a use variance from the zoning board just a couple of so they did provide a updated visual assessment that shows the proposed simulator renderings from the proposed 120-foot tower from a number of locations where the tower would be visible, including Warner Drive and Club Drive, Sound Avenue, Baining Hollow Cemetery, and from the cul-de-sac at Marge Lane. I do note the renderings include a large American flag, and there's some yard arms with some signal flags. I do know, Mr. Chairman, you did recommend the inclusion of the flag. Being that this is the scenic and historic Sound Avenue corridor, While the flag, I know, well-intentioned, I just feel like it will draw attention to the tower, where we would like to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the tower. The flag of that size, I believe on the renderings, it was depicted at like 25 by 15, something along those lines. A flag of that size, realistically, is not going to be raised and lowered every day. I would find that hard to believe that they would go through that routine. So that would require lighting of the flag in accordance with the U.S. flag code. I just think it would be better served for the purposes of the tower to just remove the flag and remove those yard arms and just let it be a stealth monopole rather than draw attention to it. I did note that there is an existing flagpole at the entranceway to the Baiting Hollow Club, so I don't see the need to really add the flag. I don't know. I kind of disagree. I wouldn't call the American flag or flagpole a visual impact. But let me ask the representative, do you know if your client wants to put the American flag up there or not? So we have no opinion either way. We're open to whatever the board would prefer. So we're offering the American flag because we understood that that was something the board wanted to see. But we agree with the planner that the ground lighting and some other aspects of lowering the flag at night, that would draw additional visibility to the site. However, we're open to this being completely decision by the board. We've offered the American flag. We're fine without the American flag either way. Just to be clear, I was not implying the flag itself is the visual obstruction. It just draws attention to the tower itself. I'm not saying the flag is a visual obstruction. We move everything. Who would maintain the flag and the golf course? So the flag itself would be probably a condition of approval responsible upon my client for maintaining it as far as weathering and stuff like that as far as maintaining as far as complying with flag etiquette I think as the planner just stated mr. Bergman we would do the ground lighting because of this size we wouldn't be able to lower it every night and then also just an additional aspect so if you do the flag pole you'd have to put is usually in an ornamental ball or put something on top of the flag as part flat etiquette. Yeah, and so that's not going to be much of a change for the visibility, but it does take away space if there was a need for emergency communications equipment. Usually those are whip antennas. Those are the long kind of two-inch diameter, kind of, you know, it looks like a whip, six foot tall. Those are for the fire, police, EMS. We usually put those on these types of design poles at the top of the tower where that ornamental ball would be placed. So that is the kind of push poll here from what we see is that it would be more availability to co-locate for police fire ems if we didn't have the american flag but again we're open either way we represent um the tower developer and we know att has a need okay good let's have a preference either way well the one at cherry creek um you see the pole no matter what there's no getting away from that I kind of like the flag. It doesn't have to be that big. The light on the flag doesn't have to be that bright.

I think the way our country is going, the more the flag, the better. Disagree. I think what Greg has said is keep it clean. Yeah, keep it clean. You don't have to worry about it. Huh? I'll look for it. Yeah, I got it. I do too. which is why we've offered it so okay if your client doesn't carry the way and we would prefer the flat absolutely sorry I'm I haven't put the maintenance up as long as it's maintained because I've seen flags that have been neglected in there and there's nothing looks worse than that so that would be part of our our concealment elements or stealth design so that would be a condition of approval that we would have to keep up with our stealth design so that would be maintaining the flag again so they the updated visual assessment again I will note that you know our current wireless communications code does allow essentially a 10-foot almost an automatic increase in height that wouldn't need to come back so for all intents and purposes just for the board's knowledge while the towers proposed at 120 feet it could essentially be 130 feet I don't know if it's worthy for discussion if the ultimate goal if 120 feet accomplishes the goals of the project sponsor maybe there could be a further revision where the tower is proposed at 110 and they sort of get that additional 10 foot off the bat so that way we don't have to consider 130 foot tower down the road again just something for consideration well this part of the discussion we can certainly discuss my client but I would like it noted that we originally had came in with 140 foot tower and we've reduced it to 120 so you already are getting it lower than what we had originally proposed that 130 would still be below what our original proposal is and we have designed the tower to have co-location space below our first carrier AT&T so we've designed it so that they wouldn't need to extend it but But I think we don't want to cap it just in case there is a need for a carrier to go 10 foot taller. You wouldn't want them to then have a need to build a second tower in the area. I think co-location would be important to have for this tower. The question I have is that the more towers that go up, do you continuously need to go higher or just more towers? So the height affects the coverage kind of radius, so to speak. So the higher up that they can go, that may eliminate more towers because you now are propagating the signal further. So if I have a shorter height or shorter RAD center, then they're propagating the signal at a shorter distance. So that would leave more space that could technically be a gap in service and may require another facility. Again, we've built this site because we're working with AT&T, so we know essentially what they need for the site. We did provide documentation on what we think the other carriers have for gaps in services. So we think we've designed this facility that can accommodate T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon. However, we only know what AT&T needs, so we're trying to build it as best as possible to accommodate for T-Mobile and Verizon as well. But we're really just driving it with AT&T's need and then providing co-location space. So it's a little bit speculative on what they need, but on an industry standard, the higher up you go, more likely the further the signal goes. Have they been to the town board yet? So this is a question that's come up, you know, I've read. So there's two sort of conflicting provisions of our town code. You know, one section says no telecommunications tower or satellite earth station can be hereafter used, erected, moved, constructed, changed, altered, or modified to serve as a telecommunications tower or satellite earth station without the issuance of a special use permit by the town board. But then it goes on to further state, towers shall be permitted by special permit only in the following zoning use districts, APZ, PIP, PRP, RFC, DRC, SC, BC, CRC, CI, LI, RLC, and TRC. So it sort of creates this contradiction where, based on the code, the town board, based on its own language, couldn't approve a special permit in those zoning use districts. So the thought was, you know, the zoning board right now, being that it's not a permitted use in the RA80 zoning