Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chris.

Okay, first up today on our work session is, for me it's a pretty important item because it's a proclamation that the town is going to be giving to a gentleman that has spent years working very hard to better the town of Riverhead and in particular the downtown of Riverhead. And I've known him since he was a little kid playing soccer in the PAL program. His dad coached with us in the PAL program. And Stephen Chogar went off to college and came back home and made Riverhead his home and made Riverhead his mission. And we truly appreciate all the work that he has done. And I would like to ask Stephen and Kelly and your two children to come on up front on town board. We can go up. We have a proclamation for him.

Yeah, right up there and turn and face the cameras. Yeah.

Okay, we have a proclamation. And it's going to tell you some of the things that he's done. But if you know Steve as a person and if you've worked with him on any of the projects in the town that he's done, this doesn't say nearly enough about the person that he is and about the person that cares about the town of Riverhead that he is. And that's so important. The work that you've done, Steve, is incredible. Second to none, the hours and hours that you've put in starting the Alive on 25 and almost always never having volunteers. And seeing you down here working these events, and it's not just Alive on 25, it's everything you've touched downtown. You've made our town a better place. And for that, we thank you so much. And I'm going to read the proclamation. Whereas it is both fitting and proper the supervisor of the town of Riverhead, together with the town board and the residents of Riverhead, join the Riverhead Business District. And recognizing an individual who has shown commitment to community service above and beyond the average person. Much further above and beyond the average person. Whereas Stephen joined the bid in 2013 and became president in 2016, his contributions during his tenure are truly immeasurable. From meticulous planning of meetings to execution of large events such as Alive on 25, Stephen never lost sight of the goal. To expand sustainable economic activity. And down the road. And downtown Riverhead. Under Stephen's leadership, and together with the entire bid board, business has improved and foot traffic has increased for merchants along Main Street. Stephen was also invaluable to local businesses devastated by closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. And by facilitating access to emergency resources. Assisting with the implementation of temporary outdoor dining. And by tirelessly advocating for business owners during a most uncertain and unprecedented time. In our history. Now let it be known, Stephen's community contributions do not begin and end with the bid. He also participated as a member of the Town of Riverhead Business Advisory Committee. And as Director of Operations for the Hyatt Place East End and the Preston Hotel in Riverhead. His commitment to betterment of business on Main Street resulted in being awarded 2022 Public Servant of the Year by the Riverhead Times Review Media Group. Stephen is also a devoted husband to White House and the City of Riverhead. He is also a member of the City of Riverhead. He is also a member of the City of Riverhead. His wife Kelly Shorger. His wife Kelly Shorger. And together they have two very beautiful children. And together they have two very beautiful children. Now therefore, I Timothy Hubbard, Supervisor of the Town of Riverhead, together with the entire town board, the citizens of the Town of Riverhead, commend and congratulate Stephen Shorger for 10 years of volunteer service with the Riverhead Business Improvement District. And urge all citizens to sustain public awareness of this vital member of our community. Stephen, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming around. You've spent away from family to make our town better, and that is so much appreciated, and we know you're going to be around. My pleasure. And we know we can always lean on you, Steve, if you're a good guy. Board members, do you have anything you'd like to say? Absolutely. I've worked with Steve for like six years, and I remember when Steve was going to leave, I was president of the chamber, we were hand-in-hand on a lot of events, and you said it was in your heart, and I had the same feeling with the chamber, and working with you, there was never a negative moment. Everything was positive, no egos involved, and I have to say, that's outstanding. Absolutely. You've done great work for us. Thank you very much. Thank you for all you did for the town. My pleasure. Kelly, thank you for sharing them with us, because we know we've kept them away from you a lot of hours, so many evening meetings and everything else. Well, God bless you, Godspeed to you, and congratulations. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Come in, Bob. Come on, don't be shy. Come on. Hey, Alex. Hey, Alex. Do you want Mom and Dad?

Are you all good? [transcription gap]

Matters surrounding an update on a site plan application for 1001 Scott Avenue, Calverton. I would ask Matt Charters and Chris Kent to come up. And anybody else you might have? Yeah, we have a lot. Alex. Okay.

Like Israel, you're one of the principals. Who is that? I think I've heard of him. Oh, from Oregon. Oh, yeah. From Oregon. Okay. All right. Gentlemen, just say your names so the public knows who you are. Christopher Kent from Farrell Fritz, 100 Motor Parkway, top of New York on behalf of the applicant. Okay. Alex Holliman, civil engineer, Bowler Engineering, 275 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 100, Melville. Okay. Israel Richmond Realty. Okay. And, of course, Matt Charters. That's me, senior planner, Tana Riverhead. Can you give the board staff reports? Yes. With the gentleman on the board of the call, we first reviewed this application back in, it looks like August of last year. I'm just going to give this to you so Denise and Joanne can kind of get up to speed. We did fully present this, and so what's happening here? I'm going to give you one of my copies, too. I guess that would be good. I'm going to read the description. I'll give it back to you. No worries. So, I'm going to give you a copy of this. This is a site plan application for a 70,445 square foot warehouse building in EPCAL at 1001 Scott Avenue. The way the applicants have it set up now, it's divided into three tenant spaces, about 24,000 square feet each, each having seven loading bays and a trash compactor, as well as two outdoor storage areas. And this is in the PIP? In the PIP. Okay. So, if the board recalls, we did coordinate CEQA on this because this is a type one action. It has more than 50 parking spaces. We've had no objections to lead agency on this project. The applicant has responded to the staff report and pretty much addressed all our issues. It is a conforming application to the code. We do like to see those. So, we're really just looking to move this forward. One of the things that was outstanding, if the board is not aware, in EPCAL on a lot of the properties in the Berman subdivision, there are water lines, drainage easements that go through all of these properties. So, one of the things the applicant had to do is work with the water district to relocate a lot of this infrastructure. So, in early spring this year, they did get a map and plan. That was kind of the last thing we were waiting for on this to move it forward. So, the action before you guys at the next town board meeting, I'm going to recommend a negative declaration pursuant to CEQA and to schedule a public hearing for the second meeting in July. And if the team has anything else to add. Yes, good morning everyone. I just wanted to add a few things. So, there was a resubmission based on all the comments received from planning staff. The submission was on April 12th of this year, 2024. Addressed all of the comments raised in the report. Just to give a little bit more information, this is part of the Calvert and Camelot subdivision that was approved many years ago. There was a table on that approved subdivision map. And the plan as proposed complies with all of the table, all of the restrictions limited on the, provided on the table from