Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. I'd appreciate, since we're live on TV, if we could quiet it down a little bit. Okay. All right. Would we all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Kirk Howard, would you lead us in the pledge? Yes, sir. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Art. Thank you. Thank you, cities.

Okay. Good evening, everybody. Prior to opening the public hearing tonight on the DGEIS for the comprehensive plan update, we need to clarify the record regarding the public hearing for the draft comprehensive plan, which was held on Monday, May 20, 2024. After reviewing the record from the May 20 public hearing on the draft plan and in an effort to clear up a technicality, I'd like to make a motion to officially close the public hearing on the draft plan and remind everybody that it will remain open for written comment until the close of business on June 10, 2024. This will mean the draft plan will have been open for public review for 46 days, which is more than adequate for interested parties to review the plan and offer comments. With that being said, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan, which is more than adequate for interested parties to review the plan and offer comments. With that being said, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan, with the written comment period remaining open until the close of business on Monday, June 10, 2024. Can I have a motion to close it? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. The draft comprehensive plan is now closed, and we will now open the meeting for the draft generic environmental impact statement. Second. [transcription gap] Second. [transcription gap] Second. [transcription gap] Second. [transcription gap] Second. Second. out only because the comments are on the draft environmental statement. Nothing in that statement regards the charter school, but I will also tell you in an announcement I have conferred with my board members, and we are all in favor of removing the language out of the comprehensive plan that would allow the charter school to go on industrial land. Just so you know. We heard you loud and clear. We agree with a lot of the points, and there is land available in the town where if the charter school should choose to build a school, that it would be zoned appropriately for them. We're not going to give away industrial land for a use of a charter school. So that's the support of the entire board. So I just wanted to let you know. Thank you.

With that, Sarah, I will turn it over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Hubbard. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Sarah Yackel. I'm principal with BFJ Planning. You're planning consultants who have prepared the draft comprehensive plan update with all of you and many people in this room. And also, we prepared the document that is the subject of the public hearing tonight, which is the draft generic environmental impact statement. I know that that's a lot of letters. Unfortunately, that happened. It's not what happens with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. I do have a brief presentation to just sort of walk you through where we are in the process, the next steps, a little bit about the draft generic environmental impact statement, and then the next document that will come before you, which is the final generic environmental impact statement. Next slide, please. So I'm just, as I said, we're going to cover just quick on the comprehensive plan update, the secret process, and then tonight's proceeding, and then we'll get underway with the public hearing. Next slide, please. So you just closed the... The comprehensive plan update hearing. It is still open for written comments, but I just wanted to make the point that the document that is up online and was the subject of that public hearing is what we are calling for purposes of the environmental review, the proposed action. So the document that is analyzed in the environmental impact statement is that draft comprehensive plan. There are no zoning text amendments or zoning changes that are before the board currently, so it is just the land use approach where it may discuss. So I'm just going to close the meeting. Thank you. [transcription gap] is what we have analyzed in the EIS. Next slide, please. So, just quick walking you through the secret timeline. We were before you in April where you reviewed the draft generic environmental impact statement and accepted it as complete for public review. That public review period began on April 26th. We are now here on May 29th for with a special meeting and this public hearing. And as the supervisor said, the comment period, as with the comprehensive plan update, will remain open until June 10th, close of business. Following that, we will have our work cut out for us and responding to all the comments that we received tonight. And I will discuss a little bit about that process in a moment. And we will prepare what's called the final generic environmental impact statement, which will come to you sometime probably late July, early August. From there, you will have another round of review and acceptance of that document. And following that, we will prepare what's called the finding statement. That finding statement just walks through how the board has met its obligations under CEQR with respect to the environmental review. And once you've adopted that document, you are then in a position to be able to adopt the comprehensive plan. I would imagine that at the same time that you receive the final EIS, you will also be receiving a red line version of the comprehensive plan update, reflecting any changes, including the one you just mentioned, just so you have that and the public can see that as well. So, what is a general plan