Full Transcript
Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you, Matt. Okay, I have a couple quick notes to go through here. On a sad note, the town of Riverhead lost a couple of patriarchs, matriarchs, I'm sorry, in the town. Pat Stark, who's the former wife of the wife of former town supervisor Jim Stark, her work in town, her charitable work that she did her whole life and the love for her town will certainly be missed. So our thoughts and prayers to her family. And Shirley Simon Smith also passed away. And she was another very charitable person, very active in the community. And these are people that really helped mold Riverhead into the place we are today. And we're going to miss them. And our thoughts and prayers to all their families. On a less depressing note, we have one well in the water district that the actual head fell off 700 feet deep in the ground. And our incredible water department staff is actually trying to retrieve this. And we're going to have to get it back up. So that means we're down one well, which is a kind of big to-do. So what we're asking, just voluntarily, for people to consider odd and even water days for water conservation. It will help take some of the pressure off the well that is down until we get it back up running again. So just voluntarily, if you could, odd and even, if your house number is an even number, you water on even days. And if it's an odd number, you water on the odd days. And again, voluntary, it's not mandatory, but we're just asking for a little assistance here because the weather has been quite warm and the water usage has been quite high. So until we get some rain to cool things off a little bit with the water district, just lay off everyday watering and maybe consider odd even. Okay? Alright, let's get... Oh, go ahead, Bob. Yeah. So just one note on Shirley Simon. What? Simon? Shirley Simon Smith. Shirley Smith. Shirley Smith. Ms. Simon. Okay. She's an original Griffin. She grew up in the Griffin house that was built on this property. That's it. Okay. Okay.
Yeah. Unless you live in a cave without electricity, last Friday we received such tremendous news of receiving a $24.12 million grant to help with the downtown revitalization. This was from at the federal level through the Department of Transportation and the work that Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand and Congressman Lelota put in to support this bill and it passed and it included our $24 million. It's incredible. It's incredible to the downtown and our CBA worked their... worked themselves to their bones to get this done. It's been five years in the making and it finally happened and it's going to help us tremendously. With the parking garage, it's going to help us with flood mitigation on the back river and it's also going to help with streetscaping to all... which is all part of the plan of the revitalization of downtown. So congratulations to the CDA and we are ecstatic about that. So all right. Moving on to open session. We have matters surrounding possible establishment of emerging technology committee. And this is very interesting. And Bob Kern, would you take the lead for that? Sure. I'm going to ask Carl Mills, Amy Angle, Jeff Seaman, Frank Manciti, Danielle and Greg Bergman to come up. Is Greg here? Oh yeah, there he is. And I know Carl, you're on a tight schedule so, you know, you can speak first. Is this considered the smartest group of individuals in the town with the technology? So do they fix our phones before they go? I am definitely a little worried. So Carl Mills is representing Stony Brook University. Amy Angle is representing Brookhaven National Labs. Augie, who couldn't be here, is representing Cornell at Crawford Extension and University. Jeff Seaman, who does our secret work and our environmental guy. And Frank Mancini, who used to work at Brookhaven National Lab and Greg Bergman, which I think is very, very, very important. So thank you. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you so much. I just want to clear up just so you guys can head over to américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. américan. [transcription gap] américan. [transcription gap] américan. [transcription gap] assistant vice president for government relations. I handle state and local government affairs for the university, both of our campuses on Southampton and our entire medical system. So spent a lot of time here on the East End. I'm very appreciative to be here. Just a few of the initiatives I know that we're working. Oh, we also co-manage the Brookhaven National Lab. So we have a significant oversight and input with what goes on at BNL. We have a number of joint faculty that are both at Starnbrook and at BNL and really work in partnership on a lot of those. But just some of the things that come top of mind. We're currently building a quantum internet testbed, which would be the largest internet, quantum internet testbed in the United States, housed at Starnbrook University in partnership with BNL. Go from New York City all the way out to Riverhead. We got grants from the federal and state government to help support that, the Governor's Long Island Investment Fund. We have the New York Climate Exchange, which is a, a massive project that we, as the lead applicant, and BNL was obviously involved as well, but a number of international companies, universities, really to deal with mitigating climate change on Governor's Island in New York City. But that applies across our enterprise. So coastal resiliency, workforce development, pretty much anything, climate jobs related is something that we're working on. We're also doing energy and battery storage, which is at our Air Tech and SeaWit facilities, which is our advanced energy centers on the university side. And really, if there's an area of interest that the committee has, it's likely that Stony Brook is involved in some way. But those are kind of just top of mind of some of the things that we're working on. Thank you, Tom. Amy? What he said. No, you're not. I'm Amy Engle. I'm the manager of community and environmental engagement from Brookhaven National Lab. As Carl said, we are working on a lot of things together. And I was gonna mention the climate exchange and quantum network, because those are relevant to this committee. We also, we do a lot with not just quantum, we have our computer science initiative. We do a lot with artificial intelligence, machine learning. We have our interdisciplinary science research that we are researching on batteries, battery storage, how to make them safer, more stable, longer lasting, smaller, bigger, whatever we need. So we have that expertise. We have our national synchrotron light source. So that provides a lot of other research into all different things. Even though it's not particularly relevant for this committee, the light source is the facility that was used by Pfizer and Moderna when they were developing the COVID vaccine. So there's a ton of potential at the light source for whatever research is needed. And I can tap those scientists if we need presentations. We have our Center for Functional Nanomaterials, our relativistic heavy ion collider, and we have the scientists associated with those. And we, I don't know if you know, but we've been tapped by the federal government to develop an electron ion collider, which is, you know, on the way and passing all of its hurdles. With regard to sustainability, we do a lot with sustainability, you know, carbon reduction. We're very cognizant of what we can do to reduce our carbon footprint. And we have expertise in those areas as well. So as Carl said, if we need a scientist or expertise, I can certainly tap somebody at the lab to come. And if I'm not the right person, I could get you the right person. So thank you for having me. When they split the atom, that was splitted. Not twice, but yes. So now they want to collide more things. So big on colliders there. The amazing world. So. Thank you. Thank you very much. Jeff, do you want to? Yeah, I'm Jeff Seaman. I've done a lot of environmental consulting here in Riverhead, looked at a variety of projects throughout the town. Perhaps my selection on the committee is to lower the bar for the brain trust. Not in the category of my colleagues over here. But I'm more than happy to take a look at sort of the broad-based environmental implications of new technologies, what that might mean for sustainability in order to seek that balance that we all look for, for both economic purposes, technology-driven job opportunities, as well as how that's going to fit in with the complexities that we all deal with here in Riverhead with the rather multiple of communities that are going to interact environmentally. Farmland preservation, open space, et cetera. Thanks, Jeff. Hi, I'm Frank. I run the Water District. And like you said, prior to this, I worked at Brookhaven Lab. And I just learned what an incredible facility it was and what they've done to move humanity forward now and what they're doing now. I got to Riverhead. I didn't. We didn't have a great relationship, so we've done anything we can to cultivate that relationship because it seemed obvious to me that we have this incredible facility right next door that's looking to develop the latest technology and commercialize it. And here in Riverhead, we have a lot of land we can develop and available land, so it seemed like a good, like synergistic relationship. So we want to land those technologies within the town of Riverhead and develop them so that the whole world will benefit from it. Thank you, Frank. And I'd just like to say, this is Bob. This is Bob Kern. Bob Kern is our local expert on technology and energy worldwide because it's not a day you don't come in that Bob doesn't have another story to tell you about what they're doing in Japan or in Europe or somewhere else. And he's on top of his game. He's a very well-read person, and we appreciate the information. I think this is a great idea, Bob. I'm really excited for this. Yeah. I'm really excited. I know when I first went to the lab maybe, I don't know, maybe as long as eight years ago, Yeah. and companies like Siemens were in their GE and they were using the light source of what they were doing because it does 3D living x-rays. Yep. Right? So they were experimenting with batteries at that time. They would fully charge them, x-ray them until they died, and then adjust them to get longer life out of them, blah, blah, blah. And Danielle, I want to thank you for everything you've done. And I'll just say, there's one company I'm not going to name them that's in Riverhead. They have, I think, four people, no, about six people under 30 years old. They all started in the six figures. It's a technology company. And what I'm hoping the message that gets sent down is that Riverhead is open to, you know, exploring new technology, given the fact that we do have, and Craig, you would know, you know, several acres of industrial land. Yeah. [transcription gap] Yeah. this I'm excited that you all are here and showing up and thank you very much and I don't know if the board has any questions we're just very interested to see how this is going to pan out and I had a meeting yesterday with a group that we've put together called the citizens cooperative development team and we're working on ideas for epcal and very in the very early stages and we're not quite ready for primetime but we're not too far away from primetime with it also and we definitely wanted to incorporate you into that committee at some point in time as a subcommittee of this committee because we know the importance of that property and how technology and an environment is important up there so we think it would be a great mix to have these experts involved and that's where I learned about a parallelization actually parallelizer you know and then engage oh yeah that was another one of your words that nobody ever heard of the guy named Trey who came down and made a presentation to the planning department and he's working with NYSERDA and we have you know there's so many smart people out there I feel like I'm as dumb as a stump but I'll tell you what I'm a sponge so I like to learn and you know I really again appreciate everybody being here thank you thank you great group yeah absolutely thank you Bob told you gonna be three times a week
thank you thank you so much appreciate this and supervisor it's worldwide and beyond yeah yeah oh no oh yes you're right okay next up we have our consultants from BFJ with matters surrounding comprehensive plan update and it'll be a great discussion and I'll see you next time. so next up next up next up next up next up next up next up next up next up next up next up next up next next and Matt Charters and Heather Trojanowski. And I think BFJ, if I'm not mistaken, is going to be online. Yeah, Noah should be on BFJ. Perfect.
There's Noah. Good morning, Noah. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for accommodating me virtually. Can we raise the volume on Noah, please? Noah, is your volume up all the way on your... Testing, testing. Can you hear me? No, they've got to increase the volume for us. Okay.
Try it now, Noah. Testing, testing. Can you hear me? That's better. That's better, Noah. Okay.
Okay. How do we want to do this in presentation film? Do we want to go through it page by page, or do we want to discuss... Do we want to go through the board members? Do they have specific questions? Do we want to do page by page first, and then... I think that might be a good idea. And then if the board members have... Okay.