the subdivision. I just printed, the subdivision itself is 15 sheets. On the cover sheet there was this table that provided for every lot in the subdivision, how many square feet and all of that. And we're in full compliance with that table that was on that map that was approved, I believe in 2006. Yeah. So, we can go through. We can respond to any questions. But of all the comments that were received in the staff report, all of them have been addressed on the resubmission. I've seen this from the very beginning. I think, Tim, you were on that, right? Through ARB. And I think this has been, this is a really good project. You've done a good job all the way through. And as far as some of those easements, one of them was a drainage swale. Yeah. Back when Grumman was there. Right. If you remember. The swale was the runoff from the runway and it brought all the way down to the river, which, you know, nobody wants that anymore. So, we are installing on-site drainage infrastructure underground that's going to capture not only our stormwater from our site, but all the stormwater upstream that should happen to run down. It doesn't really come anymore. If you go out there, that swale is always dry. But that swale does still exist. And we're going to be capturing that stormwater. Good. Which is good. So, what's the outdoor storage area like? Just like what's the intention that's going to go over here? At this time, there's no exact specification for what will be stored out there. But we know within the regulations of what could be. So, you think it's sort of like materials for the tenants involved, whether it be like steel, concrete, other items, building materials. Different things that would be stored in an outdoor yard for industrial uses. And that's permitted under the code as long as it's properly buffered and screened. And one of the comments received in the staff report was to retain the natural buffer. Correct. At the front along Scott Avenue. That's my next question. And that would be like a little bit about what the front area side looks like in terms of aesthetics. Yeah. So, there's some existing tree cover there now. So, originally when they submitted it, it was going to be cleared. And they had a fenced area. But I think, yeah. Well, let's use this one. Very nice. So, this is a color rendering. It's a site plan overlaid kind of on existing trees. Yeah. They just clear. They clear. [transcription gap] They clear. [transcription gap] it looks like you can actually see it on the screen properly yeah so that's a view from Scott Avenue that's right down here that uh that natural uh woodlands area will remain as it's it's kind of enclosed and you have it enclosed Alex maybe you can point to that correct uh this area we were successful in able to retaining the existing vegetation there so we were able to limit the disturbance in this area we do have the two driveways on both sides to provide um good segmentation of truck traffic and car traffic which is good for safety and for interaction the road uh and then the back area also as required by regulation 100 foot buffer is provided we think this will be a great improvement as you can see to the two properties uh I guess that's the north and south that's kind of the way our property looked a little bit although we did have that buffer area along Scott Avenue that's going to remain but there was some disturbance that will be much improved when we complete our site plan is it like maintain grass and so forth like cut or is it just like when you say you're just there's trees you can see the vegetation but even along the sides and things like that I'm just looking aesthetically wise like I know it's an industrial area but every time we're trying to improve that absolutely absolutely correct uh in the packet I don't know if you have it you do have a small version maybe I can give you a larger one it should be towards the end but you can see around the outdoor storage area there's evergreen screening that goes around this one as well as in the back so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room [transcription gap] so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room so you can see this room now that we haven't received anything. Referrals were all done by the staff, right? Correct. And you're waiting for certain replies. So we know certain replies. I'm going to resend out the revised sets to a couple agencies. But yeah, we have not heard anything. And the SWIP plan was submitted to Drew Dillingham and I believe referred out to DeBruyck and Bartolucci for review. The fee was paid. So we just, I don't know if we finalized that yet, but we're working on it. Yeah, we're wrapping up the comments and getting everything set. And we've also submitted to Suffolk County Department of Health Services for wastewater management. They're in a good spot with that, pretty much just waiting for SECRA. Riverhead Sewer we've been in contact with and Riverhead Water. ARB, we've had our first meeting and responded to those. So we think we have good visibility into what everyone's telling us they'd like done. That's good. And prior to public hearing, we'll hope to have responses from everyone and complete conversations to coordinate efforts to relocate the ECC. And we're working with the town attorney on that. Very good. Any other questions? No. This is the perfect location for the perfect project.

That's what that's all about up there inside the town. Very good. Thank you very much. So you'll see two resolutions in your packet for the 18th of August. Okay. So that resolution is to move this to a public hearing? Second. [transcription gap] submitting a negative and then public hearing. All right. Very good. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you. You want to keep the points? More paper. I brought it just in case everybody wanted to see it in a bigger version. Okay, the next item we have up is matters surrounding the possible implementation of agritourism zoning, and that will be Rothwell, Waskie, and Merrifield. Yeah, if we can invite up Anne-Marie, Matt, and Greg to come forward. Anne-Marie, Matt. Matt and Greg. So the Agritourism Code has been in the works for probably about two years, right? Yes. And so, you know, we have had many meetings over the years in trying to find different ways to preserve and protect the historic corridor, the mold abundance of housing, trying to find factors that are less of an impact. Less of an impact in terms of school traffic, you know, and overabundance of breweries and bouncy bounces and things like that, kind of. But this was a major factor, I think, in giving farmers an additional tool, as we've said in the past, a preservation tool. In simple terms, they'll go into more detail, but essentially any development within this region would be a 70-30 split of 70% preservation. Right. So, you know, we're not going to have that preservation leaving 30% development. And for any type of developer within that realm want to get his or her maximum density in any particular project, they would be faced with purchasing TDRs, which becomes another tool for a farming community. So I'll let the legal team explain a little bit better than I. But that's the simple just of why we've been working on this for so long. So planning and legal have been working on this for about two years. This final version has incorporated comments from the public, from the Riverhead Farmland Committee. And I think we all think it's a very good product. It is a method to preserve farmland. Whether or not it's farmland on site. Because it'll be 70-30. Or if the 70% is already encumbered by a deed of development rights or conservation easement, it will trigger and require the purchase of development rights, which is preservation of farmland. We intentionally, when we drafted it, we tried to build in a lot of mitigation measures, including the limitation. But there's a lot of work to be done to make sure there's no limitation of 150 units. And I'm not a secret expert, but we did that because… Yeah. So the New York State DEC, the ministers of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, there's what's called the Full Environmental Assessment Form Workbook, which assists municipalities in determining impacts and filling out the EAFs. They have a guidance document which sets significant thresholds