update? It's a generic environmental impact statement. A GEIS is really used to consider broad-based actions that agencies may approve, fund, or directly undertake. Members of the public and the board may be more familiar with a standard EIS where you have a project, something that you're a specific site that you're analyzing. In this case, there are no shovel-in-the-ground impacts. Nothing is being constructed as a result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan. It's really used to examine the environmental impacts of a plan, having wide application or restricting the range of future alternatives. So, both the actions here, a comp plan, and then in the future, if you choose to adopt zoning, are both generic actions. In a GEIS, there's no need to speculate about specific projects if none are known. And so, you will see, for those of you who have read the document, I know the board has, that you will see that there are no specific projects identified unless they have already been presented to either the planning board or the town board. The table of contents of the document, there are six chapters, and these six chapters are mandated by state law. The executive summary, the proposed action, the environmental setting, potential and mitigation. Under that chapter three, there are seven subchapters, and these were all outlined in the scoping document that you adopted back in the fall, which are land use and zoning and public policy. These mimic the chapters of the comprehensive plan, so I won't go through them. And then there are other environmental impacts, which is a category that is also mandated by state law. There's an analysis of alternatives. State law requires that you consider a no-action alternative, so what is the outcome if this document isn't adopted? And then finally, because this is generic, a subsequent Seeker Action chapter is also required, and that chapter lays out sort of next steps for any projects that may move forward or implementation of recommendations from the plan. So the public comment period, the state law requires a 30-day minimum comment period. It's a public comment period on a draft generic environmental impact statement, and I will note that a public hearing is not required by state law. The comprehensive plan DGEIS public comment period was open or will be open for 46 days. It opened on April 26th and will close on June 10th, and you are also holding a public hearing. A final GEIS, which is the document that will come after the close of the comment period, must respond to all substantive environmental comments made on the DGEIS. On the next slide, I'll walk you through what that means. A substantive comment pertains to impacts, alternatives, and mitigation presented in the DGEIS. So comments that would ultimately get responded to in that FEIS have to pertain to the analysis contained in that draft document. Substantive comments can also raise important new environmental issues not previously addressed, and it's important to note the general statements of objection or support for the comprehensive plan should be noted in the comment summary, but do not need a response. And so for many of the comments we may receive or have received, you know, we may summarize those comments and then the response would be comment noted. Next slide, please. Next one, please. So tonight's proceedings, as we said, this is the DGEIS public hearing. We are asking that folks limit their comments to three minutes, and, you know, it would be great to get written comments of any comments made tonight. Again, the DGEIS public hearing is a public hearing. We are asking that folks limit their comments to three minutes. And, you know, it would be great to get written comments of any comments made tonight. Again, the DGEIS public hearing is a public hearing. The DGEIS comments should relate to the contents of the DGEIS, not the comprehensive plan. And the comment, again, the comment period will be open until the close of business on June 10. Next slide. And finally, comments should be submitted. Written comments should be submitted to the town clerk at either the address here or at James Wooten's email address there, which is Wooten at townofriverheadny.gov. With that, we. Mr. Jim, do you want to go to the town clerk? Mr. I've got someone ready. Go this way. Thank you. Sorry, the one thing I just want to clarify is that said a three-minute time period, there is no time period tonight. Okay. Okay. Thanks. I just, I have some questions for you if I can. Chip, are you able to go back to the slide that just shows like the calendar timeframe if you can for a minute because I just want to clarify. So it's one of the first slides. I think you may have missed a slide as well. But my question is so when we had the initial hearing for the draft comprehensive plan and then we're hearing comments tonight, I think all of us on the board have been making continuous comments. The supervisor explained to us that we're going to have like a work session. But I just want to clarify like so when we make changes, I'll use the example of removing the line regarding industrial zoning and so forth. How does it work when a change is made? Okay. Does it mean it goes to another whole public hearing or is it kind of like to what extent – just to clarify for the public because we're listening. We're all making notes here. We all want to see. We want to sit down at a roundtable and kind of make those changes and just how does that come about into the timeframe if you don't mind? Yeah. So following that June 10th close of the comment period, we will presumably know I think heads up the comprehensive plan update process. He will probably meet with you at a work session and walk you through any proposed changes to the plan. They will be things that were said at the public