district, the burden rests with the zoning board of appeals on the use variance, because really the town board by special permit is authorizing the use. The town board is not authorizing a site plan or, you know, they're not approving, they're authorizing the use. So just that contradiction within the code where the town board technically couldn't issue a special permit in that zoning use district. In this case, the EPA has authority. And you know what? If the Zoning Board of Appeals, when they get to the Zoning Board of Appeals, if the Zoning Board of Appeals wants something to go to the town board, I mean, that could be something that the Zoning Board of Appeals weighs because they can consider that kind of inherent contradiction within the code itself. And we've done this sometimes before where we have a use variance and the Zoning Board will look still at the code for the wireless telecommunications. That's the special permit requirements. and we did that in designing this facility so I do agree with the planner that this is supposed to go through a use variance approval process but I do think that they will probably use the wireless code and a special permit criteria to guide them as well so we do have a resolution for the board to consider for to assume lead agency an issue the negative declaration as again there was no objections to the board lead agency request. Anything else gentlemen? Okay, thank you sir. Thank you so much for your time. Okay, stay there Greg, because we need you to talk about Walmart, Riverhead expansion please. I know, you guys will be sick of me by the end of the day.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. For the applicant, Brian Kennedy, partner with Forcelli, Deegan, Toronto, offices at 100 Motor Parkway, HopHop, New York. And Alec Kosinski from Bowler Engineering, 275 Broad Hollow, New York, Melville, New York. Excuse me. So this is a follow-up discussion on the proposed expansion of the Walmart Red Store on Old Country Road. located at 1890. The application is seeking to add approximately 26,835 square feet to the existing Walmart store to make it a super Walmart. They're going to incorporate groceries and additional retail offerings to the customers. When we were last before the board on this application was back in June, I had brought up a number of issues. There was questions about the transfer of development rights. There was questions about the land, you know, issues raised with the landscaping, the number of parking lot trees within the parking lot, as well as the building aesthetics. So since the application was last before the board, the applicant has revised the site plan to address those issues. The landscaping within the parking lot, so previously, if the board recalls, the existing Walmart parking lot has a significant number of tree and landscaped islands in the parking lot. There's basically three landscaped islands per row of parking stalls. The original site plan was well, well in excess of the required landscaped islands and the number of trees within that parking lot. The original plan proposed the elimination of what I'll call those two central landscaped islands within that parking lot. Our comprehensive plan sort of speaks against creating these expansive seas of asphalt. So the applicant's plan, the revised plans, they've sort of met us in the middle. They're only going to eliminate one of those landscaped islands. I also brought up that a number of the islands in that parking lot, the trees had died or either been removed or were never planted. So the revised plan retains most of those trees, does eliminate one island to create more parking in front of the store for their customers. And they're also going to replant those existing islands where those trees were removed. Members of NICU, unfortunately, the trees in front of the store in that landscape down I think those are gonna go away

regarding transfer of development rights so the applicant this property has been subject to a number of transfer of development rights applications on the utilization previously the original approval included the outdoor garden center as floor area which is a little strange for me but the applicant the revised plans provided a much clearer breakdown of the existing floor area the proposed floor area what TDR credits have been utilized against a subject property based on the additional expansion now they are going to utilize they did speak with the landlord of the property there was a prior application to a approve I believe it was like almost like 1600 square foot addition to the existing liquor store those TDRs were landed on the subject property already but that expansion the liquor store had not been built so they were essentially floating on that property they're going to abandon that approval so if in the future down the road if the liquor store wants to expand they'll need additional TDRs so they're going to use those TDRs from the liquor store it will require the addition additional redemption of 1.312 TDRs based on the floor area that will be handled through the approval process they'll need to identify, you know, there are some TDR certificates that are floating out there right now that do have some available TDRs. Otherwise, they'll have to find an additional, you know, a couple of TDRs. The elevations were a point of, I don't want to say contention, but the elevations needed a little bit of work. The prior application was basically just your generic Anytown USA box. The plans were revised. They did go to the ARB. The plans did include some pitches to the awnings. They're incorporating standing seam metal roofs on the awnings, and they were reviewed by the ARB at its meeting on August 26th. So they got the ARB. The loading bays, the new loading bays on the back of the store, I just recommended that there is going to be an equine operation north of the site that's going to be constructed soon so just for sound attenuation they are going to install sound attenuation walls which will match the existing masonry I got updated comments from the sewer district the original comments from the sewer district they said they were going to need to require an upgrade to the lowest pump station I believe for the capacity they looked at it a little more closely and based on the really small increase in flow they no longer need to do that so they'll just need the additional basic sewer fees and hookup fees and whatever key money. And then we got an updated letter from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. The initial review letter from the Suffolk DPW required some really significant reconstruction of existing intersections and improvements. The applicant followed up with the DPW. The DPW, I'll say they yielded on some of their requirements. So they will still need to do signal and pedestrian improvements. They need to, I think there's going to be some dedications where the signal loops need to be part of the county right-of-way where right now you know the existing signal triggers are probably on the Walmart property that'll all be handled through the DPW permitting process so that's where we're at so I do have a resolution two resolutions for the board what's that Avenue as well so it doesn't require it doesn't record they're not doing any major reconstruction of the Cromer Avenue. They're just saying the DPW continues to require reconstruction of existing traffic signal and pedestrian facilities at 58 and Cromer Avenue. But no widening, no adding of turning lanes or anything like that. So unfortunately for the time being, Cromer Avenue is going to continue to be a... Brutal. Yeah. Hopefully that'll fix down the road if there's any further development in that area, but DPW is not requiring it for this application. And just to be clear, Cromer Avenue, based on our traffic consultants, that's the signal that we focus on most of that work. So in the conversation with the DPW, that signal we looked at will likely be upgraded, and there was some comments previously about the striping on Cromer, and that will also be included as part of those improvements at that intersection.