How's that sound for you, Noah? That sounds good. I'll follow along as best I can. Okay. All right. Noah, don't move the mic away from your mouth when you talk. Okay. So when you say you're not going to read it all, you're just going to... No, we'll just go through the page and just acknowledge. Right. Right. A lot of them are just really quick run-throughs. And I'll reference the page of the comp plan draft. So the first sheet in our packet starts on page 19. There's a note there regarding Northville. Again, one of the comments we received during the review period was basically an acknowledgement of the URT terminals that are there. They are a prominent feature, obviously, when driving down Sound Avenue up on Soundshore Road. So just an acknowledgement in the plan that the terminals do exist. And a pre-existing non-conforming. And a pre-existing non-conforming. Again, there were comments that looked for analysis of future build-out. And there's no applications for it right now. We're not looking at analyzing build-out or future expansions of URT. It's really just an acknowledgement that they are there, pre-existing non-conforming. As we move on, next page is number 28. So this is a comment that really will sort of echo several times throughout the book. The draft chapters here are referencing the 500-unit cap, analyzing whether to lift the cap, how to address the cap. There's a number of comments going forward about how it's worded, relating to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy versus building permits. So I think this would be a worthy kind of stopping point to sort of get the board's opinion and have a discussion on that 500-unit cap because I said it does come up several times. I would say the language, just say to evaluate, too, doesn't tell you when to do it. It's pretty open-ended. I don't think it's a bad recommendation to look at it. It's not saying lift it. It's not saying keep it. It's not saying make it more restrictive. I think we could probably clarify and bolster the language because a lot of people seem to think that we were going to look at lifting the cap and that wasn't the intent of that. No, I think the intent, at least from my perspective, was we let the 500 build-out occur. Yep. And then we reevaluate after that because 500 may be it. Yeah. Or maybe it won't be. But to limit it one way or the other right now I think is premature. And I think if we let the 500 happen and then we take a look at it, we have a better idea of how the 500 actually impacted everything downtown and whether or not we need more or whether we're just fine where we're at. So with the current projects, though, aren't we currently over 500? Yeah, we're probably in the neighborhood of, if everything right now gets approved, we're probably in the neighborhood of like 520 to 530 in the DC-1. Right. And unfortunately, yeah, it's a consequence just of how it's written. It's on the 500 issue, the 500 to CL, correct? Yeah. The CL, yeah, which I still don't understand that to this day. That's crazy. So I have a question. I mean, one of the things that concerns me is the fact that the over 500 that we have, there are projects that are included in that that are five years old that haven't even started. At what point do we say, look, you're either going to start or not because it's just, it's vapor. I mean, we do have a provision in our code, Bob, that will start at the end of the year. It speaks to abandonment of applications. I believe it's after a year if we have no correspondence or anything. If there's no action taken on an application, we can send a letter to an applicant informing them that basically you have 30 days to follow up or take action or we can deem an application withdrawn or incomplete or it's a dead-end case. Okay. So the second piece of this is I know during talks with BFJ over the course of the last year, we did talk about, when we talk about the cap, that's rentals. We did talk about condos that could go over that 500 because that would be home ownership. Is it specifically for rentals? So the way the code, it speaks to apartments on upper floors. It doesn't speak to apartments. Now, when you get to the differentiation of like apartments, condos, I mean, they're residential units. It just, you know, when you talk about home ownership, doesn't necessarily impact, it doesn't necessarily change impacts of a residential unit. So it's, I don't want to say it's just semantics, but whether someone's renting something or owning something doesn't necessarily change the fact that it is a dwelling unit, there will be residents and all of the sort of impacts that come along with a residential development. And I appreciate that, but I think part of the thinking in the conversations was the fact that it's a lot less expensive to gain equity by buying a condo, right, than it is renting and having no equity. So, and I know that that's what was part of the conversation. So I would like to continue that part of the conversation. Because I, you know, again, we need places where, if it's a studio condo and it's going to cost 200,000, fantastic, as opposed to a home, and, you know, I think we were looking the other day at the cost of condos in general at 1400 square feet. We're close to what, close to 600. Five or 600,000. Yeah. So, and we're not giving hospital workers, teachers, police the opportunity to gain equity. That's my concern. I don't think the condo should be considered within that 500 count, you know, like you say. It is definitely a major stepping stone. And for most people today, I look at my kids growing up, I mean, that is the stepping stone to future home ownership. Absolutely. You get nothing back with your rent debt or rent debt. I agree with that. I don't think that the condo should be considered in the 500 unit cap. All right. So I just want to add also, I just wanted to ask, basically ask a question. On the existing buildings, the historic buildings, there's also apartments that are in the comp plan they're talking about adding. Are they part of that 500 unit cap? That's something we offered, I think, in here to consider. Right. Yeah, like an adaptor. An existing building, you know, like a couple of two store. That would not be considered 500. So again, this all, it's really just relating to that 500 unit. And again, you know, to the supervisor's point. You just speak a lot closer. To the supervisor's point about, you know, sort of getting to that mark, that 500 unit cap, that 500 unit, again, whether it's rentals, whether it's ownership units, getting to that sort of already pre-established mark and seeing if that sort of revitalization and the economic development comes in behind it. As I understand it, that's, you know, the driver and that's the goal that we want to see is that. The thought is you're going to have people living downtown. You'll have foot traffic. And behind that, you will get like a wave of, you know, we'll get good restaurants, good uses downtown. Again, whether they're ownership units or rentals, I don't think. I don't think necessarily it's a differentiated ownership. It does not change the goals of what we see in the town. I don't want to conjoin the two because there's a very distinct difference between renting and ownership. And not giving people the ability to get equity, I think is a mistake, number one. Number two, can you tell me out of the 527 that are proposed, how many are there right now? I don't have the numbers. Well, we got 116. We got 116 in Riverview Lofts. We have what, 40? 36 in 331 East Main Street. 45 at Pecana Crossing. Okay. I believe we've got. There's a chart in the plan about it. Yeah, there's a chart, correct? Yes. My point is it's under three, it's probably under 300. And this is where I get concerned about we have this cap that could go, never be, may not be filled for three, four, five years. You know, at the way these projects are going. And I'm, again, I don't consider a condo a unit. I'd like to differentiate between home ownership and rent. Okay. So for constructed at Summerwind, we have 52. Woolworth, there's 19. Pecana Crossing, there's 45. Riverview Lofts, which Greg mentioned before, is 116. And then at 331, there are 36. So what is that approximately? I didn't head them off. Okay. You want me to, give me the numbers. No. I think a general concept that also, the fear of the overabundance of apartments downtown was that we don't have, currently, as of right now, we speak, we don't have the necessary infrastructure, you know, meaning the parking ability. But granted, we've just received a $24 million grant. When we put a parking garage into place and we upgrade things downstairs, you know, downtown, we're building infrastructure that's probably needed to support, you know, these apartments and condominium units. I'm not a proponent of more apartments, apartments, rentals, rentals. But I do support the whole idea of having condominiums down there. I think it is a great step. You know, it's the beginning of ownership. It is ownership. And downsizing. What's that? Downsizing. It works in both directions. I would just, you know, caution yourself. I would just, you know, caution yourself. I would just, you know, caution yourself. Question the board to be aware in terms of fair housing. It's it's difficult to say what kind of housing in the ownership You can't really dictate unless it's an incentive basis Very it's very very tricky to whether you can say it has to be ownership or has to be a rental Right if we need if somebody if if some if somebody my point is this if somebody comes in and wants to build condos What's the problem with that? They want to build a building? I just don't know that it can you can require that it has to be we can't but we strongly encourage the developers coming in Conversations I know the CDA has absolutely and we do too when they're planning for submission meetings We want we want home ownership and be a strong requirement a strong recommendation, right? Are there incentives? So that's what's considered in the plan whether you know, we were considering things for ownership purposes. That's later on Yeah, I want them considered up front You know because again the fact is when you look at the you know, yes this proposed 500 and something It's under 300 right now. It's it's been under 300 for Years and I don't want to sit here five years from now or six years from now and find out we haven't even reached this Unit cap and I would like units You know, I would like rentals separated from condos when we talk about units for inclusion within the cap Not for inclusion No, I want They can exceed the cap condos because tonight can jump in differences home ownership versus Rental units. Go ahead I just wanted to clarify just the way that the plan is written. Now. I think Bob is Speaking to what you're you know, I think it's consistent with what you're saying we have Essentially two recommendations. One recommendation is to look at Potentially allowing for Properties to exceed the cap for home ownership alone Granted, you know, that's something that I think the town still needs to you know Look at the nuances. There are a lot of nuances of how that would be done So that's one recommendation. And another recommendation is aside from that For all developments once this 500 unit kind of wave finishes to re-evaluate the 500 unit cap generally speaking for all residential to see what the appropriate number is or if you don't need a number just you know and or whether you know maybe you don't want to change it but it should be re-evaluated at that time and and I think that's the language that we have in the document now yeah I guess no what I'm really concerned about is that re-evaluating it after it's full does no good for homeownership period and and correct me if I'm wrong it just doesn't I mean we've been sitting here for five years with this this like ghost number of 537 of which there's less than 300 right yeah I mean that's good it's a good question that's the decision for the town board to make you know one you want to reevaluate it we just right now that's certainly that's certainly something that we could change but something that we heard from the you know public comments there was something about you know so clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear did here reticence from the community and so it really is a town board decision ultimately on on you know how we phrase it in the document I don't think it's um you know it the change itself it's not you know it really is a late a future action so it's just kind of a recommendation for the policy you know for the town port to consider I don't think it's dramatically substantive so it really is for you to decide I think that legal has to look at it to to see to your point of whether you're allowed to say we want this to be a condo or or not was that was my point you can make the record we can make us recommendation that that's what we want it just can't be required okay and I would add but this the language that we're talking about here is when we want to evaluate it which I think this the supervisors point was once it's built up you prior to build out or just the way it is prior to build out because it's a future action so that's that's the point of this recommendation yeah I don't want to wait you know we're good at waiting years and years and years and getting nowhere do you want Bob would you think about on a yearly basis review it oh I want the whole thing reviewed on a yearly basis because you know to sit on something that's gonna last 20 years look what it's done you know it's just to me is from town boards that didn't look at zoning constantly and say we need to make a change now you know that's how do we do best with recommendations I I firmly believe that that the town of Riverhead has done more than its share of affordable housing on the east end of Long Island. You would be correct. And I would really like to, how do we encourage more when these apartments come in, that they aren't back market rate homes. Because that's what's needed. We need people with the ability to spend money downtown, to visit those restaurants, to go to those stores and those shops, and to spend money downtown. Yeah, again, it's going to be a recommendation, but that's the, I don't know that you could require it. I think the numbers to get us up to the 500 now are all our market rate apartments. Yes. So if you know that you're not... I just don't know if there's something we can do to, I understand you're just saying right now, how do we hold firm to that, that all of a sudden that a developer doesn't come in and go, well, it's easy just to sign off on other homes. And to Ken's point, he's absolutely correct, because if the market changes and a developer has built a five-story building, and they're going to say, look, it's going to sit vacant here and I'm going to use it as a tax write-off, or I'm going to have to pay for it. I'm going to drop the rent. So that can definitely possibly happen. We were in a meeting with another developer, and there's something that I'd like you guys to look into, where they're doing something in Colorado where when you rent, you're actually getting equity. Like a rent to own? Rent to own. Yeah. Well, it's not a rent to own per se, and I'm not, that could be. You look into that model. But no. What they're doing is they're renting a home. Yeah. And they're renting apartments, and they're giving equity. So if you're there for five years, at the end of that five years, you're getting equity. I don't know that percentage, but it does two things. One is it gives you equity. Two, it makes you take care of the apartment so you get your full equity. Talk to Dawn about that. Yeah. Can you send me whatever it is? I'd be curious to read it. Typically when someone's renting, if they pay security, doesn't it go into an escrow account that- It's more than that. I was thinking like your deposit back, right? Yeah. Interesting. That's a reason for people to pay for it. That's a reason for people to take care of property. That's right. This program Bob's talking about, I believe I read about it, and it is, you do get some of that money back when you decide to leave that rental. Some of your rent actually is going towards equity. It's almost like a savings account for you to help you to be able to save money while renting and then be able to hopefully use a down payment out of that at some point in time. Yeah. I'd like to explore all options available to anybody that must reside here. And I think that's a good point. Yeah. Can I just add one other point? I know it's going ahead, but it's still back on this 500 unit cap. And it was something Bob mentioned about if they say their market rate and then they can't sell them and then they reduce it. I'm going way ahead, but where the hospital is looking to put their own apartment buildings, I don't think we should allow them to do that on that property. Those professionals should be going to the market rate apartments here in downtown that we're building. That's why we wanted them built. We wanted market rate for young professionals to come. Yeah. And then we want them to buy into these. That's exactly the kind of resident we want to go into downtown. I don't think that we should give them their own campus with their own community of shopping and such. I know this is why we wanted these apartments down here in downtown. So I'm just moving ahead. That's fine. Just a metaphor. But I'm asking in terms of that 500 unit cap and that their market rate, I just wanted those two things to come together in downtown. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not against the hospital being it. I'm just saying that it's a good thing. I didn't have a full 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 afford a market rate apartment. But if they do a lower rate rental or residence for their workers, some of their lower paid workers would have a place to stay. Your more professional, you know, certified doctors, nurses, PAs, whatever, obviously make a good bit more money and they could maybe afford the market rate where not all the workers in the hospital make that big salary. So that means you put a cap on, on the financial cap? Yes. Income, which one can live on the hospital grounds? I agree, because I don't think that the comp plan says that. I don't think we can do that, but that's something we can have in a discussion with the hospital about what they're looking to do. Because I think in the comp plan, they're referring to the young professionals using that campus. So I would agree with Bob and Ken that no, we put a financial cap if you're going to allow apartments over there, but they have to be a certain lower income to utilize them. Got it. Okay. Got anything else exciting, guys? No. Not on that page. So just to be clear, for the 500 unit cap, it sounded like the big change was to, instead of say that it should be evaluated, you know, once projects are done, it should be evaluated annually. Yes. I would agree. Evaluate? I missed a line. Annually? Annually evaluated. Oh, yeah. And even every six months. I mean, the market keeps changing with interest rates. You want to do it daily? No, I mean, you know. Projects are changing. Projects are changing. Projects take time to build out. Correct. And you will have plenty of warning, I think, on that. All right. Yearly. Plenty good. Okay. Yeah. Moving on to the next comment, there were a couple of notes on page 33. This has to do with residential population projections. There were two notes in here that they can update it to make it consistent with the DGEIS on both of those. So I think that's something that BFJ will take care of, making those two numbers consistent. Okay. américans. américans. américans. [transcription gap] that we know are out there illegally, if you will. There's no way we can control it. And it becomes a quality of life issue. You have a lot of people that have lived long term up on the bluffs and Wading River and so forth, and then when an Airbnb comes in next door and it's Friday night, Saturday night, summer parties and so forth, it becomes a quality of life with parking, noise, music. Not just quality of life, but it also, when you look at Riverhead, try going on Zillow and looking for a house in Riverhead, prices are all over, as it is all over Long Island. When you start opening these things up to Airbnbs, they sort of become a commercialized value, where it's no longer a family buying that as a single family residence. You get people who are purchasing these properties. And purchasing them more for the listing price. At a commercial value, which the young people can't afford it, and they're paying above market rate for the house. And we do have hotels. For the record, I'm opposed to Airbnb. So I think we're just looking to omit the last sentence in that third paragraph. I mean, everything else before that is basically saying that the Airbnbs are sort of a strain on the housing stock in Riverhead. So I think it's important to say that, but we can get rid of that last sentence. I think so. I'm going to continue looking at two-week rentals as the minimum. For me, anyway. Okay. Because there are people that rent weekly.