hearing. The only thing that would necessitate reopening the public hearing. The public hearing would be if there's something new has been proposed. If you are tweaking language, clarifying language, removing language, that is all fine. If you were to all of a sudden include a new recommendation, that's what would necessitate reopening the public hearing. Hand in hand with that, the final environmental impact statement, I think there was a slide that may have gotten skipped. If you go there. Next one I think. This one. I want to cover this quickly. The final GEIS which is coming post this meeting in the June 10th deadline includes what the contents of that document are. It's not like a draft comprehensive plan to a final comprehensive plan. It is a completely separate document just called the final EIS. That can be confusing. So what you will be receiving is a document where the draft EIS is incorporated only by reference. And it will have three chapters. The first is just a summary chapter. The second is just a summary chapter. And the third is a chapter which is any changes to the proposed actions. So that's a chapter that would summarize any revisions that are made to the comprehensive plan that comes out of this hearing process and NOAA's follow-up meetings with you. And then the third chapter is a response to comments. So copies are a summary of all substantive comments received indicating their source and the lead agency's response to those comments. And so ultimately we would be preparing responses to any of those substantive comments and they will be categorized either by the commenter. Or by topic area. Thank you for clarifying. I just see a so we're taking things in. We're making notes and so forth. And presumably that those that work session and those meetings to get to a revised plan will happen later in June, early July so that we then can finalize the FEIS because we need to know what those changes are to be able to finalize the environmental documents. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to open it up to questions. I'm going to ask you to give us a few minutes. [transcription gap] Any comments on tonight's DGEIS meeting? Good evening. Kathy McGraw from Northville. I'm going first because I probably know the least about GEISs of any of the other informed people who will talk to you tonight. I can say that this is a daunting document of 284 pages, and especially for people like me who aren't trained in SECRA. And I have to believe it probably makes your head spin once in a while as well. My comments tend to be general because I don't fully understand all the specifics in this document. But I'm struck by the fact that this DGI, I can't even say it. EIS. Can I use that? Yep. Finds specifically, and I'm quoting now, in the mitigation measures, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated from the plan's adoption. And thus, no site-specific or neighborhood-wide mitigation measures are necessary. All future development would require site-specific review under SECRA where mitigation measures might be. I didn't have a 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 this really be true? And I didn't think so because the DGEIS says the plan's execution wouldn't alter the town's current visual and aesthetic character directly. It serves as a guiding framework for future town actions to protect scenic and historic resources. And I may be missing something here, but it seems to me, this plan's adoption will, in fact, alter the town's visual and aesthetic character. And just a few of the examples that I think would cause that to happen. I think there will result massive traffic problems in Calverton. Yes, the plan recommends ways to minimize visual impacts of industrial buildings. But with the use of TDRs, it allows construction that can house logistics centers and cube warehouses that will clog our roads with truck traffic. I view that as a pretty adverse impact. Another example, housing. The DGEIS says there are no significant impacts in the plan. I question that. Because they recommend lifting the DC-1 500 housing unit limit. I think that would have a definite visual impact and on the infrastructure. There will be impact on the infrastructure, schools, and traffic from that. There's also a recommendation eliminating the three-year occupational requirement for accessory dwellings. And I think that's a good point. And also, increasing the size of those dwellings. Right now, there's a limit of 650 square feet. The change would allow up to 40% of the primary residents. Now, as I read this, it says to me that every house in Riverhead will now be eligible for construction of a dwelling apartment, an accessory dwelling apartment. There is a limitation of one bedroom. But, you know, you build an accessory that's 40% of a new house and it's a pretty big accessory and it'll have family rooms, studies, and only one thing that's called a bedroom. It could easily be reused. And I do believe that a proliferation of these dwellings will inevitably impact on traffic, schools, and infrastructure. Another example is vertical farming. The plan wants it to be allowed on all agricultural land. Not just on APZ land, but all agricultural land, including RA80 land north of Sound Avenue. And I suspect this has to do with the farm operations thing that I spoke about during the comp plan. Well, vertical farming is unsightly. It requires tall and often unattractive buildings. It's nothing like the scenic beauty of cultivated farmland. I call that a significant environmental impact visual. The plan also recommends allowing solar on farmland beyond the currently allowed 110% of the farm's need for electricity. Vertical farming requires an awful lot of electricity, as you pointed out, Supervisor Hubbard. I think that alone, the demand from the vertical