Nope. I was trying to remember who made the request that we increase, yeah, that we change the striping on the lap. Alex? I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say, so I've got a resolution. We did seek recordination, have a resolution for a neck deck and to schedule the public hearing. Before the meeting, Mr. Kennedy asked, so right now the resolution, I believe, schedules the public hearing for November 19th, which is the second meeting. unfortunately just based on when the day you know the planning board meeting is on a Thursday based on the date when the notice would go into the newspaper our code requires 10 days so unfortunately we can't make the public hearing for the first meeting in November so just based on the required postings it'll be on the 19th. Alex what happened to our flagpole? It's still on it says still in the building it's actually mounted on the top of the elevation so it will still be there. Thank you. Quick question. On the new parking and the elimination of the landscape areas, that only stops at your expansion, or does it go through the entire parking area? Can you say that question again? It's just in the Walmart side. It's kind of like once you get to the, I guess, the end of their lease area, all of those existing islands in front of Bob's and the liquor store, Those are gonna remain. Yes. It's really just whatever is the the Walmart lease area And I have no objection to what you're doing here, you know trying to pick up some you know spaces and everything else Just that you know that the new ones, you know The trees that are gone or half dead if they were placed and make everything look somewhat uniform Yes, and we'll do as As Greg had mentioned earlier, we're going to plant new trees, fresh new asphalt. The intent is to make this look brand new, so with a new facade. And one of the things I should note as part of the ARB discussions, Walmart is committed to providing an area for community center benefits, so Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts. So there's an actual awning that will be connected to the building in which veterans can post up and do some things, and the committee can post up and provide something at the store. So I just wanted to note that. Anything else John? You guys good? Yep. Okay, thanks very much guys. Have a good day. Thank you, I'll take care of you guys. Alright, item number three, Soundshore Guild Association. Tell us all about it Greg.

Soundshore 2, here we go. I'm Bill Buck, I'm the resident and a member of the board of directors. All right, so we've got a chapter 219 application seeking approval to replace approximately 210 linear feet of existing wooden bulkhead and import approximately 25 cubic yards of clean beach fill to backfill behind the existing bulkhead at a property located at 2730 North Weeding River Road. It's the site of the Soundshore Guild, which is a seasonal cottage community. There's approximately 95 cottages there, community building, swimming pool, along with beach stairs and bulkhead down at the bottom of the bluff. I went down, I actually did a visit. It's very easy going down those stairs. Going up, not so much. I think there's approximately 200 stairs there so very very very beautiful yeah yeah yeah exactly going down is all the work coming back up is the tough part so yeah yeah so i picked a nice day to do it um it is a type two action pursuant to secret as it involves maintenance repair of an existing structure um now i will note the need for a chapter 219 permit you know the board is the coastal erosion hazard board they review all applications within the sea high area there are some periodic maintenance or replacement provisions that allow for just the replacement of the bulkhead the replacement of the bulkhead itself doesn't require is not that's not what requires the 219 it's the importation of the fill which is approximately 25 cubic yards so the proposal is to replace the existing bulkhead i will note i did speak with the applicant's contractor yesterday. Right now the plans call for a vinyl bulkhead replacement. I got a call yesterday about the possibility of changing it to wooden bulkhead. There's really no difference in terms of, you know, the planning board's review, whether it's wood or vinyl. I do note that the existing DEC permits that they have do allow for, it basically says you can use wooden timbers of a certain size, vinyl bulkhead, you know, it calls it out. Is it CCA treated wood? Sure. There are requirements. If you give me a minute, I'll pull out the DEC. The pilings down there. I don't think they need it. I don't think so. There's like a lot of contamination.