for projects with low environmental for projects which could be considered significant impacts in terms of trip generation, which is generally considered to be 100 trips per hour. That full EAF workbook sets the threshold for hotels at 250 rooms to be considered a, quote, significant trip generator. This code limits it to 150. So, I mean, it's almost 50% less. I think the key component in putting this together, I've said all along, was to preserve the historic corridor, but mostly its aesthetics. Okay, so Riverhead is a farm-based community, and that's what we're looking at as we travel down Sound Avenue. I love riding it all the time on a motorcycle, and it's like I want that to be preserved and stay like that forever. And I worry that other future developments wouldn't have these type of restrictions with being so far set back. So if an end... If a station or something is built in there, it's not visible from Sound Avenue corridor as you go down, there would be... This legislation forces any developer to must engage with a farmer and the farming community and to farm. In this region, this is premier agricultural soil, and having a developer engage with a farmer keeps our agricultural thriving in a community. And I think that's like the aesthetics. I think it's the most important aspect of this. It's like what will Sound Avenue look like 20 years, 30 years from now? And I want the farming community to be able to be as successful as it can, but I think if we just allow to keep doing more and more breweries on the whole length of Sound Avenue, you're just competing with each other until you begin to stifle it. And that is a far greater traffic issues and so forth than... Preservation farming itself. So the... Yeah, I was just going to... And the aesthetics, you know, the preservation of the aesthetics and Sound Avenue corridor is built into this. Yeah, so number five. Yeah. Use of land shall be configured in such a way to protect Sound Avenue, store a corridor, and provide open space for use of agricultural... from agricultural from all external roadways. So whatever's going to be developed on this property has to be situated in such a way so it's not going to negatively impact Sound Avenue or the corridor. You can't see it, but it's in the code. And Matt, to that point, this isn't going to... Yeah. [transcription gap] You can't allow vertical farming. Correct. Correct? No vertical farming. So that was incorporated. You know, there was some questions about whether that was allowed. Number seven says that essentially the restriction of the lands restricting development and preserve for agricultural production shall be preserved for agricultural production and the agricultural use production shall be limited to agricultural uses dependent on the use of agricultural soil. So you're not going to see a proliferation of vertical farming structures and whatever. So you're not going to see a proliferation of agricultural uses and whatever shape they will take. It'll be traditional farming, which our code defines agricultural production as the use of soils for crop production. And in our new comp plan, we talk about vertical farming and we want to give farmers the ability and tool to utilize that, but maybe not on the premier soil, so to speak, but maybe vertical farming is appropriate in industrial areas or others where we have sand, sand collections and so forth. So, but this does not in any way, change or put any restrictions on any farmer within the town of Rivette. This is an additional tool. This is land that is given to them by the developer to say, hey, I need a farmer to please come onto my land and to utilize my land. And whether it become the aesthetics of a vineyard up front or plantings, meaning like growing lettuce, tomatoes, you've been able to go from farm, whether they say from farm to plate, right? You know, in type of, in establishment and so forth. That's what we're looking for. I can see botanical gardens in front of this area. Now, driving down Sound Avenue, that's what you're going to see the farming aspect of. Maybe it's botanical gardens. Maybe it's a vineyard or something like that. That keeps the aesthetics of the historic corridor in place. And some residents, including Mike Foley, were very concerned about creating wedding venues and really exacerbating potentially, you know, the traffic. So from, throughout the drafts, we reduced the seating capacity in a restaurant. We prohibit any temporary structures being on the site. We prohibit advertising. And any event would have to be simply for somebody who is lodging at the resort. They'd have to be inside. Right. One of the most important things to me is preserving farmland. As a lifelong resident here in Riverhead, I have watched over the years so many subdivisions go up. I've seen the impact that they've had on our school. I've seen the impact on traffic. I don't want to see anything but farmland on Sound Avenue. So if there's something that I'm able to do to make that happen and, you know, keep Sound Avenue the way that it is now, I wish it was back when I was a kid. But I think it's important. I think that this is an excellent tool to be able to preserve what's left. And that's what so many residents have been asking for. So I think you guys have done a great job. Thank you. When we do hear, you know, the Sound Avenue scenic and historic corridor, which we hear repeatedly, you know, there's the belief that it's 500 feet on either side of the roadway. It can't be discounted that some sections of Sound Avenue, if you go north of Sound Avenue, it's nearly three quarters of a mile to, you know, the

Long Island Sounds. I mean, if something was built a half a mile off of Sound Avenue or three quarters of a mile off of Sound Avenue, I don't think that's necessarily in that 500-foot scenic and historic corridor. You know, you wouldn't even see these things, which again, is built into this code, you know, that's fundamental level. And it's special permit of the town board. So you're going to review it. You're going to see it. You're going to define, you know, the parameters that the developer would have to adhere to, aesthetically. Right. And that's the point. The developer, in a sense, the farm is going to be a tenant of the developer. This is not a farmer that already has a farm working. This is a piece of land where a developer will come in and hire a tenant farmer. The other question I had is to show the public, what's the mechanism if the tenant doesn't continuously farm this? So Councilwoman Waskie and I work with the Farmland Committee. There is a monetary penalty, a stiff one. In addition, what we built in, it's $1,000 per day penalty. That's a pretty stiff one. And this is on the developer? Correct. Because that's the property owner. Right. Correct. In addition, in order to foster the agricultural production on the 70%, we require the developer to build and maintain. Okay. A well site on the property to make sure there is water for growing. So it is going to be a farm, a work farm. It has to be. Just so everyone understands that. It has to be. It's not Disney World where we're going to fake it and make it look like it's a farm. Correct. It has to be. And there is a natural instinct to be concerned when anybody uses the word in-resort or anything along that lines. What are we talking about? This is not a Marriott marquee that is going to be a four-story hotel. It is not that. This is a low-lying development project that is not going to be seen or viewed from Sound Avenue. And so that's the whole key component. It meets the same height restrictions as is applicable and existing in the zoning code if you were to build a home. It's the same. 35 foot maximum height. Correct. Yeah. And this gives us revenue for the town. So it's smart economic growth while maintaining agricultural preservation. That's what we're talking about. [transcription gap] That's what we ran on. Drives tourism, which is a huge economic generator for the town. Drives people to Sound Avenue. Allows them to... Drives them to Sound Avenue to enjoy the corridor. And with TDRs, it just gives us the ability to keep chipping away at the land preservation. And every little bit helps. Every year that we click on and we can do 5, 10, 20 acres and more goes along. It just... That's the long-term goal is to preserve and