farming, could fill our agricultural land with solar panels, even if you kept the 110% limitation. And allowing it in excess of 110%, I think, I can't understand how this could not constitute a significant, inviting, environmental impact. We will have vistas of solar panels, which are pretty ugly, in my view. And then agritourism results, results, resorts, sorry. The plan recommends them. And I don't understand how such resorts would not have a significant impact on our scenic and historic resources. Namely, on our vistas, the historic Sound Avenue corridor, the Long Island Sound, and its bluffs. Sure, the DGEIS says these and many other zoning recommendations will require additional study to determine the scope and scale of any future potential zoning changes. And only when such changes are proposed, would there then be additional studies and a CEQA review, to determine the environmental impact. And excuse me again, I may be missing something. But I thought that those were the purposes of the comp plan update, and this DGEIS. Isn't that what we paid the consultants to do? I find it alarming that the GEIS lists eight zoning changes that will require further study, and further CEQA. Thank you. I'll head over to you next. [transcription gap] But this DGEIS strikes me as nothing more than a kicking of the CEQA can down the road. It is only when zoning changes are actually proposed and site-specific development plans are presented that any real CEQA review will be done. I have to say this really doesn't make sense to me and it frightens the bejeebers out of me because in recent history, it's been a rare occasion that this town has issued a positive declaration for a CEQA review. Yet it's pretty clear that this comp plan will have the potential for many adverse environmental impacts on our town's infrastructure, traffic, scenic resources, land, and community character. Thank you very much. I appreciate your attention. Thank you, Kathy. I'm just a little bit confused about that statement because we want CEQA to be able to be continued to be used on projects in the future. Do we not? It has to be. It has to be. I understand that. But you would want that as you wouldn't want the comp plan to alleviate any necessity for a CEQA study. It would be harmful. And you can't speculate on a project that doesn't need to be used? Correct. You might. You have to analyze it. [transcription gap] And I'm not suggesting, Supervisor, that it would eliminate future CEQA. I'm just saying that many of the recommendations in the comp plan, aside from a zoning change that is happening in the future, have impacts. I don't mean to say that it wouldn't require more. Okay. Thank you. Cindy Clifford. [transcription gap] I kind of want to second what Kathy just said about her lack of understanding. I don't know how many hours each of you have spent going over this environmental impact statement, but I really tried to get to the point where it's all clear to me, and I haven't gotten there yet. I don't get it. And I think that if you look at how many people are not here tonight, you think Kathy and I probably aren't there. But there are a lot of people here tonight. aren't the only two who don't quite get it. Maybe you all had the benefit of BFJ walking you through a detailed review, step by step. It would be helpful to those of us who are struggling with the big picture to have something similar to that. Unfortunately, my takeaway, which I'm sure is mistaken, is that this is all about TDRs that can be used to build more. I just kept seeing TDR, TDR, we're going to do this. Anyway, I know that the EIS explains that this is a new approach to TDRs since they haven't seemed to work so well in the past, but it seems like they're going to be used as a magic bullet to permit more density, which as residents is not what we're hoping for. I read that north of Sound Avenue will be ascending and a receiving area. For as little as I understand about that, does that mean that the town can both protect property and develop more property in that same area? Because that doesn't seem to make sense. And again, I could be misreading, but I think that this TDRs could be used in tandem with lifting the 500 unit cap of apartments downtown, permitting more units and elsewhere. I used to have an office in the Science Center's original 11 West Main Building, which they sold to the Conifer Organization, who were going to bring artist residents and workforce housing to benefit Main Street. The apartments happened, but the artist and workforce housing did not. Now the Science Center, once touted as a perfect town square centerpiece, made a series of design changes to suit the greater project, had necessary permits long delaying the start of the old Sweezy Building renovation, and they're being threatened with imminent domain. Is it a concern that a Children's Science Center is no longer wanted, or is it a greater concern that there might be a plan down the road to swap out some TDRs and put another Main Street apartment building in that space? I have a lot of respect for the goal of this comp plan. I really do. And I've spent a lot of hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours trying to make it happen. But there's a lot of hours trying to take it all in and understand what we're looking at and what we're getting and what, if anything, we might be sacrificing. But the environmental impacts are as important as the comp plan itself in moving forward. I would request on behalf of anyone else in Riverhead who might need more clarification to be clear on what we're agreeing to, that the board seriously consider hosting at least one information session. That would spell it out. spell out exactly what this all means for our future. Again, it's most important to get it right and then call it done. Thank you.