There is language in the DEC permit that speaks to what type of material is permitted to be used. Pressure treated wood for construction of in-water structures must have undergone a treatment process approved. Wood treated with PCP must not be used in marine or brackish waters. Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited both in water and upland areas. CCA pressure treated wood must be clean and free of CCA surface deposits with deposits being must be washed at least five minutes under running water prior to use So they use treated wood they just have to basically clean it and make sure there's no standing materials on it so again for the purposes of you know the planning boards review whether it's vinyl or Timbers has no material effect on it. I'm fine with either one The only things that we would look to, beach access and equipment staging. So the applicant's contractor provided a project narrative where he indicated they intend to take access to the beach via state-owned property at 790 Hulse Landing Road. I think, just for clarification, I believe the intent is to use the town access at the end of Hulse Landing Road. standard procedure for any type of beach access where they're reconstructing bulkheads doing revetments we look for a hold harmless agreement with the town attorney's office i believe they should have a probably stamp pretty standard kind of boilerplate language for that effect all material they would be neat will be staged on the applicant's property any traversing or any crossing of the beach needs to there are time restrictions in the town code I believe they are restricted from driving on the beach between May and September, obviously, during the summer period. And they need to travel below the mean high water mark and then stage materials on their property. Other than that, they've got the required DEC permits and the Army Corps of Engineers permits. So I have a resolution to approve this. How will the, on the east and west side, how will the existing, well, the bulkhead itself join with people on the east and west? Our bulkhead, it's the corner, so it joins with us on the east end. It's our corner. It goes around, and it's part of the northeast corner, which takes the beating on the Long Island Sound side, so it joins with us. And that's really the corner we're going to do now. We're just going to repair if you look at the photos there with me where the structures damp There's a little dirt that's been washed out a little bit. That's where we're having the problem I'm sorry. It's not your property. We have permission from the Adjoining people yeah, I have permission slips. Yeah, I did that all ahead of time. Yeah, they're very happy by the way Yeah, we're paying for it neighboring property owners really benefit from their replacement interest the West side there is a bulkhead there so they have their own bulkhead it joins up to that okay already yeah it will tie into it storage of material on your property it will be on the beach normally they put it on top they lift it up and they put it on top somehow they've been there for one other bulkhead repair and usually the material is either on top or above the high watermark usually on top on our property so yeah so it's complete will it impair the public's ability to use the beach no okay that's all i have hope it's going to be in kind you know once there it's just going to be a nice new bulkhead and protect their property they do them pretty quick too because they have to take it down and put it up again so kevin forbid there's a stormwater so there's not material doesn't last down there for long it's right away in and out because the little pilings aren't being replaced just the ones that need the ones that you can see in the picture yeah that we you know unfortunately the rest of it looks pretty good for now but you know you never know who's on his bulkhead state you live and die with him okay good luck thank you very much i appreciate your time greg says he will walk up and down those stairs checking out i warned him when he when he came if i was with him it would have been i would have helped them out a little bit but there's a rule you go down with beer you don't come up with beer Thank you. All right, number four, Verizon at 285 Hubbard Avenue with Greg.

Hi, welcome. Good afternoon. Eric Hellman of Amato Logroom PLLC here on behalf of the applicant Verizon Wireless for the proposed wireless communications facility at 285 Hubbard Avenue, Riverhead. Brad. Welcome. Thank you for having me. Thank you. So again, as Mr. Hellman said, this is an application seeking to construct a new 120-foot-tall stealth monopole wireless communications tower with sectors for a total of six wireless carriers, along with related ground-mounted equipment within a 1,600-square-foot fenced compound. proposed action is a type 1 action pursuant to secret requiring mandatory coordinator view of involved agencies based on the property's location within the are a 40 zoning use district again similar to the other application it is not a permitted use within that zoning district so the riverhead zoning Board of Appeals has been identified as an involved agency again use variance same exact criteria that I just spoke about regarding the the contradiction with the special permit code so I'll provide a zoning board of appeals denial for the applicant the board for the board's knowledge the property is approximately a 3.4 acre parcel located at 285 Hubbard Avenue again within the are a 40 zoning use district the site is currently used as Verizon's maintenance and administrative facility with associated parking areas it's directly adjacent to a number of residential uses as well as the Riverhead fire department station number two, which is located directly to the east. And we've got the Long Island Railroad tracks behind it. The applicant did provide a visual assessment. They used a crane test where they positioned a crane on the site at the location of the proposed tower, stick a big red balloon on it and take pictures of it, and then put in like a visual simulation of what the proposed tower is going to look like. I will note that the report acknowledged indicated year-round visibility from location numbers in that report 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Although it does acknowledge that the views of facility can change based on the season and your loss of foliage Again similar to the other application our code does allow for a 10-foot basically automatic increase in height So the tower could ultimately reach a height of 130 feet We received an RF analysis report demonstrating that the maximum permissible exposure for RF frequencies at ground levels around the site is approximately 0.48 4% of the allowable FCC limits we did not receive a federal and FAA obstruction analysis I mean even though it's well outside of any you know well you know no airfields no airports I just would recommend a report demonstrating compliance I believe it would but just to make sure we've covered all our bases the one real comment aside from you know the procedural requirements of this application I did note on page for the application the site landscaping I mean this Verizon building was built years and years ago the site landscaping is really like non-existent so when you drive by you just see equipment and parking fields one request would just be spruce up some landscaping provide some screening to just screen the view of that parking lot I don't think that's an unreasonable request we may not get another sort of bite at the apple on this site for a while so while we're in for site plan some minor amendments just add some landscaping so I do have an app resolution to classify it as a type one action I'll coordinate with the zoning Board of Appeals for lead agency now we can make a determination of significance other than that pretty straightforward do you want the same flag on there or not the applicant ever discuss it with you it hasn't been discussed I'm happy to take it to my client please sure the last applicant didn't carry the way so we were questioned yes and I'll follow up with mr. Bergman on a sheet thank you no no great the 120 the 10-foot extension that's then it's all they would be able to do yeah so the code right now the code the way it's worded it says an existing tower may be modified or rebuilt with no additional separation to a greater height over the towers existing height in order to accommodate the co-location of a single additional antenna i mean what i sort of interpret that little bit of word cell to mean is you know when you look at these wireless communications towers typically the wireless carrier sectors are approximately 10 feet so i i read that and i interpret it to mean they can essentially get one additional carrier on top of the existing antenna so assuming i'm not having to come back yeah assuming a 10 foot you know assuming a 10 foot and then that's where it tops out what i would say to that is the tower is being designed to accommodate additional carriers so verizon is at the top but there there will be room down below for additional carriers as well all right i have one quick question on the photo number five there's another tower on in the picture will that one be coming out or is that no that that is separate um and verizon did uh investigate that property and And there's a town board resolution as part of the approval that said that they agreed to no commercial carriers on that tower. And it's also my understanding that that wasn't designed for commercial carriers, so it would need a tower replacement. And I included the town board resolution as part of the site plan application materials. Did you say it's going to be replaced? No, if we were to go on that tower, it would have to be replaced because it's not designed for commercial carriers. That's not what I was suggesting. What I was saying is if you're putting a new tower in, will this tower be removed? What's on this tower? That's on the fire department property. So that was done. So that would remain. Gotcha. So that was done. There was a Monroe balancing test that was done with that. Basically, the fire department or the fire district was coming in for emergency services communication towers. So they did a Monroe balancing test and found that that was exempt from the zoning. So it allowed, again, it's not a wireless communications tower per se for wireless carriers. That's really for emergency service communications. Is this tower in any way going to help the fire department at all? Or do you understand what my question is? Yeah, as proposed right now, it will accommodate emergency communications. So in that manner it will. But it will operate independently of the tower on the fire department property. Right, understood. So in other words, there may be room for a whip antenna on the top if it's deemed necessary? I'm happy to take that to my client.