protect. And this is going to force the hand of the developer. And that's what we ran on. [transcription gap] And this is going to force the head of a developer to engage in TDRs in order to get their maximum. And I've said it before so I'll just highlight the sections quick. Greg might even want to supplement me. In our current Master Plan that exists... And... Our future Master Plan... it includes 3.1 vision statement included agritourism 3.2 3.6 e 3.6 g 3.7 c section 5.2 section 7.3 7.7 7.7 c is this legislation this code amendment is consistent with those provisions am i right i'm just going to put my john q public hat on for a second and say look this was presented to us months ago it was withdrawn because it was some concern what is different today about this than months ago when we put it up what what has changed that we're putting the same thing back up well so one of the items was since then uh councilwoman waski worked with the farmland committee we put in additional parameters those were not really rolled out because at the time there were the town was informed that certain members of the agricultural community didn't like a limitation on what could be on the prime agricultural soils so since then we have the farmland committee and incorporating their comments we've heard from kensel nicky a member of the planning board who has come in no less than a half a dozen times uh expressing disappointment that it was withdrawn and that we abandoned it so she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she yeah and it really cost us you know to go back I did draft potential incentive zoning for this particular area perhaps delivering a different benefit if there was dissatisfaction with the farmland aspect I drafted it I've shared it with staff shared it with the councilman talked about it with BFJ on the phone that would delay the comp plan which I think it's important for the public we not do that we can study incentive zoning in the future for different other areas of the town and we would do a generic environmental impact statement so we and we have this solid legislation we believe so all those things caused us to come back and ask the town board to reconsider support it or not support it move forward or not move forward but in addition to the comp plan discussions there were multiple residents that outright said no vertical farming on Sound Avenue and so when you hear that you go right if the residents don't want vertical farming and we wrote legislation that prohibits it on there you have to go back and look at the !

I think it's important to note that we have a lot of !

so I didn't have full head clear head And I just kept taking notes. I recall farmers speaking at the party in favor of the agritourism as well. Yeah. Recently. Recently. You know, I want to admit to the town board, there were residents who opposed it. We considered their opposition. And that's why the number of units was reduced. The, quote, farming component was strengthened. So we did make changes to try to address some of the opposition. But this has grown stricter and stricter, you know, since its initial beginnings of two years ago. Correct. And we've continued to have things. And I think that residents initially, again, as I said earlier, of course there should be an immediate, like, wait, wait, an inn? A hotel? What are you building? What is it like? But I think when you take time and you're able to explain it and explain what the aesthetics will look like. You know? What, you know, there's approximately five different parcels that this will apply to. What will it look like? It's going to look like farms on Sound Avenue. And you kind of say that's the best bet. And it does put, you know, these buildings on our tax rolls. So increase our tax rolls. It keeps kids out of school. It keeps the main reason, historic and preservation, the aesthetic looks of the Sound Avenue corner. I have said it multiple times, Yelp, and I would not favor anything in which that I would have to travel along Sound Avenue in the future and see shipping containers or anything stacked up high. You know, I told early on that I don't support, you know, schools in our industrial zone. But, you know, absolutely, vertical farming. I mean, like that, you know, go on that. That's sandy soil and so forth up there. That's where these things belong. And then they can certainly. And so we put vertical farming. We've entered it into the comp plan. And it'll have its place. And we've had, I think, in the future. Just don't want to see it right along the corridor. Because I think that's our one preservation tool. That's our aesthetic view. That's the definition of what Riverhead should look like and always be remembered. This is a win for Sound Avenue. Mm-hmm. Just want to go back a little bit. You mentioned Ken Zelnicki in case people out there watch and don't know. Ken is part of a multi-generational farm family in our community that has formed a lot of farmland in this town. And they know what they're doing. So I respect his. I respect his opinion greatly. We heard from a lot of farmers. I originally, when this was brought up, I was in favor of this. The benefit of preserving the land to me is huge. That's first and foremost. Then secondly comes the amenity that's on that land. And the amenities, the more amenities this town has, the more prosperous and the more successful the town is going to be. And that's why I love this idea. Then I faded away from it because we got into the conversation with some of the farmers, and they felt like they were being limited. You're telling me what I can and what I can't farm. And this really doesn't tell them that. Their own farms, they can do whatever they wanted to do. If they wanted to do, say, vertical farming on their own farm, they could probably do that. I would recommend that we address that in some manner that you don't see containers. And it's been brought to our attention that in some communities, they build actual barns over the containers. So you don't even see the containers. It looks like another barn on the farmland, which is great. So having said that, I've now swayed back to where I think this is a great program. And I always thought it was a great program, but I was very concerned with the farmers. And now that that's been hammered out, this is a win-win for the town, absolutely a win-win for the town. The regulations are on the developer's property, not the farmer's property. Correct. And I think that was misunderstood early on with some of the farmers. That's right. They were thinking, hey, you're telling me what I can and what I can't do, and we don't want that. And we don't want that. We don't want to tell the farmers what they can and can't do. This is a tenant on the developer's property. Correct. Correct. He can determine what he wants on his own property. And the agriculture is that agriculture, as is defined in New York State Ag and Markets Law, that utilizes the prime agricultural soils. So I'm not telling you to put a vineyard on your property. I'm not telling you to grow tomatoes. Right. Anything defined by New York State Ag and Markets Law, that's what can go on this property. Right. And I've heard comments from people living in, and I'll use this as an example because some of the people said this, that lived in Willow Ponds. And they're saying, we don't want any development north of Sound Avenue. Well, guess what? Many years ago, not even many years ago, Willow Ponds wasn't there. And people didn't want development north of Sound Avenue. So if you come in here and tell me you live there, there's no way live at Willow Ponds and you don't want development there, you know, kind of, I'm not really buying that too much because your development was made there and it's okay for you now, but it's not okay for somebody else afterwards. And that was active farmland. Yes, that was active farmland. That was Kenzel Nicky's farmland. Correct. Absolutely. I can almost guarantee that if we go back and look at the minutes, I'm sure there was significant opposition. Without a doubt. I used to snowmobile on that property. And I'll also add that development is large scale, but to the best of my knowledge, I traverse Sound Avenue a lot. There aren't traffic jams caused by Willow Ponds. No, they're not. Even though it's significant development, you