Hi, Laura Jen Smith with the Greater Jamesport Civic Association. I also have to thank my board who are here tonight who did a lot of work on this because it's quite a lengthy document. Before I start, I just wanted to ask two questions. I know you had asked about the draft environmental impact statement and the final and the comp plan and the update. So my question is, is you're going to put out a final update to the comprehensive plan? And is the public then going to have an opportunity to comment on that final before this draft, the final environmental impact goes through? Timeline, how is this all working if we don't get a public comment? I believe the red line version is going to come out and comments can still be taken on the red line version before it is finalized. Is that incorrect? Before June 10th? No, I didn't say before June 10th. I mean, it would be publicly available. It would be up to the board if they wanted to open it up. Okay. So it would be, there would, so there's a potential for an opportunity to have another public hearing based on the final comp plan for the public. Yes. And for this, for the environmental impact statement, where does that then fall in that? That would come, follow after that? Yes. It would, no. So how could you not have a? Matt, could you maybe come up to the microphone or Sarah? And I think what Sarah was also saying earlier, if we decided to make a significant change, then we would initiate another public hearing. If this is just simple, you know, spelling correction, there are small things, you know, and, you know, small things. I think. If we have small things or move it, then in that sense that we can full steam ahead. But with significant, if I were to propose something completely different that's never been discussed, we would need to go back to a public hearing and give our residents an opportunity to comment on that. So that was kind of one of the things I was trying to point out earlier, that we're listening, we're taking notes, and we may choose to make changes. And if they're insignificant, we move forward. If they are significant, we may need to have another public hearing. But I think a lot of people, you know, when they came and spoke, there were some pretty, you know, significant topics at the last public hearing. So I'm assuming you're going to discuss those and come to some sort of conclusion. Absolutely. Pro or against, right? You know. But the document with any changes would now be an update. There are going to be changes to this. Okay. And then we'll leave it up to the planning and the legal department to determine whether or not they're significant enough to warrant a new or secondary public hearing. Right. Councilman, so if it's a removal, Yes. of the public hearing from what's already been, what there's already been a public hearing on, then you don't need to do another public hearing because you're just removing what people wanted to have removed, right? Right. If you're adding something significant to it, then yes, you would reopen it. So if there's a brand new recommendation that no one that hasn't been part of any of the public engagement process, then that would trigger the reopening of the public hearing. But you wouldn't need to have a further public hearing on the final document if it simply removed things that people wanted to have removed. Right. You want to have the public hearing and public comment essentially closed on the plan prior to accepting the final EIS. The worst thing that you could do in terms of the process is accept that final EIS document, adopt findings, and then make a significant change in the comprehensive plan because then that would reopen the seeker process. So those two things need to happen in tandem. The other thing is seeker does not, you know, probably technically allows, but it does not require or even mention a public hearing on a final EIS. That really is your document for making your decision. And the timing of that to the commenter's question would happen, you would receive that final document and that revised draft plan. I would anticipate later in the summer, you know, potentially late July, early August into September. So there will be adequate time prior to the ultimate adoption. Okay. Thank you. All right. That clarifies. So just a couple of things. Just with Kathy McGraw, she was saying about housing and the significant impact. I think in there, one thing that wasn't mentioned was that there is a statement in there about adding optional potential housing on Route 58, which would also have a significant impact in the numbers. And I did not see any of that in the draft environmental impact statement to analyze that. So now I'll go into my Jamesport hat. So an item of interest. So a great important, which was not discussed in either the DGIS or the comprehensive plan and is not listed there is, and was brought up last