Thank you for your time. Yes, sir. All right. Number five, Anderson Acres, Major Subdivision. Just quick.

Welcome, gentlemen. Can we just get your names to the record, please? Morton Finnegan, 13250 Main Road, Mattatuck. For the applicant. Brian Slago, 30 Tyler Drive, Burbank. Welcome. All right. So we've received a request from the applicant to consider a revised alternative sketch plan for a proposed major subdivision of properties out in Laurel. The board previously selected its preferred sketch plan, resolution number 2026-013, adopted on February 5th, 2026. This is a board recall. So the project site comprises four parcels of semi-contiguous land, which are bisected by the Long Island Railroad tracks. The total is approximately 70 acres, give or take. 22 acres are located on the north side of the tracks, about 48 acres located on the south side of the tracks. It's almost located entirely within the RB80 zoning use district. There is a portion of the property along Peconic Bay Boulevard that's located in the RB40 zoning use district. So, Justin, can we get the eye in the sky on this, just so we can follow along with the board? Yeah, Justin can we zoom in on that? Do we? I think that's good. There we go. Approved. Yeah, so this is it. So I'll reference. So this is the board's preferred sketch. When we originally reviewed this, we reviewed three different sketch plans. This was decided as the board's preferred sketch. It created, I believe, thirty-three lots. Thirty-three, thirty-four. I'm sorry, thirty-four lots. It created two roadways that both terminated in cul-de-sacs. It included the required recharge basin. This property was kind of unique in that the school district boundary between the Riverhead Central School District and the Mattatuck-Kutchog School District essentially splits the property right down the middle. So they created this subdivision. It preserved 70 acres. It was all contiguous on the north side of the tracks. There were two existing residences along Main Road. That would be their own lots. You've got a farm lot here, and then south of the railroad tracks, you've got the farm lot here. It created direct, you know, there were five lots of the proposed subdivision that were located directly adjacent to the farm. The applicant has requested that the board consider an alternative plan, which is as proposed. Again, the two lots along Main Road stay as they're proposed. but it locates all of the lots on the east side of the property within the Manitowoc Cutchover School District. Just a couple of things for the board's consideration. So our major subdivision code section 301-289B4 states that dead-end or cul-de-sac streets shall not in general exceed 400 feet in length and shall be equipped with a turnaround roadway having a minimum radius equal to the width of the street. Sketch Plan 6 proposes a dead-end roadway that's It's approximately 2,800 feet in length. I mean, it's like over a half a mile. Town Code 301-289B5 states that block lengths generally shall not exceed 1,200 feet in length. Again, this roadway is approximately 2,800 feet. And then it also creates 18 of these lots. All the lots on the west side of the road and these two are directly adjacent to the proposed farm lot. Not that that's a huge issue, but again, everyone wants to live next to a farm. It's desirable to live next to a farm until you actually live next to a farm and you get the noise, dust, et cetera. So these are just the considerations. I will note that the provisions in the code, when they talk about block length, generally there may be some wiggle room or some consideration for the board. Again, you have to take into account the full consideration, you know, the geometry of the property, the existing dimensions, you know, what can realistically be built. You know, here you've got neighbors that have some neighbors in your backyard. You create some sort of, you know, separation of the neighborhood rather than just a straight shot, kind of like a thermometer-designed subdivision that's a roadway that's like a half a mile long. So, again, really just offering it to the board for the considerations, what the code says. the board's decision makers i do believe we had a similar plan in the initial sketch i i do remember kind of kind of talking about the thermometer style um but again here for the board for its consideration to amend the request that create lots in both suit both uh school districts right correct so so this map this map this map creates lots in both school districts this map creates lots all in one school district number six a sketch plan number six is what he wants to use that's the that's the request is to consider a sketch by six give you a little context here so you know this has been an issue kind of from day one with this thing and yeah we're grateful for the sketch plan approval we're certainly not you know abandoning that approval but before we launched into preliminary plot phase and all the work that goes into that you know my client was just wondering like this is you know creating the lots in two separate school districts can be an issue we just feel like that's gonna be kind of wonky for neighbors and everybody and you get all these school buses from two different districts and kids going growing up in different schools and so we thought well what's the solution how do we how do we address that and you know understanding that from a planning perspective and you know based on the provisions of the code that this is you know not ideal we're just trying to find a way to address that issue and you know don was good enough to you know give me a little bit of a heads up on on the perspective that flagstaff has and which we get It's not surprising to me, but that's our issue. So we thought, well, let's just run it by the planning board to see whether there's any stomach for this, whether you feel like it's something you could work with. If not, we'll pick up where we left off. But we're just trying to deal with this practical issue of, you know, I don't know. I've never had a subdivision like that where you have kids on either side of the street growing up in different schools. And so what do we do with that? And, you know, there was also the practical issue of, you know, enrollments down in Mattituck, enrollments way up in Riverhead, and maybe that would be something that mattered. I'm more than happy to let them go to the other school district. But for me personally, I don't know what you guys think, I'm going to have to think about this a little bit. I can't just look at this and come up with a good solution. One of the problems I have being from a farm family, everybody wants to live next to a farm. And like Greg says, until they start farming. No, no. I know it can always be. It's the spring. I understand. And you cannot tell any farmer when