know. And there's more units in there that would ever be in one of these resorts and that doesn't cause a problem. So traffic is really not a valid argument. I'm just going to add, I don't know any farm that's against this. I love this. And I think it's a great preservation tool. I had asked that we do the minimum at 70 acres if we're really serious about this and identify other properties that are less than 100 acres because I don't want to see even a 50 acre property go into a subdivision because what it's doing is it contradicts what we're trying to do here. So I think the 100 minimum is too high. I would go lower and I would look at, try to identify other properties if we're serious about this. That maybe make the minimum 50 acres. The other question that I have. Yeah, just in response to you, I can agree with that, but I feel like we got to walk before we walk. No, I understand that, but why not start it? Why not give the opportunity now? To me, why not just do it? You know, this is part of the walk. I'm not looking to run. This is just part of the walk. Because you can't take it back. And I think you got to see how it develops. See how. You see how it works. And then if it's working and it's doing exactly what we hope it will do, then more, you know, expand it later in the future. But just see if it works. I see it working. I don't think this is a matter of see if it works. I think this is going to work. And I think we need to make it work. But aside from that, I got another question. The, so are greenhouses allowed on this? If they're utilizing the prime agricultural source. Okay. So if somebody does a vineyard, right? And they grow grapes, I say they do, you know, 60 acres of grapes on the 70 acres, right? Now they cannot process the grapes, correct? And they can't bottle the wine. So now, right? So that's something I would look at. If somebody is growing tomatoes and then wants to produce tomato juice in order to stay in business, they cannot process the tomatoes. They cannot can the tomatoes on that property. Which is something that I would look at. Well, I've always recommended, and the supervisor, if you remember, you've heard me say this. That should be taken up with New York State Ag and Markets. Well, it's done. That's limits everywhere. That's not just this one. That's . Look at the breweries that do it. Look at the, okay, I don't want to. No, it's in the New York State Ag and Markets law. So that should be taken up with the state. Reform operation. However, what the town does, which is. Very unique. We, in our code, and we even have an expedited site plan review for farm stands. Even though farm stands, under Ag and Markets law, that is marketing. We allow it. Because that's part of Riverhead's history. We've always had it. We always will. And that's why even in this code. Not withstanding New York State Ag and Markets. We allow for a farm stand. And, you know, for those not familiar with upstate, hotels are not, you know, they're on agricultural land. They're part of the thing. So this may be new to us and it doesn't scare me. I'm very aware of this. I tried to do this 20 years ago on Martha Clarabin. So this is nothing new. Something I will say. The three people that spoke against vertical farming. And I know what's going on. And I'm not. I'm just going to say this. One, people don't understand the expense. Two, it's been around for 20 years. How many people have taken advantage of it. It's very expensive to do. And I'm not saying put it in and don't put it in. But, you know, the misnomer about vertical farming. And the other thing I'm going to add. To the people. You know, 50% plus people that live in this town. Have destroyed somebody's view. Because their subdivision is on farmland. That's why, one, I would relook at the minimum here. You know, because I think this is a great thing. And there may be other opportunities, you know, that people want to do. And also, you know, I want this to go to the Ag Advisory Committee as well to review. They've already reviewed it. This particular. Yes. Who? Yes. Who reviewed it? We sat this down. We said, you know, we're going to review it. We're going to review it. We're going to review it. We sat this down with them at a table. With the supervisor. Yes. This one. With the changes recommended by the farmland committee. Who was at that meeting? I'm just curious. The supervisor. Councilman Rothwell. Myself. Rob Carpenter. Phil Schmidt. Matt Pendleton. Am I right? Yes. I didn't remember. I haven't heard time. I just want to thank everybody for the work and the time that has been put in this. The three board members. Actually, Bob, you've been part of this too. I think it is a good thing. And I think it's been explained very thoroughly. The public is either going to like it or not like it. There shouldn't be too many questions about it. But if you just consider the preserved land at the end of the day. Yes. We've got to keep farming going in this community. And that's one way to help them do it. Is preserving the land. So to me that's the win-win here. And what would be helpful is I know being on the pre-submission. I've seen some of the subdivisions that are proposed on Sound Avenue. And again, I tried to do this 20 years ago and got a lot of pushback from the town. And Bob, I really appreciate your comment that you would like to give it. Reduce the acreage. And I think the whole concept is great. I know you had this idea 20 years ago. I think for Riverhead and its residents, we have to start with limited. And then I promise the team will evaluate because it's a great preservation tool. And also the south side of 25. Why are we limiting it to Sound Avenue? Well, because this happens to be a receiving area. That's the one benefit that the RAA zoning district is already a receiving area. So we don't need to do any additional. We have some good farms going into Jamesport. You know, through Aqaba to Jamesport. You're absolutely correct. We should be absolutely looking at this to do the same. You know, to have incentive zoning over there as well. You know, I don't want to. You know, for me, I want to do it. I want to do it right. And I want to do it now. I don't want to do it like let's try it over here and see. It's going to work. I don't question whether it's going to work. It works in other regions. Because, you know, I don't question that. Let's make it right on the south side of 25 as well. That's all I'm going to ask for. Well, I'm glad you want to do it now because the team has worked on this for close to two years. Well, I'm sorry it took so long. To me, I would do it in a month. It's for good reasons though. I'm just sorry. It's good because all the kinks have been worked out. I know how much time you guys have put into this. And I thank you for everything you've done. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you guys so much. Thank you. Okay, we have an interesting one coming up. We have matters surrounding possible code amendment to chapter 301-253, barbershop holds. This one's going to be tough. Howard? This is going to be a contentious one. All the difficulties that we address in code revision. Barbershop holds. This is going to be bad. Do you have a fresh haircut? I do. Okay, so that's why you want to do this. I do take this legislation personally. Yeah, I do. So, unfortunately, Andreas couldn't be here today. He's the one who brought this to our attention. Essentially, the way our code is drafted now as it pertains to prohibited signs. You couldn't permit a barbershop hold. Most of the barbershops in town already have these. So this proposed code amendment would simply legalize those. And they would still be subject to permitting requirements and everything. How would we do that? So people know there's a barbershop there? Yeah, and it's just sort of traditional. You didn't get my question. No, I love it. That's a no-brainer. Okay. Sorry, that's too easy. It's so prevalent, I had no idea they were not allowed. Yeah. It's just sort of an inconsistency that Andreas noticed in the code. And so this just carves out an exception for them. Okay. Great. A little bit of history, keeping it alive. Yeah. It's the traditional sign of a barber shop. Right. Makes sense to keep it. I like it. Yeah. As long as you're not asking for red lights to be approved for houses. No. Okay. We