week, was the United Riverhead Terminals location in Northville on the Long Island Sound and the impact it has and can have on our town. On page 40, the RA80 and RB80 draft included all, the draft included all RB80 and RA80 districts as sending and receiving for TDRs. Once again, we only support them as sending areas. Page 41 for the Hamlet Center, the draft is recommending that Hamlet specific studies be conducted first to identify specific changes. Therefore, the analysis of the impacts would need to wait until a study is conducted and detailed zoning recommendations are proposed. So we would like to know what recommendations does BFJ planning for now for what is proposed. On page 41 was the nonconforming uses, which we brought up before. The comprehensive plan addresses the need to adjust the zoning map in several areas to better align with existing uses and reduce nonconformity. It is acknowledged that zoning changes for these areas need further consideration by the town and impacts would be considered once detailed recommendations are proposed. But the plan has singled out four nonconforming areas in the town of Riverhead when there are hundreds. To now rezone properties in residential areas, to marine or light industry could have a monumental impact on the residents in these areas. To change the zoning of the shopping center on a critical bend in the road and not look at the surrounding parcels appears to be spot zoning. If the plan is making specific recommendations in zones, shouldn't the DGIS say what the negative impacts would be if these zones were changed? And that doesn't seem to be addressed in there. On page 41 for agritourism, the draft would be to address the potential of the new year's agri-tourism resort facilities with the use of TDR credits in appropriate locations, subject to design, development, and environmental standards. The placement of agritourism resort facilities needs to balance the support of agriculture with the preservation of natural resources. Agritourism defined should be aligned with regulatory guidelines established by the New York State Department of Ag and Market. That's Ag and Market Law Number 1. Ag 2030, under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under [transcription gap] under under under under under under under under under under under under [transcription gap] of the farm produce. On page 86 and 70, I'm sorry, 86 and 87, assisted living. It is recommended that assisted living facilities be allowed with special permit use in other areas to be evaluated by the town board on a site-specific manner. We feel there needs to be an infrastructure in place for assisted living, not placed in zones within adequate roads or sewerage. On page 87 for housing diversity, the draft recommends including removing minimum home size requirements. To remove the minimum size of a dwelling could result in track housing that would not be consistent with our area. On page 87 for housing diversity, to allow the elimination of a certificate of occupancy for three years before granting an accessory apartment use and allowing the square footage to go from 650 square feet to 480 square feet to 40% of the main residence. What does the DGIS say about the dramatic change that these rules would have on density and residential neighborhoods with regard to the size of houses and the new demand to have additional parking, even though the plan is suggesting to reduce that parking? On page 88 for agricultural land, the draft wants vertical farming in any district where agricultural is the primary use on farms with development rights intact. We do not believe vertical farming is a good idea. We believe that the ! The draft recommends including minimum home size requirements. To allow the elimination of a certificate of occupancy for three years before granting an accessory apartment use, we do not believe vertical farming should be allowed on prime farming soil. On page 93 and 94, as far as the population, the draft lists the head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head [transcription gap] head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head 4,100 people. The draft stated in the past a higher than projected long-term population occurred. Could this also be the case with these population projections? And we'd like to have them looked at a little bit more closely to make sure that they are on par. We have added 929 apartments. That's on page 101. And there is a list in the draft, page 275, which lists well over 200 pending housing proposals, and there are estimates of 267 assisted living units on page 115 being added. There is still vacant land in Riverhead that would add more development. The draft projected population seems low when all of these projects are counted, and we feel that this needs further review in the impact statement. On page 111, the population, the mythology that