he can run the irrigation wells. And when you have 17 homes compared to only five that would be on the farm, and even if there's a farm there, I mean, it sounds nice and you want to keep everybody to the medical school district, But, you know, the thermometer look does look kind of wrong. Is the property presently farmed? Yes. The adjacent property or this property is farmed? Yeah. The adjacent ones as well? I believe so, yes. Yeah, I think there's a nursery. This is owned by like a half-hollow nursery, I think. I think there's a nursery stock. And look, I mean, as Greg says, there's solutions, there's buffering, there's things here. But I get it, Ken. I mean it can be I know from a planning perspective that it's something to be avoided I guess we were thinking that because we already were gonna have lots along the line there at least partially that That was something that could be mitigated in the same way going up the road here I think there would possibly be some other solutions to you know, maybe have some cul-de-sacs or break it up a little bit But really this is just about kind of taking your policy and saying whether this is even something that you would consider because ultimately the goal is to get the project moving forward one way or the other. We've kind of lost some time here, so we want to pick it up and move it forward. And I'm talking to the tax successor just to make sure that no property is halfway, not a duck halfway, remember I did, and you have that division line. Well, initially we had, I think we had houses that were literally split between, and so we tried to deal with that and fix that but then you're still left with the problem of you know a kind of bifurcated neighborhood here and and uh yeah maybe people don't care about that but i i i think it would be weird i grew up in a subdivision and my kids were friends with everybody i think it would be really weird if they were you know didn't get on the bus together every day so that that was one of the initial considerations that the assessor brought up you know there's a i don't remember the name of it but there's a subdivision up in waiting river where they have, you know, it's split between the Shoreham-Wading River School District and the Riverhead School District, and she's like, it's a nightmare to try to assess, like, half the structure in one school district. So that was some of the initial conversations that sort of got at this. Now, I don't know if it's a – you know, I'm not a school – I don't know the first thing about a school district. I don't know if it's possible. I mean, if Mattituck-Kutchog is losing students, if they are looking for students, I don't know if there's a way – I don't want to say move the school district boundary because that's probably like moving heaven and earth. but I don't know if there's a way to maybe contract some in some way like where the entire subdivision maybe they think maybe that's a way to accomplish a good subdivision you know I kind of practice good planning standards while still accomplishing the goals of the project sponsor if again I don't disagree like if my next-door neighbor went to a different school district it is a little odd but I mean maybe that's a possible solution you know I if the manitowoc country school district could be approached and if there's a way to accomplish that sorry Justin we have Brookhaven Matatuck and Shoreham waiting River school districts all within the town of Riverhead so there are situations where people who live next door to each other the children go to different schools so but when Greg and I were discussing it the idea of having that straight run doesn't work I do think and I did discuss with Martin the idea that there may be a way to contract between the districts for those few students so that they don't moving the boundary is a colossal project and I think it would be caught up with so many other things that it would be you'd be so lost and that's also would be forever but maybe there's just a way because the property is bifurcated by the boundary I think in the educational law if you look at i think it was 3203 i was just looking there may be a way for you to approach the districts and see if you can do it that way but like for our point for our perspective the planning has to be right the layout of the subdivision has to be right and uh i didn't think that if i was from mattatuck i would say yeah we'd love to make a deal you can take them all and go to ribahead being from riverhead i'd rather have them go to you know mattatuck because they do have they did have a like a 20% decrease in student population so perhaps they are looking to increase their students I mean there's a good chance that a lot of these will be second homes anyway it'll be irrelevant because of the location of it but the the idea that Riverhead is kind of full and that amount of Tuck Kachuk is losing students may generate a solution we'll certainly look into that but I mean look in the meantime if you want to know kind of thing and that would be great on the main road both of those lots that you have established there's dwellings on now yes that's why they were carved out because they're existing they're kind of the support lots for the farm size of the lots are they approximately the same because I can't read I can't read it meaning that the lots on main road or just the lots in general sketch plan they range in size they look to be about 20 to 22,000 and on the requested plan they're very close they're about a half acre yeah give or take a thousand feet but they're basically down to about a half acre in both of the proposals. Anything else, guys? We'll think about it. I'm just thinking about 25 years down the road, if you start with the new thermometer look, you're going to have people complaining for the next 25 years. And on the original, you really don't know how many kids are going to go to each school district. you know I will be five you know but the 18 residents will be there forever I mean look the school district conversation I've reviewed subdivision applications back from the 80s and I mean the school district has been a conversation for 40 plus yeah it's almost like you could bottle up you could take a quote from a subdivision from 1982 put it to today and it's not the same exact thing so this is just the nature of it i think it's difficult you know the the makeup of the north fork is changing like dawn said some of these may be second homes you know again in this plan in the approved preferred sketch you've got 13 lots in riverhead uh the remainder would be in matatuck again i don't think 13 lots which some of it may be second home some of it may be primary i don't think that's going to solve any you know enrollment issues in Manitouk but again we try to try to exercise and try to practice good planning try to