Going on to the next page, 44. Again, references to short-term rentals. So I think we've... We can clean that up. Moving on, page 46. Again, this touches on the 500-unit cap. Obviously, you'll see these things pop up. So we want to... Look at the cap on an annual basis, reassess. Yeah. So this one references once development of the pipeline is complete, and we can make reference to the annual look. So just from you guys, from the planning staff, what's your take on the fact that we've had several projects now that the applications were put in probably three, maybe even four years ago, that are included in that cap? At what point? And is it like, hey, guys, put a shovel in the ground, or we're moving to the next developer who's ready to go? Or better yet, do we change the wording that it's not the first 500 to get a CO? Because to me, that just makes no sense. It doesn't work. Because then you almost have a rush to get all these applications in, even if it's a fine-in-the-sky application that no one's ever going to build with the intent that they're going to achieve that CO, but it counts towards our total. Right. We can consider it. Yeah, definitely. That's a really good point. That should be looked at. Building permit makes a little bit more sense, I would say. Yes, correct. Or site plan approval. Yes. Either one. Even, I mean, building permit, because there's applications. For example, I think the Zenith building on McDermott was approved, I want to say, like in the late 2000s. Again, they got final site plan approval, never drew a building permit. But building permits can be renewed every year, and there's no expiration. Exploration or limit. Yeah, there's no limit on the number of times you can renew a building permit. Yeah. I just think when someone pulls a building permit and they've paid that $100,000, whatever the building permit fee is, I think it kind of lends more degree that they're actually going to construct it rather than getting an approval and just letting it expire. Getting an approval to maybe drive up the price and then sell the property to somebody else. Well, that's my thing. Do you hold it? Do you keep renewing year after year, right, knowing that the price is going up so it really becomes an issue? To sell to the developer. Yeah. And then the developer has to pay the price of investment. Yeah. And not the idea to actually build, you know. So I think it sort of just echoes back to we need to address how that is worded in the code. And I think that the plan can make recommendations. And again, we can discuss and come to an answer as to how we want to word it. Okay. I mean, it could possibly be, or maybe it couldn't, but I'll throw it out there. If we use the state definition for being vested in a project, that could be a limit or it could be a limit. But I think that's a timeline that we could use to make that determination. Okay. Because once it's vested, then it's there. That would give them maybe the shot at still being under the 500. If your project's not vested, you know, and the 500 come up, sorry, we're there. Okay. My only concern with vested is that people have, there might be a state definition, but people might have different interpretations. And there have been legal challenges about who's vested and when, whether it's a state or a state-owned company. Whether it's, you know, does it mean, you know, shovel on the ground, or does it mean, you know, applications and investment in lawyers and so on. There could be a gray area. Put the mic, you moved the mic away from your mouth. Put the microphone in your mouth. No. I'm just concerned that even with the state's definition, there might still be some gray area with vested. Yeah. What exactly is vested? Yeah. Yeah. And in general, from a planning perspective, it's a great area. Yeah. [transcription gap] Yeah. [transcription gap] So I don't like interpretations. I very much like clarity. We could perform our own definition of it to use for our guidelines for the 500 count. Yeah, that's true. That's an easy look. Define it. Right, define it specifically. All right, so moving on to page now 65. Can I just go back to you? Hang on, you've passed 60. I also wanted to go back to room 46. It's talking about the accessory dwelling units. And increasing the number of those and not requiring the three-year CO? Wait, not requiring what? I'm sorry. The three-year wait before you do. Oh, yeah, I agree. The three-year wait does come up later on, and that is something we will discuss. Okay, because I just wanted to state that I'm opposed to adding these units, and it's right here on page 46. And I don't know if you want to address it here. So, I mean, we can. And we can. We will. So, I mean, just in general, like accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments. I mean, we've had our accessory apartment code has been on the books, I believe now, for 16 years. Yeah. And I don't believe we've seen an extreme proliferation of these units. I mean, there was a feeling. When you go back and you look at some of the comments on when that was adopted, there was very much a concern that it was just every property in the town was going to pop up and have an accessory apartment. And, I mean, that hasn't necessarily materialized. Well, there's a great deal of effort to have. That really be increased. There are groups and organizations that are pushing for that strongly. So, there's a cap on accessory apartments? It's 250, and I think the town board is able to go to 500. That's a lot. I'd have to look at the code. But I think we're. We have less than 100? The building department would have to look. Sue Edwards had a spreadsheet because she handled all of the accessory apartments. I think we're around 100. And keep in mind, like, if a property gets sold and it's no longer owner-occupied, it's no longer eligible for an accessory apartment. Right. Yeah. So, it needs to be. It needs to be removed. There is a mechanism for people to transfer. So, if you buy a house with an accessory apartment, you have to refill out all of your affidavits, provide, like, the information that you are residing in either the house or the apartment, and there is a fee to transfer it. But there have been a few that have actually been removed because they weren't owner-occupied. Well, I was just concerned because there was a great deal of correspondence from the community and people that also spoke about not wanting to lower the CO. Threshold three years. They didn't want to see that go away and they don't want to add to this. And, or also change the dimensions. They wanted to change to increase from the 300 SF to a maximum of 650 and 40% of the dwelling. The 40% would remain no matter what. Right. But there's real concern about that. And I don't want to see those increase. And I just wanted to be on record about that. That's how it is now, right? Yeah. It's, yeah. [transcription gap] It's, there's efforts to try to extend that higher. And I just don't want to do that. The town should consider eliminating the 650 square foot max and limit the size of accessory units to 40%. So it's, it's already, it's already, yeah. There is a, consider increasing it. It's already limited to 40%. I know. There's, the language in here, you consider eliminating those restrictions. Not the 40%. Just the 650 square. Right. Just to go up to 650. I mean, we didn't, we didn't give like a new number. Yeah. But obviously we'd like to hear what the board has to say. to say about that because it was something that came up quite a bit during the comment area. That's why I just didn't want to skip over it to the next thing I thought we should talk about. Yeah, I think it comes up later on in the document, but we can talk about it now. That's fine. So globally speaking, when you look at Long Island and its housing stock and the general growth of the housing stock of Long Island, we're not doing enough to keep up, to retain young people, make something, and I don't want to say affordable in terms of what is a certain percentage of AMI, but just something that a young person can afford. So Long Island in general, the single family zoning, Long Island built suburbia and it's kind of modeled all over the country and it's just now single family zoning is not doing anything to allow young people to stay on Long Island. Who can afford a house worth $700,000? Having more affordable options as opposed to a single family residence or a $3,400 a month apartment. You know? But there needs to be some sort of effort to retain people. I mean, that's, you know. It also allows people to age in place, too. I mean, you have an older person who owns a home, you have a family member who might come live with them, the older person could live in the apartment or stay in the main house. I mean, the limiting factor on this is it has to be owner occupied, one of either the house or the unit, and that's not recommended to change. I'm just concerned that it may develop into a homeowner turning into a landlord. Again, we don't have enough code enforcement to make sure. that this does not become an apartment complex in your home. Well, they're limited. It's limited to one bedroom. And I think they get a rental permit as well. They do. I know. But I mean in addition to the accessory apartment permit that's up for inspection. I guess I'm just concerned. I'm sorry, Heather. I didn't speak over you. Go ahead. Oh, no. I'm just saying they get a rental permit from co-enforcement on top of the accessory apartment permit from the building department. And once the accessory apartment permit is issued, it's a three-year inspection. And then after that, it's five years. Every five years, they have to renew and get an inspection with the building department on top of their code inspection. I guess I'm just concerned that we don't have a lot of co-enforcement officers to make sure these aren't turning into illegal apartment complexes. That's really what I'm most concerned about. If we had more co-enforcement. We made a commitment last year when we changed the inspections to a yearly basis that we would utilize that money. We raised the permit fees. And we would be utilizing that money to expand the co-enforcement department. I think we're on the track of doing that. And so we want them to get in that apartment every year to see if smoke detectors have been removed, if kitchens have been built, and so on and so forth. And I will remind the board that this is just a recommendation that's going to require future action. Okay. Unfortunately, we have some bad players, but there's also some families that legitimately need accessory apartments. You know? Yeah. You have somebody in your family, you know, your father passes away and your mom's left at home. She can't live by herself. She's not ready for a nursing home. Come live with us, Mom. Well, where's Mom going to go? Into the accessory apartment. You know, we have to provide for, you know, the good people. Oh, sure. And, I mean, I realize, I think that the code does have to step up on this and, you know, just keep track of it. I do understand. I understand people's concern about getting rid of the three-year for the principal structure. You know, I don't have an issue with getting rid of it for the accessory structures because there are plenty of people that want to build, you know, a mother, like an in-law apartment. Right. But they want to have their own space. And they basically have to build the garage first, wait three years, and then, I mean, I've seen it from working in the building department. And some people, they're very, very patient and they're straightforward when they come in to build the garage saying, this is what I plan on doing with it, but I understand I have to wait. So, for some people, it's not. Right. Yeah. [transcription gap] Maybe we should clarify that if we want to leave that in, it should be on the principal structure. Yes. I mean, that's to be what it was in. The three-year limit should be on the principal structure. Because what Heather is saying is someone will come in and build a garage, but then they have to wait three years for the CO on the garage to be right for it. Meanwhile, they're already following all of the provisions. It's owner-occupied. Their house was built in the 1980s and has a CO. It's unnecessarily. I want to, the information, I listened to you, Greg, and I listened to you, Denise. And, you know, the data shows that, you know, people are not, this is not going to proliferate. No, they're not knocking down the doors of the building. And you're saying there are organizations out there. But the fact is that they have to be owner-occupied. Yes. And I think I know what you're talking about, those organizations. You just can't drop people in that are not part of the family. Right. Right. So with that, I'm interested. Definitely in favor of dumping that three-year thing because I think it's arbitrary. Can I jump in? Can I jump in? Oh, statistics. No one wants to just jump in. I just wanted to mention on page 207 in the plan, under accessory dwelling units, we talk about this and we talk about that, you know, currently, you know, the code mandates applicants to have a certificate of occupancy for an accessory building for a duration of three years, et cetera, et cetera. And so, under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, so under accessory dwelling units, the principal building rather than the accessory building. Right. So that's in there. So if your house has been there for more than three years, why penalize the person who's building a garage to put an accessory part in it? Agreed. I guess I just keep going back to the building. Enforcement. Yeah, and not just that, but we're building all these apartments for people who want them to maybe go in those apartments and not let the homeowner profit. I'd like to see the talent. Yeah. I think we need- Because it's a lot less money. When you think about it, if you're putting your mother-in-law in, you don't want to put her in an apartment. Your mother-in-law's not paying rent. No. No. I think we probably need both in terms of- Even if your kid is going to college, graduates college- There's a balance. And can't afford something. Or any ... It's like people just need a place to live. I mean, people do not hesitate. That's the issue. People are living in illegal basement apartments that are not inspected, that are not safe. People just need a place to live. They can't afford it. Yeah, that's why I favor just eliminating the three years altogether. I don't see a mad rush of people coming in. Me too. I just ... [transcription gap] an enforcement thing with code so they're inspecting every year I mean it's it's complaint driven really just like everything with code enforcement so we got a complaint that you think someone's coming in and out of there every week codes gonna go down there and do an inspection probably asked to see police I assume you know and to the end of these things or rental permit I'm gonna dress the Airbnb thing probably most people don't know this is over 400 to riverhead and how many get complaints and I'm not for or I'm not this is has nothing to do with our poor against it I'm just saying you get hardly any complaints so I don't have this those same concerns I'm dropping the three years to your point so I mean I think we have a consensus pretty much at the three-year we want to I would like to eliminate that
you notice Noah has his mic near his mouth but how many talks he moves it away I'm doing my best 60 by 65 I think we're up so let's just I know it's not in there but I'm going to our own molds like I just pause for a minute at page 60 if we can yeah basically something I've been looking at for a while so I just wrote my own notes out so I don't mess anything up by 60 New York's this is going to was basically talking about the far ratio so New York State's head of gold clean energy future for zero emissions electricity system's with renewable energy to power homes government offices, schools, places of work, and so forth. The New York State goal for 2030 is to have 10,000 megawatts. So we're talking about the whole renewable energy. The state is advocating for community solar, which would be unlike traditional solar, where some families can't put it on individual rooftops, doesn't fit or conform to their property, or don't have the ability, if they're renting homes and things like that, to do that. So community solar benefits them. When we talk about the FAR ratio, the current code right now permits a FAR of 0.4 in the industrial A and C. I understand when we build, I'm not interested in increasing the FAR ratio for like industrial warehouses and things like that, where they say, okay I have my footprint, I want, they can, they can buy TDRs and they can go higher. But when you talk about like solar projects, solar energy renewal projects, they can't go higher. You can't stack solar on top of each other and go up. So I really, would like to see that, I would like to really see that, that it does not apply to energy renewable projects so our commercial solar code has its own set of dimensional regulations I believe it's 75% it is so basically if you have a piece of property where your fencing is you know the actual improvements and roadways I think it's 75% lot coverage which is what all of the commercial solar farms that we've seen out in the Calvington area were holding to that standard and I think those projects turned out pretty well with that existing so I mean floor area is just for buildings it has nothing nothing to do with solar panels or you know the way the way I'm reading it's a reduce allowable density of industrial development to and now you want to go down from point four to point two five with the potential to go up to point three through TDR so I'm going up to where it is currently correct but I want to make sure that I want to make sure that that all you know you know I'm going to make sure that I want to make sure that all you know solar battery any are not going to be subject to this it's not there they don't have parking spaces they don't have a driver no they're not they're no they're already able to go further there's no floor area ratio for a solar farm there's no floor area ratio there is that clarify so that's so they have they're under the supplementary they each have their own supplementary section in the code regulations it's in the commercial energy production section and it spells out its own dimensional regulations but there so I mean floor area is defined as the total amount of building area in relation to the total lot size it has nothing there's no restricting does not correlate to the size of renewable energy both batteries and storage are 75% yeah so so with that right but we reduce the F they are at a point four right and I know we've had newest discussions on this the more I thought about it if I own a piece of industrial land right and you're now taking away some value of that land that I own and that's what happened in the 2003 comp plan when they took farmland from one acre zoning the two acres owning they basically cut the value of that land in half I'm not so sure