won't do that. I don't know. I'm not going to even ask. I'm going to ask you to stay up here because our next item. We're on to matters surrounding a possible extension of the Calverton Industrial Moratorium. We're at Mecklenburg. I just want to thank you for the work that you did on the Scott Avenue project. You know, all the planting stuff that you were recommending on the Scott Avenue. And Judith from the ARB. My God, she's great. Emory, do you want to come up here with us? Very contentious. Sorry. I know. She's here. Do we have Dawn? She was here. I wish I would have had you in here to support me during the whole barber shop talk. I have my own barber now. I'm so sorry. Okay. This discussion is going to be on the surrounding the possible extension of the Calverton Industrial Moratorium. We enacted a six-month moratorium right after the first of the year. It's due to expire, I believe. July 12th. July 12th. And so we want to have a conversation regarding the possible extension of said moratorium for possibly just three months. Just to ensure that we are beyond that late August point of the comprehensive plan. Correct. And I think that was the whole gist. Originally when we put up the moratorium was to let the comp plan be completed. And then we could go ahead. In talking to my cohorts up here, I think we have to look at this maybe. And my concern is after talking to fellow board members is that this was maybe we overreached our bounds a little bit in shutting everything down in that area. And our main focus really was warehouses. So I would suggest that we have to look at this. So I would suggest if possible if we could go for three months just on warehouses and take all the other items out that are in here. Because really we're just, we got the mad rush of all these warehouses coming in all of a sudden. So we said let's hit the brakes. Let's do a moratorium. Moratorium is a big word. It means a lot. And so we have to be careful with it. And I'm concerned about other projects coming in as much as I am the warehouses. So my suggestion would be if we could do this for a three month or two month, whatever we think it's going to be, time period just on warehouses itself to get the comprehensive plan completed and then move on from there. So I'm going to ask my board members what their thoughts are on this. Can we add logistics into that? Yes, sure. That's fine. Well, so. I mean, I think that's what we talked about. The sort of jam that we run into is that one, I mean, we don't necessarily have, there is no right now a definition of logistics in our town code. We have applications, so for example, the Calverton Industrial Subdivision, also known as the OSTAD subdivision, which is the 130 acres directly to the west of Splish Splash. That is a subdivision application. That is not a site plan application per se for a warehouse or a distribution center. It's an industrial subdivision application whereby we're reviewing the, you know, the potential impact of the site. And we're reviewing the potential impact from the subdivision and the potential build out. So there is no site plan application in that we could classify it as a warehouse application, et cetera. There are several other applications. There's a battery energy storage application that's on Edwards Avenue that is captured in the moratorium. There's an application to construct a dirt bike track on a 15-acre piece of property on River Road, which also proposes to excavate and sand mine about 120,000 cubic yards out of the Pine Barrens compatible growth area. That is a subdivision. That is captured in the moratorium. Again, whether or not they were explicitly stated, you know, the moratorium does specifically reference certain applications, you know, the Riverhead Logistics Center, the OSTAD subdivision, all of those other industrial developments proposing warehousing buildings or actual development. It did not specifically reference the dirt bike track with the sand mine. So there's clear exemptions that exist in the moratorium. So type 2 outcomes are exempt. Your wireless communication facilities are exempt. Site plan applications that have already received final approval from whoever is the approving authority are exempt from the moratorium. Lot line modifications and anything where a positive binding statement has been issued. So I'll agree with Greg that, well, yes, warehouses were the sort of the thing that pushed us over the edge to realizing this was we were having an issue in Calverton and drew attention to the comp plan and the changes that we're going to make in this area. But the changes in the code are what's important. And the changes in the comp plan is what are important. So I think that's a good point. And so we're talking about the recommendation is to combine zones in the comp plan and to create a new zone. And also to use TDRs in these areas. To utilize TDRs, we have to adopt the DGIS and have a binding statement and adopt the plan. We can't do that until the comp plan is completed. So the risk is and the purpose and the intent of this moratorium was to sort of give the town that cover knowing that there was going to be substantial changes to this area. Once this cover is gone, it's business as usual until we make the code changes. So what will happen is we'll have to review applications. And then once the code changes are made, we'll say, okay, applicant, now you have to go back to the drawing board and come in for how it conforms to the code now. So that's the intent. I mean, that was always the intent from the beginning to get us to the end of the comp plan. We're not there yet. We're very close. We're not asking for a year. We're not even asking for six months. I recommend six to begin with. And it is. The Suffolk County Planning Commission yesterday, they did discuss the comp plan update. They unanimously approved it. They were actually, it was the Suffolk County Planning Commission at that meeting yesterday, they were discussing a potential moratorium at South Holden. They actually said at that meeting, you know, they usually recommend six months at that time. So our moratorium was sort of a little bit different where they recommended the condition was three months. But obviously we have a super majority of the board. And we'll have six months which you can do. Well, from what I understand, when the resolution first passed, it was also contemplated that we would go for an extension if we needed to. Correct. Right in the legislation. So it's municipal whole rules. So you can always amend your code and you can extend to go beyond. I mean, it's right in there. It's 303.3. That's why, and we're so close with the comp plan. That's why I support the moratorium for just a couple more months. I don't take this matter lightly. I mean, property rights are very important. I mean, but we have a monumental task ahead of us in updating this code and, you know, making sure things are correct in college. I wouldn't want to do anything to hamper that process. You know, I understand people own property and they want it developed. I really do. But we as the town want to make sure we're getting the best for that area. Matt, you had mentioned two months. You know, it could take two months for the two, what, for the, just on this particular item, right, to do the code. You said maybe it's two months or maybe it's three months. We're going to prepare the final EIS. Yes. There's a comment period for that. Right. So we're going to adopt the finding statement. We're going to adopt the comprehensive plan with any potential amendments that the town board may wish to discuss. And after that, we start drafting the actual amendments to the zoning code. Okay. We put agritourism in the comp plan, but yet we're drafting the code right now. Why can't we start drafting the code? Well, agritourism was, resorts were mentioned in the 2003 comp plan. So this is not, that's not something that's just out of left field, like coming out of nowhere. That was mentioned in 2003. And our 80 is already a receiving area. Okay. So another question. Concerning the bike track, talked about sand mining. What are our fees right now? Because it's my understanding they're really low since you're. It's like $2. It's $2 a cubic. I mean, yeah, yeah, but I don't want to, I don't want, this is a discussion. I understand that, but I