create subdivisions that have good aesthetic design um again rather than just the half mile straight roadway all right so we're gonna hash it around and we'll talk in the future okay great thank you so much appreciate your time Okay. Thanks, Helen. Thank you, guys. All right. There we are. Okay. Moving on to item 6, 1792 Middle Road, Breezy Hill Group. All right. And last but not least, so this is an application, as the board's aware. We've got a site plan application that we've been reviewing for many years now. 1792 Middle Road, aka the Breezy Hill Group 6 LLC. That's a site plan application seeking to establish a concrete, a solid waste management facility, construction and demolition processing facility at 1792 Middle Road, Calverton. Just to kind of go over a little bit of the history of this property. So the property was previously located within the town's Industrial A Zoning Use District, which was the heavy industry. The applicant, the owner, came in, started some work without the necessary permits. They went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was an interpretation that was made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Previously, the town's industrial zoning use district allowed all industrial uses with the exception of, and then it listed a list of prohibited uses. The applicant went to the Zoning Board for an interpretation. The zoning board basically said what they're proposing is not on that prohibited list, so therefore it's a permitted use in the industrial a zoning use district. So the board went through the full secret process. We went through a draft environmental impact statement. There was a number of public hearings on that EIS. That culminated with a negative finding statement and the denial of the preliminary site plan application. now as the code existed at that time our site plan code allowed an applicant to proceed with a denied preliminary site plan the code has since been amended the town board back in july of this year amended the site plan review to remove that two-step process so there's no longer a preliminary and a final site plan it's just a site plan approval with conditions so from the date of the denial of the preliminary site plan application the applicant filed a final site plan again which was allowed under the code they were proceeding with that denied preliminary the board went through a you know we issued a subsequent positive declaration required the preparation of a draft supplemental environmental impact statement that was done by the planning board on september 21st 2023 subsequent to that and prior to the receipt of any additional information on the application the town board adopted local law number 1-2024 on january 3rd 2024 and that created town code chapter 303 entitled the calverton industrial moratorium that placed a six-month moratorium on most development applications within the industrial a b and c zoning use districts within the hamlet of calverton provided for very limited exceptions 1792 middle road was not captured by any of those exceptions so the review of the application was paused the town board in july of 2024 adopted a three-month extension of the calverton industrial moratorium and that was done to allow for the adoption of the 2024 comprehensive plan update and then the implementations of the industrial zoning amendments to that code as the board will recall that was the first set of you know that was the there was a tremendous development pressure in calverton lots of industrial applications so that was made the the focus and the first set of amendments that were adopted excuse me so in september on september 4th of 2026 The Town Board issued its finding statement and adopted a 2024 comprehensive plan when the Calverton Industrial Moratorium expired on October 16th. After that, the applicant submitted the draft supplemental EIS. Then the Town Board on December 17th, 2024, adopted a series of amendments to the Riverhead Town Code. resolution numbers, Town Board 2024-1010, 1013, 1016, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1025, and 1026. All of those code amendments were really related to, among other things, it eliminated the town's industrial A, B, and C zoning use districts. It created the Calverton Industrial Zoning Use District. it re-zoned certain properties from industrial aid to light industrial among them being 1792 middle road it amended the permitted uses within the town's industrial zoning use districts and it clarified and added definitions to town code chapter 301-3 so upon adoption of those town board resolutions on december 17th 2024 1792 middle road was rezoned to light industrial and under the new zoning regulations concrete crushing was explicitly prohibited so it was essentially zoned out um you know the the town board upon the adoption of the comp plan considered those heavy industrial uses determined that they were not really appropriate in certain areas of town so the proposed use was made a non-conforming use excuse me um so the applicant uh they had before what's that they had a non-conforming use before that too so they had it pre the single family residence was a pre-existing non-conforming use within the industrial a zoning use district um so after that uh the applicant submitted an application to the zoning board of appeals appeal number 2020 2025-043 they were seeking a special exception to go from one pre-existing non-conforming use to another non-conforming use which is allowed under town code 301-222 the applicant appeared before the zoning board of appeals and they submitted the board of appeals heard testimony on the appeal on january 22nd of 2026 the meeting was adjourned based on the outcome of secret with the planning board acting as lead agency so in light of the adoption of the the amendments to the town's zoning regulations, and the new involvement of the Zoning Board of Appeals, now as an involved agency, as opposed to having just previously issued a determination, the Zoning Board is now an involved agency. So I have four considerations for the board to deem this draft supplemental EIS incomplete for public review. The DSEIS must be revised to include a narrative regarding the application process, the town's comprehensive plan update, the Calverton Industrial Moratorium, the adopted amendments to Riverhead Town Code, the DSEIS must be revised to include the Zoning Board of Appeals application, I'm sorry, the Zoning Board of Appeals as an involved agency in the Seeker review process, it must be revised to include the application made to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it must be revised to include the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, including the testimony for that application on January 22nd, 2026. The zoning board reserved decision? They don't have a reserved decision. They