that I'd be real happy if I own industrial land to take it to the next head so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so So I cannot explain, you know, when we talk about the, like, this is not a God-given, you know, he didn't say you can build a .4. I mean, these are established by the recommendations of the compliance. So I can't explain how the .4 even got there. It makes more sense to go to .2. I mean, it's in line with the health department standards. The plan is recommending .25, right? Yeah. Health department's about 17%. Correct. I'd be more out there if it went from .25 to .35 as opposed to, you know, just shy of .4 and he just set the building back. You know, you have ways of setting buildings back, but I get concerned we start taking away people's rights. I agree with Bob. And I think that we can go up a little bit more on the FAR ratio, but also on page 60, it really doesn't, it's very vague in terms of that coverage. And making sure that even if somebody purchases TDRs and they go higher, well, then all of a sudden the structures are now visible and now we'll look and... Well, they still have to meet, I mean, obviously we're going to have to amend the code. You can still... And then we're recommending... The higher a building is, the more you're going to see it from the... We're recommending a pyramid law, so it's got to be set back a certain amount of feet so the visual impact is not as much. So the higher you go, the further it has to be set back. Right. The purpose of these ratios was to create more TDRs to preserve more land. So that's part of it. We don't want to, you know, cut the bottom of our TDR. But I... If they're going too high, then they're not going to purchase as many TDRs. Here's what I had a conversation... I've been speaking with, in terms of the TDRs, the developers and the Farm Bureau. And I can tell you now that the Farm Bureau is real concerned about this because they don't want... They really want to sell TDRs. Right? And they don't want anything that's going to get in the way of selling TDRs. Now, we may think, oh, somebody's going to be willing to go ahead and extend their building. Buy 0.5 if they buy TDRs. What if the TDRs don't... You know, we have to sit with them and really look at how much space are you getting for those TDRs. Right now, they're saying 3,500 square feet for one, right? But when we get down to the TDRs, we need to have the developers in the room and the TDR committee in the room to really come up with the numbers. I know we all want it to work. I feel like we've done that several times throughout the process. And I mean... I know, but... You know what? The point is people... You're digesting it every day. Excuse me one second. They're digesting it over time. And this is a conversation I had last week. And I had another one with developers last night. But that's, you know, because, again, you guys are on this all the time. Can I jump in again? I just wanted to mention also that it's also addressed by the ratios that we've talked about. So, you know, we wanted to find something... Something that's more equitable and we can have a better market for both buyers and sellers of TDR. So that if, you know, one TDR doesn't equal necessarily... I don't have the numbers in front of me, but what we've recommended. But, you know, maybe it's not 3,000 square feet of extra commercial space. Maybe it's 5,000 or more. I don't... Again, I don't have the numbers in front of me. But we recommended kind of maybe a little bit more of a gain for the use of TDRs. I'd love to try to plan some more. Yeah. I think the point was is that, you know, we're running a lot of... Like the plan recommends these ratios. They might not work depending on how the market changes. So the plan also recommends that we revisit those ratios in order to keep the TDR value. Perfect. Right. It did. It did say that. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. So it's not a... It's a flow. Too bad you're out. Yeah. No. It's a flow. It's all up to them in the code. It's all up to them in the code from these recommendations. And it also said you could use the TDR... Change the formula for sewer or for other infrastructure. The values. Well, there were ways that... There were different... How to measure the TDR. You know, we've had discussions with BFJ just about how, you know, is it based on impacts or is it based on sanitary, you know, flows from whatever those TDRs... And these are things that are going to require a lot of, you know, future thought and analysis when we come to, you know, drafting and adopting the code amendments. This is your guiding document to get you there, essentially. Right. But I'm still in favor of starting this and instead of 0.25, starting it at a 0.3 and going... 0.3. Would you... Bob, would you consider making the square footage increase for the TDR to be more with a lower FAR than with the TDRs more valuable? So... And it works for the developer too, so then the bonus they're getting per TDR is more. Rather than just saying, we're going to lower the... We're going to, you know, let you have a bigger building or more floor area as of right. Keep it low, but then make the value of the TDR more, say maybe it's 5,000... Or 10,000. Yeah. [transcription gap] I understand. Because my program isn't working the way that it is right now. I understand. Right. So, we need something... Correct. Then you need to talk... I mean, for me, I need to speak with, you know, somebody who's developing buildings of this size. And, you know, just include... I'm sorry, not me, but include them in the conversation so where it's américized in and it makes sense. That's all. Got it. Where... Can we make a... Can we agree to at least make a note of something in head that these FAR ratios do not include, you know, stuff within solar... It doesn't... It doesn't. It doesn't now. I mean, we can't. I mean, it's not clear. Show me where does it say that. It's in the, yeah. Pull up the commercial solar energy production. That's what I'm not saying. Yeah, so it's in the, I'll read it. It's in our code. It's already in our code. I'll read it to you now. Okay, but if we're adopting this, are we going in a different direction? No. Because it's not. I don't think it's going to change anything. It doesn't affect, it doesn't affect the conditions. It has its own regulations. There's no floor area for solar farms. Yeah. There is none. There's no building. And battery. Same thing. I mean, that's why each of those has its own separate. Because it's not the same as like building a building. I just wanted to mention. Why not write it in there? Why are we, why the residents have put it in there? We can add a sentence of like the. I think Ms. Patenti wants to say something. Yeah, yeah. Like I, this is something I've been, I've been talking to the deputy town attorney about a lot. And like, I just, I want to know that we can go into these community projects for, that, that the state is asking for. And that we're not going to have to go into these community projects. We're not limiting. We have EPCAL and we have a, we have the potential to do projects up there. And we're. Yeah. So I think it's very easy to add a qualifying sentence in the master plan update. And when you go through the code and you go through the different zones that it's permitted, it does not flag you or necessarily direct you to supplementary regs. So either it should be combined in the one code where it's permitted, calling out that the FAR doesn't apply rather than referring not to the zoning district and its dimensional table, but now to a separate supplementary code. Without that. You should clean that up. But I don't know why you couldn't have a clarification in the update to the master plan regarding. Because otherwise a developing company reads this comprehensive plan, they look at it and they walk away and they go, there's nothing we can do here. We can't, you know, you need that, you need that FAR ratio on projects like solar. It doesn't happen. So I mean lot, lot coverage for solar, it says the lot coverage shall include the total square footage of the perimeter of all the solar panels, inclusive of interior space between panels in addition to driveways and service roads and accessory equipment, buildings or structures. Further down in the commercial energy code, it says the maximum lot coverage shall be 75%. So I mean. It's very clearly defined in the code. And yet in the dimensional table and I don't have it in front of me, so don't quote me. I think it's in possibly industrial city. You'll see floor area ratio with TDRs 0.4. And then there's a little footnote, footnote 14, which says, well, if it's battery energy, refer to the battery energy code. But it doesn't include. If it's solar, go to the solar energy code and it's your industrial. I mean, why am I going to have that same foot? Seems like why are we hiding it so far down the road? Let's put it right up. We should clean up the current code. You know that way. That's easy. Right. Yeah. I mean, we could just put if it's if it's as simple as just putting something into the plan that says it's a footnote. Yeah. I mean, in the code. Yeah. And I would just say energy in general, you know, because you don't know what's coming down the pike. Yeah. You know, I mean, outdoor, whatever. I don't think it's unreasonable. Just add a sentence to clarify that. I think it's fine. Okay. And then on the other things that also potentially with like solar battery powered energy, but I would like to see something more from the fire department side of things that that we we incorporate community benefit component into these things where they're going to have to participate to be finances available if necessary. If somebody comes in with a large project and we have a large project, we have to have a large project. We have to do cover costs of training, cover equipment, personnel, gas detectors, anything infrared devices that that that community benefit component I think should be part of that it protects us protects the local fire departments from the cost of training and certain equipment. So I'd like to be some type of component added to that as part of the New York State Fire Working Safety Group when they studied the battery fires, they recommended changes to the New York State Fire Code that include all those things as part of the fire code. Obviously those changes haven't been made yet, but that's the intention of the state to require trainings, pay for equipment to the municipality where these things are cited. I just want to make sure that again that it's referenced within this. And then I think we need to be a little bit more specific on coverage. We drive down Edwards Avenue now. I mean, you didn't see this a little bit. Sometimes cars go off the road and take the trees out and lose things that they have that continued maintenance that they have to restore. And preserve the buffers areas of these projects to make sure that you continue to that they're not a visible don't speak eyesore. I think we do have language in the plan that does address that. I don't know where offhand but it's in 60 but it's not very specific about what they got. It's another place looking for a little bit more depth to make sure that these are as proper buffers in place. Okay. And they're maintained for the duration of the project. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. [transcription gap] Can I just go back to the question about the number for FAR? I think the numbers were a result of... Hold on, Mel. Sorry. Can you start again? I apologize. Oh, no. It's okay. Can you hear me? Is it okay? Yes, you're good. Okay. I just wanted to go back to the numbers for FAR just to explain those numbers came out of many, many conversations with... I didn't have... I didn't have... with um with the steering committee with the public stakeholders etc um you know that those numbers were kind of important numbers because they were the basis of a lot of the analysis that we did in the generic environmental impact statement um so if you change those numbers that will be a dramatic change to the work that we have to do to update those documents it doesn't mean that you can't change them in the future if you decide to adopt zoning at a different number i think the intent is clearly established that you want to reduce far and provide some increase with tdrs um you know and if you if you change at a later point you can do that and kind of modify the analysis as appropriate when you adopt the zoning but i just wanted to kind of you to understand the ramifications of being that specific at this point if you're you know if you're not sure i just want you to kind of understand that i got it and the context yeah and i think matt's explanation of just giving more tdr you know a lot more square footage for one tdr and again we'll cover that that had to be considered at the time yeah yep matt's still sticking in that same area where um ken was just talking if you look at uh still in economic development uh 3.7 it talks about codifying downtown riverhead cotton book i don't want to just skip over this to continue to advance its recommendations it talks about um for the now adopting the pattern book should be codified yes to give it more well the only problem is that um the pattern book does uh currently we allow five-story buildings right with eighty percent lot coverage and you can even apply for a hundred percent the pattern book says that um the pattern book recommends a far of 3.5 with a height of only four stories so if we do that we're going to have buildings all out of code right if we have five-story building so i don't know if we should just gloss over codifying that now because while it says recommends following it this recommendation in this comp plan says codify it yeah it's it's it's in a weird the pattern book's in a weird limbo right now yeah it was adopted by the town board but it was never implemented into the code i don't think it's what we wanted to that's just mine i totally agree i do not want it limits us if we if somebody wants a fifth story and they're going to have to do it they're going to buy tdrs to get it yeah codify it you're going to make it law so i mean yeah i don't want it and the pattern book to me is just i mean we we've really been working you know the last couple of projects i mean 203 213 you know a lot of these projects have been really incorporating and taking that pattern book to heart you know 203 213 they stepped back both their fourth and their fifth floor uh 426 west main street you know they've incorporated they've incorporated a lot of those design elements i agree but i don't know if we want to codify it and it's what this pat this comprehensive plan is going to be and it's going to be a lot of work and i think it's going to be a lot of work and i think it's going to be a lot of work and i think i'd never agreed with the 100 building that was the one thing i had that uh i didn't like in the battle yeah but it should have been capped at 80 percent so yeah well i mean i mean that could be so that that's a provision i believe it requires a special permit from the town board and i think it's just within the public parking district in the dc one where that those two overlap needs a special part for the town boards i mean you could very much you could eliminate that yeah i mean you could eliminate that now if you wanted to but that's important yeah and the thing is with the uh the five stories how do what how do what recommends four stories right so if we adopt that we're stuck with a four-story building the recommendation is that it should be codified so i mean whether or not you decide to move forward with that right i think we're doing fine the way it is you know we that people are conforming using the pattern book the setbacks are you okay with that i mean they're they're setting back i mean the buildings have gotten you know we have we have one building downtown i know the first large one that went up that you know didn't really sit well with a lot of people the someone yeah well no the uh the garment the gallop yeah look because the town at the time got a hold of it and destroyed it so i think you know subsequent projects i believe we've very much learned aesthetically more pleasing we've incorporated those we get good design out of the pattern book whether the pattern book itself needs to be tweaked i think that's so just use the design elements maybe just take away the words codified and said yes it should be utilized as a as a tool utilize the design elements you know the original design of what mcdermott was supposed to look like as opposed to what it looks like today it's not the same it's it's it's 300 it's 183 different the original design i think you could do both yes the pattern book was a recommendation when the town board adopted it they adopted the recommendations of the pattern book when you put it to code over time so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so I agree it was very clear the town board really did not want a hundred percent lot coverage and as to the five stories the town board always gave an indication it was willing to work with that and maybe do the quote cupcake design where you set back the fifth story is not visible from the road wedding cake wedding wedding wedding wedding wedding wedding wedding wait mrs. Pagenti mrs. Pagenti I amery I just wanted to say that if you codify it now you're taking all those other variations out you can codify certain elements and I think that's what it says because we just like like Emory said it was adopting the recommendations your recommendations could change for whatever you're gonna codify just take other words codified just say the pattern book should be used as a guiding document I would you don't need to put the word codified I cautioned because it's a good thing it's a good thing it's a good thing it's a good thing is that it's almost useless you get more I mean it's it's a codified guideline codified written guidelines in the code we have it in numerous other supplementary design guidelines in almost every zoning they need to be enforceable recommendation how do we how do we help people to that I'm sorry I if you've got a stubborn developer who absolutely wants to go forward what irks me is the fact that 100% build out you know that being recommended from the beginning told me that who's ever look who's ever doing it was totally wrong didn't understand the town when other pattern books in other towns when they're developing downtown's do just the opposite they go to 80% the reason is they believe that their downtown is going to thrive and they want wider sidewalk this is somebody who said no we're gonna go 100% this isn't really going to work, you don't need wider sidewalks. But anyway. We could say study and quantify. I think there's opportunity to dress up the language there. We can figure something out and get back to you. To study the Fatter book. Consider future codification. You've got to get out. Alright. 65. Oh, so again. Short term rentals. You don't want to beat a dead horse with a bush. With a bush.