want to address that right after this. That's another project to undertake. Absolutely. And I don't want that to fall. Mike. I think that there was a more definitive timeframe as just. Three months. Another three months. But I understand that's what's written here. But spell out for me the day we adopt the comp plan. So we adopt. Calendar schedule. Yeah. And it's going to then take you how long to get the zoning in place and passed? I would say, I mean, obviously you have to have a public hearing. And it's going to, there would be a referral to the planning commission. I think it's always been the first order of business to tackle Calverton first. I'd be very comfortable with saying it's going to take a month. It's not going to take very long as long as we're efficient. I mean, I don't want to get us any time, an unreasonable timeline, but it's always been the first thing that we're going to address. But if there are comments at the public hearing. Correct. That require revision. So there's, you know, so we've extended some of the timeframes for comment in the comp plan, which is kind of pushed us out of the, what our original thought was on the timeframe. And then, then the potential for comments on the draft zoning, because it's, it's a controversial and, or not controversial as much as just an important issue to address. Yeah. Because so many of us have head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head the fastest if everything went perfect would be about a month but it could it could be 10. so legally can you rephrase this that the moratorium would take place for you want three months 90 days or until a comp plan and proper zoning is is implemented whichever is a shorter distance you can't you have to have a definitive end date yeah should it be completed in two months instead of three could we resolve absolutely yeah you can bring it you can bring it right in so i think dawn one of the most important things is really a commitment that the zoning impacted by this moratorium be the first zoning codes to roll out yeah that was always quite honestly we know we can quote start drafting that pretty soon yeah yeah we already know what the comp plan looks like yeah we've heard some comments back from the town board and residents so we we can work on that it's just implementation i mean i know it's important for this board to utilize tdrs in this area because that's how we're going to grab some and that's the part of the risk like we could have the code ready to go that we just wouldn't be able to utilize that until the compliance done correct no guarantee that it's going to be three months it could take four with public comments it could take five i mean that's with anything though no i understand but i just i want to get a sense the input they yeah they want to give and and so that's up to you guys but it gives you at least that opportunity to hear and i mean i just i would like to see some exemptions out of here that's what i'd like to see i mean this thing i was never in favor of blanketing industrial land since we get under three million dollars a year in taxes from industrial land but we're not going to get that money back we're going to get it back in the end versus 118 million dollars a year plus from residents so that's a huge imbalance so to to stop everything on industrial land over this i'm not in favor of at all i'm just going to tell you now i think it's you know and the time and i and this is you know i think you're doing a great job but i get really concerned none of us are in control of the timing we we could hope we could be optimistic that dean and i appreciate you guys for your time and i appreciate you guys for your full attention so head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head But to Dawn's point, we have to address public comments, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, that's going to happen no matter what. That's part of the process. This is not a permanent moratorium. I don't want to put it in the board's mind, the public's mind. There is no such thing as a permanent moratorium. The comp plan does not recommend rezoning Calverton, do-nothing zoning, agricultural zoning. There will be development that is realized out in Calverton. As it's been since the town adopted zoning, it's been an industrial zone. So I don't want to present the misconception that this is going to remain untouched forever. This is not presented in any way, shape, or form what you're saying now. What I'm saying is there are some people that have options on property right now that are sitting and waiting, okay? I want recommendations for what we can accept when you want to resubmit this to Suffolk County. I would say the recommendation would be to resubmit it to Suffolk County. I don't have to come from you. My recommendation is to leave. Give me the projects that are out there so that I can make those, you know. We can tell you whatever projects are in the area. That's fine. I think they'll have to come from the board for whatever they want specifically. But I will say this, Councilman. If we have recommendations that the board's largely comfortable with for this area and we know we're going to make this change, what is the purpose of reviewing applications under the current code and marching? It becomes a vesting issue, which is fine if they're going to have to change anyway. Right. I'm concerned. Again, I'm concerned with the timing. Again, I'm concerned with the people that are ready to activate on industrial land. You know, I've got to respect that. But do they have a pending site plan or application? Yeah, well, which ones do? Yeah. But are they those who have been addressed? Those who have been addressed. Especially getting building permits and meeting the definition of vested. I don't think any of them are. You're going like just a feedback loop. It's just a scenario. Boy, if I can't like, you know. Let's say somebody, you know, it ends on whatever, July 17th or so, right? Yeah. So, and somebody comes in with a large magnitude warehouse project and puts it on your desk and says, here, I'm filing today. Right? You're required to begin to review it. Correct. How long does it take you to review that? I'm just getting hypothetically that you could then turn around and go through the proper steps before you issue a building permit? It's just, I mean. It's not a positive? I mean, it could be a significant amount of time, but like a. I'm just, I mean, hypothetically. But you're wasting people's time and money. But that's where I'm going with this. You're wasting time and money because you're going to be reviewing under the current provisions. That's where I'm going with it. Like if you're telling me that it's going to take two or three months or something to process a large scale facility through your office, I don't know how long it takes. And then during that time, we're going to hit the reset button because we did it all. That's what I'm trying to figure out. So like hypothetically, it's not like somebody dropped something off and then, you know, they caught a break of a two-week window where now they get all their permits No, but we do have existing. And they're in a building and then. Yeah. I will say we have existing applications that are obviously closer because they're existing and they've just been on pause since this started. So that's all the risk that's involved. But even like others that are currently under the moratorium are still processing their secret. Correct. Outside of here because they're not stopped from doing that. So those projects have been ticking along. Getting things done. It's our review that's stopped. It's our review that's stopped. So I think that's important for you to remember too because the vesting situation is sort of a moving target legally. That's my point. Is there any legal mechanism, Eric, so that the people with applications, that, you know, a legal mechanism that they will follow whatever the comp plan comes up with? Well, I mean, they're going to have to once we change the code. Once we change the code. So either in the project. Bob's asking. Yes. Pre, pre, pre adoption. We don't know what the code is. No, legal mechanism. I'm asking Eric from a legal standpoint and I'm asking you, Anne Marie. Right. You can't really because until you adopt the updated comp plan, the