adjourned the hearing. It sort of creates a unique situation where now that the zoning board is an involved agency, they can't render a formal determination or formal decision until the planning board as lead agency makes its finding statement and concludes. Did they ever determine if they were going to have an application for wholesale or retail? No. So that's part of the – so the amendments to the town code clarified wholesale business. So, I mean, that's something that will need to be addressed, again, in what related to the amendments to the Riverhead Town Code that the town board authorized relating to industrial zoning. So really, the ball is in the Zoning Board of Appeals Court because he's going for one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. Well, yes, the Zoning Board is now an involved agency. To say that it's fully in their court, I don't think that's accurate. I mean, ultimately, the Planning Board is the lead agency where the board's responsible for ultimately making a determination. I think the planning board, as the zoning board will now be considered an involved agency, they can get a copy of the application and any kind of correspondence. It's not going to be a formal determination from the zoning board, but the zoning board can relay just certain facts relating to requirements for a special exception, anything that was addressed at that zoning board of appeals during that testimony. I think the planning board as lead agency takes that into consideration when they are So the non-conforming uses, one is a residence, the other is a concrete crushing business. And there's specific criteria in the town code in terms of the zoning board of appeals, their powers and authorities. There's specific criteria when the zoning board of appeals is considering a special exception in terms of intensity of use, nature of use. so that's something again the zoning board could probably transmit some not a formal determination but give you some type of formal comments on what they would be considering and how they'd be considering it so what is the general purpose of this conversation what are we allowing them to do so what this resolution does is deems this draft supplemental as inadequate for public review. Again, just based on the Calverton moratorium, when it expired in the middle of October, they submitted this. Just under the statutory seeker review timeframes, there's no way that the board as lead agency would have accepted a draft supplemental, had a hearing on it, issued a final supplemental EIS, and then made a finding statement within the two-month time frame. There would have been no way that the board could have concluded that before this use was formally zoned out of our code, written out of the zoning code. So what this resolution does is deems the draft supplemental EIS as inadequate, sets the criteria which need to be included in the revised draft supplemental. The zoning board will then get a copy of it and can comment on it during the secret coordination. Okay. All right. Anything else, guys? No, that's good. Okay. Thanks, Greg. Good job. Public comments and resolutions? Dottie? No. Lower. Hey, it was quiet tonight. All right, guys. Let's run through our resolutions. Resolution 2026-063 for Verizon to 285 Harvard Avenue, classifying a site plan application as a negative deck, right? As a negative deck. So moved. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zernicka? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move resolution number 64, malice property, minor subdivision, granting 290-day extensions. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zernicka? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. Motion carries. I'll move Resolution 2026-065, Elite Towers, Baiting Hollow. Resolution assuming lead agency and issuing a negative declaration pursuant to secret. So moved. Second. Moved and second. Mr. Zanucki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Baer? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. Resolution 2026-066, Sound Shore Guild, Chapter 219. Resolution granting a Chapter 219 coastal erosion hazardous area permit. Move to the second. Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. De Niro. Aye. Mr. Baer. Yes. I vote aye to motion carries. I'll move Resolution 2026-067 for the Walmart expansion. Excuse me. Resolution assuming lead agency. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zernicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. De Niro. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries.

Okay, I'll move resolution 068, schedule a public hearing on the Walmart expansion plan. I'm sorry. What's the date of that public hearing here? I believe it was November 19th. Let me just double check. Okay. Did somebody move it? Yes. Second? Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. Nenero? Aye. Mr. Bair? Yes. An aye vote, aye. The motion carries. I move resolution 20-26-069, Breezy Hill Group, resolution deeming a draft supplemental environmental impact statement submitted in connection with the proposed asphalt and concrete crushing facility. Just one thing. There were minor corrections picked up by Member Beyer earlier this afternoon. The last resolved is a duplicate so we can strike the last resolve where it says all town hall departments may review and obtain a copy. And then on page three of the resolution, DEIS just needs to be revised to DSEIS. So just those two minor amendments. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Zanicki. Yes. Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. DeNiro. Mr. Baer. Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. 20-26-069, Manor Lane Minor Subdivision. Resulting in granting a 90-day extension of the minor subdivision. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zanicki? Yes. Mr. Hogan? Yes. Mr. De Niro? Aye. Mr. Bair? Yes. And I vote aye. The motion carries. I move Resolution 20-26-074, JETS 139 LLC, granting a 90-day extension of the minor subdivision. Approval? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded, Mr. Zanicki. yes mr. Hogan yes mr. De Niro mr. bear yeah and I vote aye the motion carries public comments on any issues at all don't you you are only hope all right okay with that being said no minutes yes September 17th second second second second mrs. Nikki yes mr. Hogan yes mr. Nero mr. bear yeah motion carries no secret other business I told the community that we would keep them updated on summer wind its status quo it's still negotiations but we'll we'll keep you apprised of the situation correspondence no correspondence next meeting date Thursday November 5th at 6 p.m. right here at Town Hall motion to close second all in favor all opposed meetings closed thank you very much staff Greg you did a great job tonight Eric you a little quiet

Thank you.