95. There was a note that the Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program, the name changed on that. That's a very quick fix. A good fix. 98 talks about the Peconic River Community Zoning Districts. About CRC and PRC. Really relating to infrastructure being in place before any development in those districts come in. PRC is along West Main Street. We've got the Peconic River. Obviously, unless there's sewer infrastructure, you're not going to see any real development happen. And with PRC, you'd have to align with all of the DEC regulations. WSRR wetlands. And you didn't want to have those townhouses on the water side. All this recommends. Retreating from the riverfront. Because some people in their comments were concerned to putting them on the water. No, they'd be on the other side. If someone were to come in today with any development along the riverfront, we would never approve something right down. That wouldn't happen. You'd need DEC permits, site plan. The PRC Zoning District has a 50% open space requirement. You would never see a development right on the riverfront. It would be closer to West Main Street. You'd never develop down by the riverfront. Until we get the county off our sewer line and we can expand westward bound on West Main Street. All right. Thank you. 99. All right. Agri-Tourism Resort. Agri-Tourism Resort. Okay. I'm just going to open up with this and state that we have hashed this around back and forth for a long time. We shelved it for a bit. It was brought back up because at the end of the summer, we had a lot of water. We didn't have clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear one with no exceptions. They feel they're being restricted on what they can do whether it's vertical farming or whatever and nobody's knocking down the door for vertical farming and I think vertical farming in my opinion is blown way out of proportion and it's never really going to be here. I know there is somebody dabbling with it now but it's just it's not economically viable. So I have stated publicly many times I support what the farmers support and the farmers do not support this so I cannot support this. Are we talking about Agritourism resort or vertical farming? Agritourism resort where it includes the restrictions of what the farmer can do. Well so that's this they feel specific so the code that I drafted discussed had those restrictions in there. When you look at just the just the language that's in here, it just it doesn't get into the nuances of what they can do. It really just more talks about the overarching concept of it. They weren't against the hotel. They were against the custody. The restrictions, yes. Nobody spoke out against the resort part of it. I don't believe it. No, I actually asked if they were opposed to it. That's not our issue. That's not our real concern. When Rob Carpenter wrote the letter, he said he was for the agritory. That's true, but not the restrictions. And the only restrictions are vertical farming, which I think we all spoke about openly on this board that we didn't want to see these type of large structures on Santa Fe. Is there another way to do it or mitigate it or put it inside such a site? So let's talk about the vertical farming. Can I just say something? One quick thing. The person who's building the hotel, who's going to lease to a farmer, has the ability to say, I don't want vertical farming. But he doesn't control what happens on the property on either side of that property. But this nightmare about vertical farming, whoever created this nightmare should really do research on it. To the supervisor's point, one, it's not going to proliferate. It's been around for over 20 years. It hasn't proliferated anywhere. Most of them have gone out of business. So who's ever spreading this stuff about vertical farming? And I think that's where the people who do vertical farming should do their research and let me know who it is, and I'll send them to the right people. I think that we should address that when we get to that part. Let's bring this subject just to the section on page 99 talking about agritourism resort. It does not speak into the nuances. It just speaks generally to the concept of an agritourism resort. Fantastic. That's a presidential talk. It doesn't, like, that's for code revision. That's for any draft. My only problem with it is I think the minimum, the acreage should be lessened because, you know, I mean, we're just identifying 100-acre parcels. I'm happy if the minimum is 70. Well, but that limits the location, the number and location of where these things could go. Yeah, that was the idea. We just want to hash out because there was a lot of opposition during the COP plan hearing as far as whether or not this section is going to stay in as a recommendation in the COP plan. I would like it to stay. I would like this to stay. But we have to. We have to address. The nuts and bolts of the code will come out as soon as the code goes through. That's what I'm saying. All right. Page 101. A couple of notes here relating to vertical farming on agricultural soils, visual impacts. I mean, vertical farming is a relatively new, well, for us. For us, Bob. Yes, for you. I know you. Very well. Very worldly. But for us, it's sort of a concept. And there is very much a fear associated with it. That said, I will fully agree with what Councilman Kern said a couple of meetings ago. We went and visited a vertical farm that is an existing potato barn. You cannot see it. Nobody has issue with that. It's sort of the what if and what could be, like sort of like legislating by fear of an unknown. So then in the agritourism legislation, that we've talked about, you can then just find a way to address it. That vertical farming will have to be captured in a particular entity or method. Yeah, that would have to come through. That would come through with that individual . Not stacked storage. So the language in the draft says, concerns about vertical farming include the visual impact of these structures. The town should consider clear guidance for the total size, setbacks, landscaping, et cetera, to minimize the visual impacts of these structures. I mean, I think that's a. Pretty strong recommendation. That's a good recommendation. I mean. Limit the size. You can look at, there's examples of vertical farming containers that are architecturally enhanced. They have building materials on them. They're screened, you know. They look like barns. Or they're in barns. Yeah. And I think we should just, I know it says it in the draft, that it should not be put on lands where development rights are sold. And I think. That you need, you're going to need to check with Ag and Marcus, and you're going to need to check with Chapter 8 of Suffolk County, because it's farming. And. That's what you're going to need to check with that. And the Ag and Market law says that vertical farming is allowed in the state of New York. So New York State Ag and Markets law, we have a current application before farmland on a preserved piece of property. New York State Ag and Market says it is a type. They're very careful with their language. It is a type of agricultural production. But. They will defer to the entity who preserved the development rights. Correct. And the purpose and the language that was used when they preserved the land. New York State Ag and Markets law makes it clear they're not going to come over the top. And it's the written document, the purpose of preservation that will dictate. So it's really important kind of for the. The town board to. It is coming up now. And I and. Vertical farming is very expensive. However. The amount of grant opportunities that are out there are extraordinary. The application that we have at farmland. He received over three million dollars of grant money. For this project. So while it is expensive. And we're not. We have yet to see the influx. The grant opportunities are out there. Can I just ask one question. Emery. So. Agricultural. Vertical farming is a type of agricultural production. Right. As I heard you just say. And isn't it currently north of 25 a. On sound Avenue. Or not 25 a rather north of sound Avenue in RV 80. That does not allow for. Agricultural production. Production. Not. For. Farm operations. Oh okay. It's I thought that was the catch. And those that Greg referred to. I mean. I don't know if they're on preserved property or not. But it is a big decision for the town to make. Can I ask a question. Emery. Area that they're allowed to use for the vertical farming. So. He. Do you want. Should I outline for the town board. What. Are. My. Can I also can I ask another question. Also. I. Think. I really. No one's got a question. I think for Emery. I just wanted to know. You know with the ag and markets law. You know we can't. Necessarily override. They're allowed to conduct. Vertical farming. But my understanding is that the town still control zoning and can regulate buildings. And you can control the size or you know allowance for you know a structure. So you could say that you know for one vertical farming. Buildings. Should be limited to the existing. F.A.R. And setbacks of a principal building. That's one thing you should be able to say. And another is you know. I think you can say if. If. It within the zoning code if a property has been. If the development rights have been extinguished. Then there's no more F.A.R. For. Buildings is that. That that that's the decision. That's the decision of the town board really. All. Of. The. Preserved. All the preserved properties have. The development rights. There is one property. This town has preserved. That doesn't have prime agricultural soils doesn't recite the fact that you preserved it because it has prime agricultural soils. It also recites to general municipal law. Two forty seven. Which is open space agricultural vistas. Unique. Environmental. Quality. Quote agricultural soils. So anyway I'll make it really quick because I don't want to take up too much of your time but councilwoman was keen I. Have been working with the farmland committee. And. But his first name Ron McGee. Ryan Ryan McGee and. Located a piece of preserved farmland with the assistance of Rob Carpenter. The old rex. FAR property for a vertical farm. And McGahn got all kinds of grant monies for it. So the Farm Land Committee has struggled with it because there's a lot of pressure. Oh, we should allow vertical farming. So there, I'll just outline, their recommendations are, just a rough, they're recommending the footprint of the vertical structure shall not exceed 2% of lot coverage. The vertical agricultural production shall include a portion of hybrid vertical farming. That's wherein a part of it is grown vertically. Because vertical farming is controlled. There's no sun? Yeah. There's no soil? It's controlled environment farming. I do not. Without the use of soil. That's all it is. Without the use of soil. So they, the second request they have, it must include a hybrid portion of farming where you take the controlled environment farming and transplant it into the ag soils. On the same property? Same property. The vertical farm must be situated with minimum front yard setbacks of a thousand feet. And all other setbacks shall meet twice the minimum required rear and side yard. The vertical farm shall be located and configured in such a way to protect and provide open space views of agriculture from all external roadways and minimize visual and potential storm water impacts to its adjacent residential use. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. [transcription gap] to minimize and mask industrial container and foster typical agricultural barn structure. Prohibition to locate any additional structures located on the property for the purpose of or related to the vertical farm operation. The proposed vertical structures may not be used for cultivation of marijuana, cannabis, or hemp, except and limited to 2% of the total area of the vertical structures could be used for research and development.
And access and means of ingress and egress to the vertical farm shall be by single curb cut and single farm road. So they put together all of these things. So it wouldn't look like an industrial use. On a farm lot. I think, I mean. Cool. I have one question. Who preserved the rights? Was it Riverhead Town or was it Suffolk County? Riverhead Town. Okay. So and you say that and I'm going to say this. Are you familiar with this Chapter 8 of Suffolk County law? Very. All right. So you know what the lot coverage is when they preserve land? Absolutely. What is it? Their coverage, well, their coverage differs. If you have greenhouse or you have a farm, you have to have a lot of land. And you have to have a lot of land. Right. So you have to have a lot of land. Right. So you have to have a lot of land. Right. But if there's a lot of greenhouse structures, you could go to 40. However, local zoning trumps. Henry, I don't disagree with you. And now the town of Riverhead is 15%. And even if an application came into the county of Suffolk and the county approved it, guess what happens, Bob? That application comes to the town of Riverhead because local zoning trumps. Henry, I'm with you. Okay. I just want to make sure you understand. Okay. that? Because I worked on this for a long time. Bob, I worked on Chapter 8 of the Suffolk County Charter for the last 17 years. So I'm fully versed. Here's my question to you. I'm not here to dispute. My question to you is when a project comes to Riverhead where the county has preserved the land, and this is for now and for future, whether it's hydroponics or whatever the hell it is, because this Frankenstein vertical farming thing to me is just a lot of BS. But here's my question to you. If the county preserved land on a farm in Riverhead, we allow 15% lot coverage. And you're telling me the farmland wants to reduce that to 2%? No, no, no. To be crystal clear, the vertical, the high tower portion, would be limited to two. The rest of the property? Absolutely farmed. Could you have additional farm structures? Absolutely. But not vertical. I think it's ridiculous. I'm not in favor of it, but I totally agree with you because most of these vertical farms, they do sustain themselves on grants. And there's not enough grant money to make these things proliferate all over the place. Well, it was the farmland committee. They struggled with this, and that's why I'm sharing it with the board. Because the parcel was preserved for its prime agricultural soils. So, I think what you wrote, and I'm going to commend Councilman Woski for working with the Farm Bureau, because I think that actually bridges the major gap, I think, in some of the concerns between the agritourism bill and the farming community, that I think if you implement something of that and you coincide those bills together, you may just bridge that gap of the concern of the farming. But, okay, you allow it, but with the restrictions put forth that explain how it's going to be built, how it's constructed. That basically, when you read that, that tells me, guess what, nobody's stacking up multiple containers on it. You don't have this major eyesore going down. It also tells me that you're going to preserve more than likely the frontage of that agricultural aesthetic view of it. So, I think you put that forth along with the agritourism bill, and now you've bridged a major gap. And maybe we can bring everybody together on it. All we can do is try. I thank you for all of your work. And the plan doesn't, like, the plan literally just talking about keeping this passage in, then we're not talking about codifying any 2% if that's not in the plan right now. So, are we okay with the language in here as it exists for vertical? It's in the same tenor as what they're recommending. Screen, I'm all for screening. That's about it. All right. Thanks. So, before we go on, there was a comment, questions about agrivoltaics in there. Okay. Are they the same thing? Yeah. So, it just talks about number two, principally, in addition, a town board could provide flexibility for agrivoltaic projects, which provide for dual use and production of vegetables and other crops. The approach allows for the prioritization of a site's continued agricultural use as a project may be designed to maximize both renewable energy production. And crop yields. This is talking about an increase from the 110% maximum. And it talks about giving some flexibility for the town board to allow for some additional solar use in addition to what they need for their own use. But not necessarily turning it into a commercial operation. But some flexibility. Okay. So, we're going to go. Okay. I'll pass. [transcription gap] where in 1.7 it says revised solar regulations and incentives to ensure they are compatible with surroundings and then it says reducing allowable coverage. I'd like that to be removed because that's exactly what we're talking about, what we said before against it. It's in the plan. Oh, 183 in the plan. Page 183. And I mean, we talked about it, so we all agree you're going to clarify it, but then further down the road you go, we're going to reduce the allowable coverage. That's a good catch. I think it says consider. Yeah, I mean, I've worked on both of the large solar farm applications. I mean, I have no problems with the current solar code as it is, so I mean, if we want to strike that. Strike that, reducing allowable coverage. Reducing allowable coverage, but keep in requiring additional buffers and landscaping. That's what we want, the buffers there, and I want them to be firm buffers. I want to make sure that they're maintained. I'm on board with that. That is the rest of the board. Okay, we can strike that. So, no, you got that on page 183 in section 1.7. We're going to strike reducing allowable coverage.
No response from the connect guy. He was diligently writing. No, you got that right. I got it. I got it. Anything else before we go to 195? abges abges abges [transcription gap] Continue to monitor evolving waste processing technologies and regional solutions. Just kind of a little bit of what we touched on today with your emerging technologies committee. I don't think it gives a strong recommendation of do this or do that. Just consider all these technologies to reduce impacts. Should just continue monitoring, yeah. We keep producing garbage there. We will need to find ways to address that. So, again, I think that's just a pretty open-ended recommendation to explore alternative methods.
Are we good to move on to 195? Again, which 500-unit cap? This says it would be reasonable for the town to reassess the cap once development in the pipeline is complete, given its significant demand for development and the continued need to meet other housing economic community goals. Is the charter school the first one? Right. Which we already agreed to strike. Yeah. Go ahead, Greg. Sorry. Again, so the 500-unit cap, reassessing it, I think we've heard from the board. We want to kind of sort of take a look at that on an annual basis.