final environmental impact statement, we, you know, the team doesn't know what that final document's going to look like. We can't anticipate the changes. We have so many other things to do. [transcription gap] We have so many other things to do. somewhat of a framework what it's going to look like. But our final version can't be until the day both those documents are approved by this town board. Whereas a simple three-month moratorium addresses all that. That could go on from our hearing, it could go on for four or five months. We haven't said a three. The moratorium itself, but with public comments. But what you're talking about are the changes to the zoning that come after the comp plan is completed. Combination. There's a couple of things. So we don't know that those two tracks are going to intersect at just the same time. This is our best possible estimate. Right. This is planning's estimate based on the progress of the comp plan and how long they're estimating it will take to accomplish the zoning changes. But if I'm a developer, and the comp plan is completed, and the comp plan's been adopted, but the zoning is not in place yet, I know exactly what's probably going to come down the pike. And I can anticipate that. So engineering-wise, I'm not going to fully engineer my plan knowing I'm going to meet certain hurdles that are set forth in the comp plan. I get that. I think what it comes down to is we're so close to the end of the wire. Correct. Why are you going to pull the plug now? Just let the comp plan finish through. Well, this is just for a public hearing. Right? Right. This is just for a public hearing. Can you send the board a list of applications that are not warehouses? I mean, we'll send you everything that's captured. I think that's the first thing. Okay. Can you do that so that we at least have a chance to look at that? I think I probably already have that generated. I think playing both sides, if I'm, I think, and what I think Ms. Prudente was saying, as a developer, like if I'm going to invest in a project, I'd really rather not start writing checks to my architect, my engineering staff, and my legal staff to start filing papers, or to begin the whole process, that knowing I'm probably wasting a lot of money, because I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board in the beginning. And that might, you might be doing, as odd as it or moratorium ever sounds, a favor to a developer going, just hang on a little bit longer. This might actually save you a lot of money. You don't have to redo things. That's just my initial. That's a good point. Because that's a valid point. That's a valid point. And I think what my concern would be is that the moratorium is allowed to lapse, and then we start getting applications in, and then two or three months later, you all are adopting zoning code changes, and now you have these, this series of applications that were filed. I think, I mean, from my analysis, that only increases the chance of litigation if you then subsequently, Correct. Try to change it. change it. No, that way, they rely on the architect's team. Right. Now, whether they'd have any merit to those lawsuits is a completely separate analysis. But it would just increase the risk of, you know, basically having to deal with those types of lawsuits and claims. And I will say publicly, is it my intention to support any of the zoning changes based on what's adopted in the comprehensive plan and the GEIS basically stating that I'm not going to, after that, you know, refrain from any zoning changes because there are potentially projects. So I'm making it public stated now that, you know, that I intend to go with the recommendations of the comp plan and the new zoning. So that should be in consideration if somebody's trying to have some type of foresight. Do I submit something right now? If it doesn't, what do I not? You know? It's a risk. No, I mean, I mean, and the risk is the current applications as well. I mean, that's something the board should be aware of. I mean, if I, I mean, I'm not going to assume I'm the developer, but I'm going to want to get my project as close to approval as possible until that code changes. Do we have support to go to a public and post? Yes. Yes. I'm never going to tell public that they can't speak. Yeah. So, I mean, we are on, so part of the urgency of this was because we were on a timeline with the town board's calendar. So that was the intent of trying to get this on, at least for a publishing post as quickly as we could. If we do it at the next meeting, it's going to push us out. There may be a slight lapse is what it may run into. Unless they, unless adoption happens. I mean, potentially you could do, you have a public hearing and adopt, sorry. Yeah, a public hearing and adopt at the same day. No, because we'd have to refer to the planning commission before the adoption. So, again, we sort of anticipated this. We were looking, realizing that the moratorium is expiring. Again, we were like almost six weeks out when we started sort of, you know, when I spoke to the supervisor's office, sort of planted and see that, hey, we're going to need to discuss this. Again, just based on the town board meeting timing, the meeting of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, the necessary timeframes for publishing post, having the public hearing, doing the referrals and getting it adopted. We wanted to ensure that there wouldn't be a lapse. A lapse, that's why it was somewhat . I mean, possibility of a special, I'll leave it to the town attorney's office and how we want to handle it so there is no lapse. But we can discuss that. But just I think that we'll have to get here our next evening for public hearing is not until August. August. August 20th. Correct. So that was the intent. So, you know, with that in mind, I don't know how that fits into your time. That's, you want to have a public hearing, you're looking at August 20th. That's if the board wanted to hold it at an evening meeting. I mean, I will just say, you know, pretty bluntly, I mean, this is an extension of the moratorium. This is not, you know, without any changes, you know, this is not a. I would imagine that Talbuck would support this being that they were very vocal about the adoption of the initial moratorium. It would be different if we were just repealing the moratorium right now. Or adding something new. Yeah. I mean, this is, I can't imagine that this would be a controversial extension to support the goals and intent of the original moratorium. You can schedule the public hearing for any time you like as long as you're giving the five days notice. So it's got to go in the paper and then five days later you can have the public hearing. Does the public hearing have to be at a town board meeting? No, not necessarily. You could have a special. You could have a special. There we go. All right. I appreciate the conversation on this. Thank you very much. You're welcome. That's what we're here for. All right. Thank you. All right. That ends our open session today. In a moment I'm going to ask to close the open session and go into executive session to discuss matters, personnel matters surrounding results of a personal intervention. And I'm going to ask you to close the open session and go into executive session to discuss matters, personnel matters surrounding results of a personal intervention. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask you to close the open session and go into executive session to discuss matters surrounding results of a personal investigation. It's Striplin, Tio, and Coyne. Matters surrounding possible hiring of an employee, Hubbard. And contractual matters, matters surrounding possible agreement with the Riverhead Central School District, Howard and Hagemiller. Matters surrounding possible contractual agreement with BFJ, Thomas, Rothara, Diopola, Bergman, and Charters. Matters surrounding possible contractual agreement with Riverhead Water District, Rothwell, Mancini, Thomas, and Charters. Matters surrounding possible contractual agreement with D'Almas, Pedante. Matters surrounding contractual agreement with an employee, Pedante. Matters surrounding terms of a PSA with municipal valuation services, Tannenberg, Lipinski, Brown,

Second. session will take place upstairs in the conference room.

Thank you.