So, that's the question on the charter schools. We're not allowing an industrial zone. So, then we're going to keep ending up in. So, we're going to keep ending up in situations where they want to go by residential, like on Sound Avenue. They're already permitted in that zone. By special permit. By special permit. So, maybe we should make industrial zone by special permit. Should there be a zone we identify that works out well. So, we have some flexibility there. Why are we going to box ourselves in if they, you know, find a spot that works? Well, I think because a lot of the residents of the town came forward and said that the industrial areas, help us economically. So, they don't want the charter school to be there because they would not be helping us with our taxes. And I don't disagree with them on that. I don't disagree with the ones that didn't want it by their home. So, where do they end up? I mean, there's several zoning districts in town that do permit it. By special permit. Yes. So, you consider it. Either at school. There's several districts that either as of right or by special permit. Again, in the APZ school. Okay. Okay. So, if schools are allowed by special permit. Again, there may be a more appropriate location in the APZ. The APZ is our largest by far zoning district in terms of just land area. So, there may be a more appropriate location within that zoning district.
So, could you strike it from industrial? I would do it by special permit. Strike it at industrial. If they want us, you know, that's just me. I think that's what we're. Right now, we're saying that. It would be allowed by special permit. But I think my recollection at the public hearing was. I think the public was. You were told. They were told that it was going to be removed. Yeah. [transcription gap] And then when we do something that's industrial, industrial land, the public is going to come out against it. So. Okay. Anyway. That's true. What about the assisted living? Oh, assisted living is still in there. Assisted living. By special permit in any district. In any district. Where are you? That's still in number one on page 195. Do we want to leave assisted living in? I do. Yeah. [transcription gap] Absolutely. And this is an addition to the overlay. Again, it's more flexible. Yeah. So, this is in. Yeah. All right. Moving on. I'm getting close to the end here. All right. All right. Yeah. So, on page 199, there's a lot of notes here. I think there's a lot of notes here relating to, I mean, I feel like this touches on short-term rentals, which I feel like we've addressed. Yeah. Vertical farming. Vertical farming should be a permitted use. What are you going to do with short-term rentals? What do you go prior to that? Like, I just, where it says here, on the other hand, allowing short-term rentals can be a boost in Spain. Look, I don't believe in that. Yeah. I think we're just. But, so, just generally speaking throughout the document, you want to keep the 28 days. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Generally not in favor of the. Yes. Short-term. All right. Pardon me. With one exception. One exception. Good. That's fine. You can eliminate it and then just write, however, Councilman Curran disagrees. I mean, I've said this a hundred times. I'm a hypocrite because I use Airbnbs all over the place and not necessarily for a week, sometimes for a long weekend. Yeah. And I think they're fantastic. I just don't want them in my backyard. Scrape the tourism. In our town. I have them in my neighborhood and every weekend I see different people walking. Yeah. They pay a lot of taxes. Right. You know. It takes away from the stability and protective feeling you have in your neighborhood. Mm-hmm. Transient people coming and going. Sure. I think it fits in different communities. I just don't think that we have that community to sustain it. It's different if I'm going down, you know, and I'm going down to Vero Beach and I intend to be on the community. That's what they're designed. They're tourist communities. I don't, you know. For that. Yeah. For that use. Yeah. Or, Bob, we could just ban. Yeah. Marriages because these seem to be bachelorette and bachelor parties that are most of the problems. So if we just ban marriages in the town of Riverhead. Well, I think we've done a good job with the noise code and, you know, we've done some good jobs with code to really clamp down on who's ever, you know, and it's going to take a while, but. Well, it's going to take more. We know we've got to add more code, code enforcement officers also. And again, we have hotels here and by allowing a shorter term rental, that's hurting our hotels. So. I just want to point out that banning marriages would be a substantive change for the G. I. Definitely qualify. Thank you. Something. Yeah. All right. Next one. Vertical farming is consistent. Yeah. Vertical farming in industrial zones. It's saying it should be permitted there. Which again. Yeah. I think we. On the. Staff. And we. Agree with that. Support that. Again. Whether it's allowed. Vertical farming. On farmland. Development rights. And. And then. Number one. The concerns about visual impacts. That's pretty much. Right. We've. Said. How. To address. It. Yeah. Renewable energy. Again. Touches on the. 110. Threshold. And. Being able. To. Power. Your farm. By. Renewable. Energy. Good. On. There. Moving. On. The. I think. That. To. All. One. I think. That's just. A hangover. From. Last. Night. I. Think. That's. A. Continued. From. Page. One. Ninety. Nine. So. That. Just. Continued. To. Three. Is. A. One. And. I. Think. That. Is. A. One. And. Two. Three. And. Four. And. Five. And. Six. And. [transcription gap] hearing so I'm just trying to get the boards.
It's a receiving district. I think there is a little confusion about what it's a receiving district for. It's a receiving district for basically single family homes to be on one acre instead of two acre zones, right? Correct. And so it's not a receiving district for a tremendous amount of development. You know, the density is still very low and that came out of, from my understanding, was kind of a compromise at some point when the area was made a little bit less dense, but allowing property owners to recapture some of that value that may have been lost. You know, this was done a while ago so I can kind of speculate. So I think what Noah's referring to is when, you know, in 2004 when we rezoned we went from one acre up to the two acre zoning. The TDR is still calculated at 1T. TDR per one acre. So they were, they sort of, while they the base allowable development in terms of residential density on those properties was essentially cut in half, the value in a TDR was kept at one acre.
And I think some people had issue, took issue with it being both a sending and a receiving area. You know, we've looked through it. It's not an issue. We don't see it as an issue you know, both legally and from a planning framework. But we understand that it could be a little bit confusing. So, you know, we'll do our best to explain it, you know, better in the plan. But there's always going to be a little bit of confusion maybe about that because it makes sense that why people would want it to be a sending district considering you have a lot of farms. I think people might not understand why it's receiving district, but that is what it is right now. And there was a reason for it. I think people might just not understand that. I mean, the fundamental thing with TDR just from a philosophical standpoint, it's a transfer of development right. It's not just a strict preservation. It's not an extinguishing. You are transferring development rights from one area, putting it in another. You know, I went back and looked at the 04 comp plan. Rob Pike got up and said, that's the tough political sell with transfer of development rights. People have to understand that, you know, in order to preserve land over here in the farm belt, that you may see a denser development elsewhere in someone's backyard, like the old school yard, the old rail yard, something like that. So it's not a while it is a preservation tool, it transfers density. So there will be denser development elsewhere, preserving land elsewhere in the town. I mean, that's just at a fundamental level. Just I mean, I know everybody knows this, but I always just feel the need to say it, that the farmers took such a beating with the two acre up zoning and the TDRs were put into place to help them. And they failed miserably. And that's why anything we can do to increase sending and receiving areas and make this work better for the farmers, I totally favor. I do as well. Yeah. I do too. Yeah. Okay. Can we just go back to 202 real quick? I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead. Yes. About Edgar Avenue, the last sentence says that, Yes. the Village Center District could be considered for this parcel. What is it now? Well, so the Village Center, I believe is the deli down there on the south side. Yes. Right now, I believe it's RB 40, Residence B 40. I think you're right. Yeah, that's what I mean. So again, when you look at what's permitted in Village Center, I mean, it's small scale commercial. I mean, it's a recommendation whether or not the board wants to go and make those permits. I mean, it's a recommendation whether or not the board wants to go and make those zoning changes. That's a future action. Okay. I just... Several times throughout the plan, I just seem to find that it says could be. It's never defined as will be. Yeah. I think that's important. And that concerns me. I think that's important though. Because it doesn't tie the board down that you have to do that. I mean, leaving it open ended. If you study it and it doesn't make sense to change it, then don't do it. Okay. So, I think that's important. I think that's important. So, I think that's important. [transcription gap] I think that's important. And also, I think the intent of this kind of section in the plan is to talk about there are several areas where the existing uses don't necessarily align with the zoning. And we provided some examples. I think we received a little criticism. Because they were all happened to be in a general same area of town. I think closer to Jamesport. That was more of just a happenstance. But we just wanted to point out examples of where you have residential properties and industrial zones that could be cleaned up. Historically commercial zones and residential zones. And other types of things where if they wanted to continue or expand their properties or uses in ways that the community might want, they wouldn't be permitted to do so under the existing zoning. So, they're just examples. They're probably many other examples. We just, these are again illustrative. Fair enough. Yeah. Maybe, no, maybe in the language we can say that. Because it says the following areas have been identified for special consideration. Maybe we can just identify that these are, you know, a few samples throughout the town and, you know, dozens if not, probably more, exist. But these are just the examples we're, you know, we're looking at. Because I mean right now if they wanted to expand, they're not conforming so they would need a special permit. Everything has to go back to the town. I mean, I think that's important. I think that's important. [transcription gap] But there is a mechanism for them to expand right now. You know, like the reality, I apologize. No, no, go ahead. Because I do want to address that. Well, so I just like those existing commercial uses down at the south end of Edgar Avenue. I mean, the reality, no one's going to buy a commercial property, knock down a commercial building and build a single family. That just doesn't really make sense from an economic standpoint. Yeah, but I would say that, you know, the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, [transcription gap] the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, a commercial property, knock down a commercial building and build a single family. That just doesn't really make sense from an economic standpoint. I want to ensure, because one of the problems that I have, we seem to locate everything like, for example, all the shopping on 58th. We cause a heart attack in traffic there. We spread commercial out. We also don't want to create urban sprawl either. Well, what does that have to do with the commercial? If you expand the commercial outside of the commercial corridor, the whole purpose of sort of concentrating it into one area is to prevent urban sprawl. I agree with you on an industrial sense where you make it, but in this case here, like this on Edgar, there's an auto body and there's a marine. That is perfect. It's in the perfect location. It's next to the water. It's a point. I would just leave it the way it is. I don't know why. It got changed to residential back in the 2003 comp plan. No. I don't know if it was changed to residential. I think it just is. It has. Oh, it's always been? It's always been. Okay. Sorry about that. I was told differently. Sorry about that. I apologize. The original owner of the deli actually lived right behind it. This is an issue. Right. Every town has properties like this. You know, when the zoning is done, it's done for large swaths of area, and it's not always parcel-specific. And certain parcels, you know, kind of, you know, it just needs to be cleaned up from time to time. And so we're just saying, just acknowledging that and pointing out a few properties that, you know, could be considered, and there are probably several others as well. So I just want to reiterate, you just said that these are protected. Yes, they legally exist as pre-existing non-conforming uses now. So they can maintain them. So if somebody was to sell their piece and somebody else... They have to continue the same use. So a pre-existing non-conforming use can continue on that same lot held in single and separate ownership. That's defined in our code. There is a mechanism in our code to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to go from one pre-existing non-conforming use to another pre-existing non-conforming use. One example of that recently would be the old Luxor Magtech building at the corner of Elton Street and East Main Street. That was an old manufacturing building. They converted a portion of that to, I believe it's Sid Harvey. They're an HVAC wholesaler. You know, the Zoning Board looks at specific criteria. Will the new use be detrimental in terms of, you know, neighboring residences, impacts? So there is a mechanism to go from one pre-existing non-conforming use to another non-conforming use in that zoning. So it does get, you know, the town retains a bit of control over what can go there and what can't go there. Okay. Thank you. All right. So 203, I think we touched on. That's the TDR zoning districts. 206. 206. So we're going to comment here. So number one is referring to CRC zoning districts. Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, so one of the comments, one of the things in CRC is that we're requiring the use, and I've got to find the development rights, right, if you want to do... That was one of the things we looked at, to increase the density. Right, but in no other zone do you have to do that. And that was a concern.
Well, I mean, but that's not true. You can use TDRs to increase residential density in, I believe, RA40 and RA80. That's correct. There is a residential TDR component to increase densities. CRC would just result in a more dense development than a one-acre or two-acre zoning district. Right, well, I'll go over that another time. All right, I don't want to... PRC zoning district, comment number three. Again, this... This is, you know, in the PRC, that's West Main Street. You'd provision the TDRs, again, would be restricted unless they have the sewer infrastructure in place. Comment? How does the board feel about that? This was kind of part of the BOA study years back, where they talked about giving more density on the north side of West Main Street to save the south side closer to the river. So... It kind of makes sense to me still.
We can work more of that language from the BOA study in there, too. I mean, that's the side you want to live on, right? On the river side.
Comment number two was, again, for ag tourism resorts. I believe the board wants to keep the ag tourism language in there. Comment about removing the cap on the use of TDRs. For residential. Cap may inhibit the intent in suggested TDR programs. A town should consider changing or eliminating the cap as the threshold is approached. So, again, for TDR... Change it to yearly review or something, right?
I would say annual review of the cap and maybe the TDR program itself. Just specifically for this chapter. Mm-hmm. I would just...
I just wanted to ask a question of like, one of the things I have talked to you guys about in planning, and I want to change the code, but can we in any way reference that the town may opt to consider in its future developments in central zoning? We've talked about it in central zoning, and I don't have the specific spot or location, but I know that Governor Pataki wrote the program many years ago for the state. I think it's, you know, when a project comes along and something doesn't fit in the parameters of the zoning and something, but somehow, way or another, that it's entirely beneficial through community benefit funding or other types of funding investments, you know, I would like to see some type of reference without. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think we're changing anything. Just simply saying that the town can consider it. I think that's an easy thing to do. Incentive zoning is already established under town law. I think it's section 261, I believe. I mean, it's already a tool in the municipality's toolbox. I've looked at some other towns. They have implemented incentive zoning, and incentive zoning is basically, you know, your town board would authorize density bonuses in. In allowing density bonuses in return for community benefits, whether it was open space, preservation, or some other, you know, prescribed community benefit. The zoning probably doesn't fit, but if somebody comes in and it's for the old, they can prove that it provides benefits for the overall community, and the town makes exceptions to allow some. Yeah, I think that's, no, I think we can add that for somewhere in future land use in terms of just referencing. Yeah, yeah, I think we can add it to a recommendation. I think it was something that we had discussed briefly about the Agri-Tourism Resort, and I actually have some text where I said, you know, as an alternative to the use of TDR, the town can consider other zoning tools such as incentive zoning, which could be used to leverage development to provide community benefits within the area. With this type of zoning tool, there should be a clear rationale between the development's impacts. And the provided benefits. And that's all kind of provided in incentive zoning. It can't be used for, you know, money to go into general coffers or something like that. It would need, there needs to be a nexus between what you're asking and what you're providing for that area. But we can add that. I'd just say, you know, like the reference, it just, it sends a message to me when somebody's reviewing a plan and they're helping somebody. There's potential here. So if it's for the town. The overall good of the community. Good. Does the board have anything else? Yes. Just one quick thing. The definitions of warehouses. We have that. That's in future land use to update our definitions and our use table. Right. I just wanted to make sure we discussed that. We're all on board with that. Because that's a must. That must be done. Yeah. That's a must be done. I think there's a lot of uses within the town that we do not explicitly define. That's one major thing that we definitely want to do when we're amending our codes. Good. General code cleanup. Yes. I have one more thing on West Main Street. Yes. And I've asked for this. No, I mean, and I don't say this begrudgingly, but a while back. And that's the west side of Main Street up against the. On the river side? No, up against the railroad track. Okay. Right now, what I like to see there is for that to be light industrial. Because it's light industrial there already. It's spot, it's spot, you know, spot. It's industrial C. Are we talking the vicinity of the. The gas station and the Dodge dealership down there on West Main Street? Yes. Yeah. A little bit further west than that, but all the way to Blackman's, you know, to me should all be, that's industrial C? No. No. The Dodge dealership, that vicinity out there, that's industrial C. But after that, it moves to PRC. I don't know that the board necessarily, if we're talking about having that area be like more like residential, middle housing. Do you really want industrial development? There's already industrial there. There's a. If you look, I've looked, when you look at that, there's a house, then there's industrial, industrial, industrial. Yeah, but that industrial is pre-existing, non-conforming. We're also up against the allowable uses in the WSRR. Yeah, DEC. Yeah, part, was it 666, the table? 666. And I think it's, is it a recreation designation there? Or is it, I think it's recreation. I think, so I believe that was actually, I think I just looked into this with Anne Marie. A lot of that, that section of Blackman was made to be a WSRR community designation. That was something that the town actually basically, there's a. Had to leverage the DEC. There's a, there's an allowance in the Wild Scenic Recreational Rivers Code. So the town basically had to go to the DEC to designate that as a community designation. Because it was going to be. To allow, to allow the construction of a new Blackman plumbing supply warehouse. This just tripped something in my mind. A county legislator, Stark, met with me and asked, the county owns the old Jeske, Jeske Fish Store. On West Main Street on the south side. Did ask. And they're looking to have that demolished. And they're wondering about the town's ability to be able to do the same. So I said I would discuss it with the board. And just did, just brought it up because that, when we were talking about that area. So it's just something to think about. We'll have to have further discussions on it. That's on the west side of. It's on the south side of West Main Street. It's boarded up now. Boarded up. It's really in bad shape. And it's just basically. Boarded up for 25 years. Crumbling back into the, into the river. And it needs to come down. Here's my concern about what you're speaking about, Bob. With allowing more industrial on West Main Street there. The goal that I see down the road in the future is for the riverfront to have nice homes. Some restaurants. Kind of to further out to connect to Tanger. Where it's a nice. It should be a transitional zone. Yeah. Yeah. It's like. From downtown. That's like the entryway. Correct. Into our downtown. And I think that having an abundance of industrial properties all lined up on one side of the street. That it would ruin it for the other side of the street. So I don't mind it being spaced out. But to make that whole area industrial. I will say the parts that are currently industrial C are going to be changed to light industrial. Yeah. That's where I'm going. Not. The areas that are PRC are going to remain PRC. Yeah. And you know whether or not the industrial businesses there are you know legal or not. That's another question. But the goal is to maintain the PRC zoning. We have a lot of good uses I think in there. There are some that need to be tweaked a little bit. Some definitions. I mean the PRC in general. Very. It allows wholesale business. Yeah. Restaurants. In our code. Essentially anything that's not detrimental to the environment. It's a very. Yeah. I'm not talking about any kind of like big manufacturing. There's an auto body on that side. Right. It's already industrial. Bill. I'm talking. I'm talking about light industrial because it exists. Right. And there are homes over there too. But I don't know how many people want to build another home on the railroad tracks. You know that's. So I'm just looking at. Light industrial. And I'm not talking about heavy manufacturing. There's no space to do. But PRC also allows retail. It allows restaurants. It's not. I don't think PRC. There's actually a residential component in there which is something that we're trying to explore through the comp plan because the purpose and intent include. You know it wants to include an array of commercial and residential uses. Yet we don't allow residential uses there. But we do. There are quite a number of permitted uses under PRC. This is the one where they were speaking about the townhouse option possibly. And the PRC. Well folks. We're to be comfortable right now. Yeah. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Thank you. [transcription gap] Great job. You guys. Thank you. What will be the process if you don't mind me asking. So you guys will make the updated version. You'll submit it to us to kind of again take a glance at it. Yeah. Is it going to just be a red line version so they can easily identify. So what I was thinking is we would give you the document like a clean version of the PDF. And then maybe a word document that has the kind of strikeout changes. So it's a little bit clearer. Because it will be tough. So we'll try to format it properly with the red line in the PDF. But we'll make it clear what was changed. And we'll highlight everything so you can see it in our next pass. No. I just want to thank you and BFJ because this made this task for us to do today required obviously tons and tons of reading and note taking and everything else that we all put in. Denise used up every sticky note that we have in the task. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I didn't have a clear head head head head head head head head head head head head on hers, but the process in which you did this and how you supplied it and put it all together and presented it to us really helped us tremendously. And I think the public will be thankful too at the end of the day. So we appreciate it and thank you for how you did this for us. Yeah, I would just like to say I loved the charts and graphs. I thought they were very easy to follow and read. It's a tremendous tool for everyone in the town to look at and see how the town has developed. It's terrific. But I will say this, I don't want to see you again for another 15 years after this. Well, if you need us again, we're around. Thank you. Yeah, thank you and thank you to the planning staff again for, you know, we met with them or we're continuing to meet with them every week, you know, for as much time as needed. And without the kind of constant back and forth, it's tough to do these big projects. And so it really has been. Yeah. It's been a lot of work on their part as well as ours. And so we're thankful to have good teammates and a partnership with the town. Thank you, Noah. Thank you, Noah. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Okay, moving on, we have. Thank you guys very much. No, wait a minute. Where are you going? That is surrounding special permit for 374 Main Road, Acrebalg. And Greg, we're going to put our claws into you and keep you up here with us. Yeah. Yeah, no, no. Okay. [transcription gap] Kim, come on up. Take the bathroom, please. If I leave, I'm probably not coming back, so no, you better keep me here. Hi. Kimberly and Ryan Winter from VHB. How are you? Good afternoon. How are you? Hi. Hey, Justin, can we get the eye in the sky, please? Okay. Okay. All right. [transcription gap] Few new members on the board that may not have seen this before this is a proposed special permit application to construct a professional office at 374 main road, which is on the northeast corner of main road and Union Avenue Subject property is about three and a half acres. They're proposing a 15,000 square foot one-story professional office Related parking drainage improvements This application has been before the board both the town board and the planning board for work sessions and discussions before There were previous versions of been previous design professionals and previous project expediters working on this Was it not originally a two-story? It's that so yes It's gone. It's gone through a couple of iterations one was a two-story proposal that was shut down not like that there was a question, so there is a Design like a supplementary guideline in the town code which states that for properties more than three acres The building the development shall be in a campus style development right one of the prior design professionals and expediters Had come in and we asked both the town board and the planning board. I think this was back in August August of 2020 They offered two designs one was a single-story building very similar to what you've seen here the other was a multiple campus style Development at that time both the town board and the planning board preferred the one-story single building the thought being it keeps the development Further away from the residences to the north of the development So that's why you know the applicant at that time or directed them to sort of go forward with the one-story single building located closer to main road So the zoning is rural corridor RLC zoning use district where professional office is permitted by special permit from the town board We did classify the action as a type 1 action pursuant to secret back in February of 2022 We did have the applicant prepare a traffic impact statement in order to analyze the cumulative impacts now there are separate applications for this to vacant parcels on the northwest corner of main road and Union We had the applicant prepare traffic impact study that looked at the cumulative traffic impacts from both of those developments at that main road and Union Avenue intersection They did prepare that Traffic study dated February
Sure so the traffic study As Greg mentioned in half is not only three seven four but two other properties to be developed on the west side of Union all with access directly on to Union Nothing on main road. So our traffic study considered the new intersection for the driveways main road at Union and also see our 105 at at Union on the north end To see what and what if any mitigation would be required. So as a basis of that study It was determined that there were minimal traffic impacts but there was consideration for a traffic signal at this location to ease some of the so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so from those measures so based on the you know the signalization and the DOT did approve that signal at that intersection and the design has been approved and basically just the permit is ready to be pulled for that but we have not we want to get through this special permit so I do know so this is just one application and I do want to just bring this up to the board so that you can see what we're talking about so a few weeks ago Matt charters came before the board with a proposed amendment to the town code relating to the use of pervious pavers on a site so this application right now it's the proposed impervious surface coverage is about 23.9% the maximum permitted in RLC is 25% so right now the application is not yet approved so we're going to have to wait and see if we can get a clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear clear head clear
pavers to be counting towards lot coverage it would probably be about 40% now the the RLC the 25% is a very low restriction I do note that this application is not looking to exceed their building lot coverage they're not exceeding the allowable floor area but the use of pervious pavers in this application does really it's being used to permit the construction of a much larger building than would be allowable if they were using the impervious calculation probably if you had to comply with the zoning code at the 25% you'd probably end up with like a 6,000 square foot building which would reduce both the size of the building the amount of required parking I did note though that when you look at the northwest corner those two existing office buildings on the northwest corner I did a rough calculation just looking at GIS these lots are both at about 40% impervious you know surface coverage between their parking and their buildings so the 25% is just not it's not in keeping with that existing level of development on that northwest side so I just wanted to bring it up for the board it's when we talk when we talk about a code revision it's tough to consider it until you actually see the results of what could be that was as you recall I appeared at that and I've spoken and I understand the intent of the projects that are above their lock coverage above there FAR using impervious service calculation when you're already going to the zoning board for FAR and building lock coverage I just didn't want a project that did conform to building lock coverage and FAR to be captured in the new code amendment. What do you and the one thing I did suggest when I was up at the podium was perhaps maybe that's something if you do pass that code amendment you say that if you don't meet your building lock coverage in your FAR you can't use impervious papers to bring down your impervious surface calculation so that's up to the board to decide. I don't know if we're going to get through public hearing before both boards before you enact that. Because once you enact that then I have to go to the zoning board for a public hearing on impervious surface calculation. So it's a timing issue. But what about land banking. I mean if you look we have a hundred spaces that we're providing and the code requires a hundred spaces. I don't think we're gonna need a hundred spaces. I do represent a lot of other medical uses. they're just not using all those parking spaces. What do you think about land banking to take out an aisle maybe? Well, so I mean, so land banking, I mean, land banking just requires, you know, the reviewing board, they still would have to provide them if they needed to be built out. So it doesn't necessarily change. Like if you wanted to land bank this area, it could potentially still be built out. So the main point with that impervious versus pervious code revision is when you're driving past a site, whether it's pervious pavers or asphalt, it doesn't really change the amount of development on the site. You know, it's still a hardscape. It is still development. And again, if, you know, in a case like this, I mean, 25% is low. So, you know, when I looked at it, I'm somewhat on the fence of, you know, trying to figure out how to address it. But, you know, when you have existing development, that's at about 40%. This is exactly where that, you know, that would be right about at that 40%. So the board may consider amending the allowable impervious coverage in RLC to be more consistent with existing development. Because 25% is low when you do have, again, it's just the nature of the use because medical office and professional office requires one parking stall for 150 feet. It's an intense parking requirement. Is there a way to make a change to that? I don't like that we recommend all these extra parking spaces that are not necessary and we end up with asphalt all over the place, you know, or pavers or whatever's going in there. So medical office is tricky. I mean, again, I believe I have to find out, I want to find out where the recommendation for the one per 150 come from. I would imagine it probably comes from like ITE, you know, like traffic engineer recommended guidelines. Would you say that's where it comes from? Most likely, yeah. That's in line, I believe, with what ITE's recommendations are. And that's a national average and recommendation for stalls per square footage or whatever unit you want to use to establish that office. So medical office, I mean, again, it's just, it's based on averages. It's based on a certain standard. There are busier medical offices and there are offices that are not as busy. For example, there was a, I forgot the intersection. There's a... Medical office on the, it's on the corner of Roanoke and one of the side streets. It was an old, it was like an old single practitioner. It recently went over to another medical care, you know, a medical provider. Didn't change the size of the building, but the practice is now much busier. So now people are parking on the street to go to that use. So I'm not necessarily, you know, it's kind of a tough situation to go and just change the code for medical when there might be medical... You know, medical practices and offices that need that parking, there might be some that don't. I think it's really sort of that average of, you don't want to under-park a site. You don't want to develop a building when, and then get yourself into an issue where you don't have the parking for those patients. Well, we would be willing to land bank spaces in order to keep it green instead of paving it. I mean, they could do that. I mean, if they, you know, if they were to land bank this section here, I mean, it would keep it along the, the frontage with Main Road. Yeah, this is for handicapped, though. So that's the only problem is that you got to keep, I think you have to keep these here. I think maybe perhaps land banking is here. And there are projects that you've worked on over the years that we've worked on where the board land back spaces and you have to do a covenant restriction that if the town board or the planning board finds that the need for parking is there, you can trigger it. And then the parking owner has to build it out. They would, so the code requires that the applicant provide a minimum of two-thirds of the required parking. So if we were to explore land banking, they would need to provide 66 parking stalls. I mean, that's something that the town board, in considering the special permit and the planning board, can consider. I would have no objection to land banking. And again, if they find out whether it's, you know, the provider there finds they need more parking or the board. If the board finds that there's a problem, they can fill that out. How many doctors' offices do they anticipate building out? They don't even have a tenant or anybody in mind just because we've been in this process for, we're like the third design team on board here. So it was started by other design professionals, other representation. But no, there aren't any tenants that are. So there are five suites being proposed? Yes. Justin, can we just zoom out a little bit on this plan? So there's five tenant suites being proposed, the largest being 5600, and then the other guys being 2000 square, about 2000 square feet. I mean, again, this doesn't, you know, whether these walls are broken down, you know, whether it's three tenants, four tenants, it doesn't change, you're not adding to the size of the building. You're just changing the, you know, the size of the building. I'm just thinking if you cut it down to 66 spaces and you've got five different tenants there, you're talking between employees and patients, you know, little more than 10 spaces per office. If you have three or four employees in each office, it doesn't leave a lot of parking for patients to come in. I mean, I'm not saying they have to go, that's the minimum number. I mean, they could remove that bank that had 13. So, I mean, they could provide 80. If they got down to 85 or whatever that number is, I was just referencing what the code says in terms of the minimum that has to be provided for the land banking. You have a voice from the peanut gallery. Sorry, Greg. So, to Joanne's point, we could consider an amendment. I'm not going to say we're going to do it, but what other towns do, especially with a high demand like this, we consider maybe a higher per square footage amount, but have an employee, a dedicated employee account with a certain number of spaces per employee and then square footage space as well. So, you kind of capture both angles. I know if you're in the area, you're going to have to do that. It's tough if you don't have an end user there, but it could make it closer to a real number. I'm just concerned because it's not a dense commercial area. Yeah. But I think it's worthy of a discussion, maybe a code revision to look at our requirements. I know we kind of talk about it on and off, but I'll work on it. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, we hear the same complaints with the shopping centers up on 58th. Yeah. Mm-hmm. But a lot of those centers also, which people don't keep in mind. Yeah. Is that there's availability for a pad site to go in there. Correct. Correct. So, that parking could possibly be needed at some point in time. All right. So, in terms of building aesthetics, we did provide elevations. RLC does have requirements for types of building materials, aesthetics. This application proposes cedar rain screens, and then we have a lot of other things that we're going to be looking at. So, we're going to be looking at the ! Okay. Okay. So, we're going to be looking at the cedar, tongue and groove, natural siding, along the northern end. So, the southern elevation of the building will have the cedar siding, the five and a half inch tongue and groove, so it'll have more of a rural character. Right. So, they do comply with the aesthetic guidelines for the RLC zoning district. One thing that I'm going to ask is when the planning board, planning department gets the renderings of what the building is going to look like and what materials they're going to use. I know a lot of times, sometimes it goes outside of what's actually listed that they're going to use. It's so important that the end product looks like what was presented in the beginning, and I don't know if there's an actual follow-up before our CO is issued that they're looking at whether or not it looks like the planning board approved it to look like. You know, I kind of see some variations. So, we do follow up. There was actually a gas station out in Calverton right before 25A branches off. They came in before the planning board several years ago for an administrative site plan, and they were going to propose, they had approved building elevations. When I went out to do my final inspection for that prior to the issuance of the CO, found that the elevation was not good. The buildings did not match what was approved, so they have to, they're resubmitting. Okay, good. So, we do follow up. They're resubmitting now. They're resubmitting their stuff now. Yeah, I mean, they're in the, they, they, they're operating. No, they're not. That gas station's been, it's fenced, that site's fenced off, and they're not, I don't believe they're operating. You're talking about the one on the corner on the left side? Right across the street from the planes. Yeah. Yeah. No, they're pumping gas yesterday. I drove by it. They're open. That's new to me. What? I don't know. [transcription gap] They're not supposed to be. Well, they are. All right. Well, we'll follow up on that. I mean, that's news to me, but I went, I last went out there probably something in the water up in that area with people doing what they want to do. But in your resolution, though, when the board approves it, you put as elevations by? Yeah, I mean, we reference on any, any site plan resolution. We reference, you know, approving the site plan, dated such and such. We list the sheets. We put the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, [transcription gap] resolution for the board recommend assuming lead agency issuing a negative declaration as the traffic impacts will be mitigated by the installation that signal recommending moving this forward to public here I'm going to support that I like the that they listen to us about the design of it and going from the two story to the one story and setting it up this way I think it will blend in nicely down it with what's on the already nephi state where that building I think that sits in pretty good in there and I like this thank you thanks so I'll have all draft the resolution all the boards okay I'll add that to the packet for the meeting next week
I'm sorry right as a thing it's almost impossible to hold them back up to it now thank you okay you too yep no problem okay we are we have on the open session for matters surrounding an update on boards and committees but I think we're going to postpone that until the next work session we have board members that have other engagements not too far from now and we still have a fair amount to do so we're going to postpone Devon the updates on the boards and committees no problem we'll do that at our next available so that brings us up to resolution okay just talk about the process of the resolution so as we all know we're going to have to wait until next week and then we'll see what's next so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so them and skew makes it easy I think it's better public perception to look at it and find out like the president when especially after like today when resolutions are continually added to the packet the next meeting you can see okay we stopped at 15 and now we've added 16 17 and 18 and we keep them in chronological order and if we decide to pull one that's okay we'll just okay number tens not being read today here's an example I just finding it like a little too confusing that things are just being added to packet removed from the packet and then like I just think if we can assign numbers I don't know what anybody else's thoughts are they keep things in sequence as they go in and as we change them that's a question above my table because I don't understand fully how minute track works and I know there are a lot of issues with it right now and there's another one today that we've got to deal with possibly but so I think the council brings up a good point I know it's it sometimes can be a little confusing I think we would need to certainly consult with the folks in the town clerk office because they are sort of quarterbacking the minute track process and the agenda so I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to make life harder on their end but certainly I understand the intent which is to try to streamline the process as anybody drops one in from any department it's immediately assigned a number and it stays with that number and if it never comes to fruition the number is simply not used but it just keeps it in chronological order as things are added into the packet well I think part of the problem the practical problem is that there's two numbering systems so the system that you see before you these are numbered for today only you'll notice from the well that's just that but I'm talking about physically on the resolution if this is if this is resolution number 10 I'm using as an example it always stays there if you decide to pull it well right but 10 is not it's 10 today but then big picture wise they they keep track of the resolutions numerically throughout the whole year so you notice it's 2024 dash you know 263 but it's okay for me to say 2024-010 was never never discussed that was pulled yeah so I understand what you're saying but it's there and then if you come back to it or you revisit it a month later you want to bring it back in you just go back and you say I'm revisiting number 10 but you keep them in sequence yeah as any department adds a resolution they're kept in sequence I just think it's for public perception like last month last meeting it was like things are being added before some of the resolutions then others are being that was a separate issue resolution they're all the numbers are different in chronological order let's that was a one-time error that I think the town clerk has addressed yeah so that was a separate issue but as I say big picture was I understand where you're coming from with that and we can certainly chat with the town clerk and the uh the folks in the clerk's office about maybe a way we can try to do this differently but I know as I say I know the numbering system that they give us today is different than the numbering system that'll be in place for sort of archival purposes going forward online so that 10 years from now you can pull up a resolution it's 20 it's it's from the senior so it's 2024 dash all right so um but but certainly we can look at it we're always open to trying to streamline and make things better for everybody so no problem there all right so if the board's ready we'll jump into I just want a quick show just for transparency yes I forgot my packet upstairs so I have it on my phone I'm not looking at text messages I do as well okay let me see Joanne the odds on that horse we have an extra packet here if anybody needs all right so resolution number one sewer district capital project number 82317 budget adjustment number two water district capital project 82303 budget adjustment resolution number three ambulance district fund balance transfer number four approves the attendance of one police department employee to attend a seminar number five approves the attendance of one police department employee to attend the DCG DCJS public safety symposium number six appoints new seasonal Beach employees to the recreation department number seven appoints the seasonal recreation aid to the recreation department number eight appoints a call in recreation specialist to the recreation department that's not what mine says no mine doesn't say that either mine says appoint seasonal did I miss eight I'm sorry to Recreation Department okay so number eight appoint seasonal staff to the Recreation Department yes number nine appoints colon Recreation Specialist to the Recreation Department correct and number 10 does the same thing yes yeah yes points a call on Recreation Specialist to the Recreation Department number 11 appoints Brian Mills to service as chairman of the board of assessment reviewist number 12 ratifies the appointment of seasonal staff to the Recreation Department number 13 reappoints member to the small business advisory committee castranova number 14 reappoints members to the small business advisory committee number 15 accepts the resignation of an account clerk number 16 waives fee for a use of the showmobile for Townscape summer stage concerts at town at town square number 17 approves fireworks application for Jamesport Fire Department July 20 2024. summer's here number 18 approves fireworks application for Riverhead Bidma July 5th 2024. number 19 approves special event chapter 255 application for Hallockville Museum Farm barn raising supper number 20 awards bid for food and meat products number 21 extends bid for disposal of town generated construction and demolition material number 22 extends bid nonk per tongue for lubricants number 23 extends bid for auto parts number 24 extends bid for disposal and recycling of the municipal solid waste number 25 approves agreement between Tanner Riverhead and Windship Media LLC utilizing parking police personnel and police cars 2024 jazz in the vines number 26 authorizes the town attorney to execute an agreement with municipal evaluation Services Inc the board of a crawl this is the second piece of it you guys previously approved the 2324 this is for 24 25. 25. [transcription gap] bond resolution of the town of Riverhead New York adopted July 2nd 2024 appropriating two million two hundred and sixty thousand dollars just to clarify for the board you recall we had adopted this at a special we had three board members present for that it came to our attention thereafter that we needed to have actually four of you present so we're just going to essentially redo the same thing hopefully we'll have the three that we here have to come back good just it would be great if you could number 28 authorizes town clerk to publish and post notice to consider a local law to men chapter 301 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled zoning and land development section 240 thereof entitled bed and breakfast facilities number 29 authorizes town clerk to publish and post notice to amend chapter 257 peddling and soliciting number 30 authorizes town clerk to publish and post notice to consider a local law to men chapter 251 of the Riverhead Town Code entitled noise public nuisances and property maintenance section 7 thereof entitled variances number 31 adopts local law to men chapter 301 zoning and land development part 2 districts article not too sure pine barrens overlay district number 32 ratify the amendment of fees for accelerated building and construction of a new system under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under [transcription gap] américans under américans under américans under [transcription gap] ! américans under américans under américans under [transcription gap] plus sewer district equipment. Number 35 approves fireworks application for the Rock Golf Club, July 5th, 2024. Number 36 provisionally appoints a code enforcement officer. Number 37 pays the bills. And then to the councilman's point, additional challenges with Minitrack and the system that we have in place. But that we're in the process of replacing. Numbers 38, 39 and 40 are listed below. Minitrack just did something we had never seen before and grouped them separately, but the town clerk's office will remedy that by Tuesday. So we'll call those 38, 39 and 40. Even though they're listed separately as one, two and three. Number one, which is number 38, Riverhead Sewer District Capital Project 82226, budget adjustment. Number 39, budget transfer veterans Memorial Park, parking lot capital project number 72306. And number 40, amends town board resolution 2021-41. And I think Jeanette is here, financial administrator. She's just gonna clarify those last couple of resolutions. Speak to them more. It's the same.
Hello. Hello. Hello. These were three late resolutions. I apologize. The first one is just to transfer some excess funds in a sewer district project that Michael Reichel had mentioned is almost complete. So he will not be utilizing 41,500 from the Cranberry Street Sub-Collection System capital project. And those were transferred originally from the American Rescue Plan Act. So we are freeing up money for ARPA to apply to one of the following. The first one is the project number. And the second one is the number of projects, which is the sanitary system. It's not supposed to be parking lot. So I have somebody amending this in time for the board meeting. But that project number is correct. It's supposed to be for the sanitary system though, not the parking lot. And the 41.5 will go towards that, which was previously slotted for fund balance. And instead of fund balance for another resolution, which is the number 40 of our list or the last resolution. The 41,500. That's now being utilized for ARPA for the sanitary system is now going to be a fund balance money for another older resolution, 2021-481, which was never recorded as a budget adjustment. So we are amending that resolution and using fund balance instead of ARPA monies for that. Because those are design fees associated with an ongoing project. So I probably wouldn't qualify for ARPA. So we're going to use fund balance for that one instead. So that's kind of the link between all three resolutions. Anybody have any questions? How's the new office? It's nice. Thank you. That was an easy question. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Jeanette. Okay. This concludes our open session. In a moment I'm going to ask to close it and move to go to executive session where we will be discussing personnel items, matters surrounding a possible change in status of an employee. That's with me. Matters surrounding disciplinary matter of an employee. That's with Howard and Marsha. And legal matters, legal advice on rules and procedures from Howard and Prudente. So can I have a motion to close the open session? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Motion accepted to close the open meeting. We will go to executive session. Everybody have a great weekend. And oh, congratulations to any of our high school graduates. I think graduation is this weekend. So congratulations to all those who are graduating high school. I think we can all, well, maybe Bob can't, but most of us can remember back to when we graduated from high school. And best of luck to everybody. And whatever your future endeavor is, college or workforce, whatever it may be, the best of luck to you. Have a great weekend everybody. Take care.