estimates more residents with TDRs, and the impact statement, so under américans, so under américans, so under américans, so under américans, [transcription gap] residents regarding short-term rentals. While the town acknowledges the economic benefits of allowing short-term rentals in certain areas, it's the same local business and tourism and potential impacts, but potential impacts such as increased traffic, noise, and safety issues must be carefully considered. The comprehensive plan and GGIS use mixed signals when they are reporting on the short-term rentals. We wish the town, obviously, to keep the 28-day rental as we've spoken about before. Laura, what page was that on? That's on page 121. Thank you. I can give you guys a copy of this. I was going to ask you when you concluded. We're not writing as fast as you're speaking. Sorry. I know you sent comments in a forum, but when you conclude after tonight, can you send all these comments in written format to the town clerk and then he'll distribute to all of us, please? Absolutely. Thank you. That goes for anybody tonight who speaks, too, if you want to do that. There's also a transfer. I can't write as fast as you're talking. No, that's okay. I speak fast. On page 121, goal seven, Riverhead seeks to actively market, develop, and redevelop sites aligned with the town's vision for growth and prosperity. The town attracts developers, but needs improved zoning and land use evaluation and regulatory capabilities to align future development with goals. Marketing in town is neither necessary nor an appropriate use of funds at this time. On page 156, existing roadway capacity. The determination that roadways are of ample capacity pertains to planning-level analysis focused on determining whether there is adequate lane capacity to meet average and annual traffic demand. These analysis do not account for daily peak hours or seasonal variations in demand. And one, just as a point out here. You know, this was something somebody had brought up. To the person whose house burns down because the fireman can't get to the firehouse. I'm sorry. [transcription gap] I'm sorry. [transcription gap] I'm sorry. [transcription gap] I'm sorry. [transcription gap]

that includes not just annual counts, but also our seasonal counts if we're looking to bring in more tourism. So thank you very much. Thank you.

If you stand up, you have to come to the mic.

Do we have anybody else present? Okay. Good evening. Joan Sear. I'm from Jamesport, and I am a colleague of Laura Jen Smith on the Executive Committee of the Greater Jamesport Civic Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. A few things that Laura Jen Smith didn't cover because I didn't get my notes to her in time. On page 242, Agritourism Section 3.0, page 38, we support creating clear definitions and implementing regulations for agritourism, including size restrictions and a permitting process, and recommend that the New York State Ag and Markets Law be followed. However, we do not support the recommendation to permit tourist lodging on farmland, and more specifically, for example, the proposed agritourism resort that was proposed on Long Island Sound is actually proposed to be located in... in the area that is designated a New York Natural Heritage Area, according to the DGEIS, and a New York Natural Heritage Area, according to the document, says that under the Environmental Conservation Law, the New York Natural Heritage Areas Program defines significant natural communities as locations with rare or high quality wetlands, forests, grasslands, ponds, streams, and other types of habitats, ecosystems, and ecological areas. So, we urge caution with the planners recommendation to ensure that, you know, agritourism definitions are flexible enough to accommodate a diverse range without compromising environmental integrity. Clearly, there is a risk of compromising environmental integrity. With regard to the PRC, the Peconic Riverfront proposed development, we're looking at page 17 of the document. That's section one, page nine. And, you know, we're looking at section 14. So, we're looking at section 14. [transcription gap] that the proposed action seeks to enhance the TDR program by updating the transfer formula and identifying new receiving areas, designated RB80 and RA80, ascending districts and conserve, blah, blah, anyway, to steer growth to less sensitive zones. This includes diversifying housing in the CRC and PRC districts through TDRs. While we support the development of an effective TDR program to preserve farmland and open space, the Peconic Riverfront is not a less sensitive area. On page 31, section 1, page 13, the DGEIS, in fact, calls the PRC a sensitive area. The PRC recommendations are for up to eight units per acre with TDR. It says that that's unlikely because it's not connected to the sewer, which is a concern about doing... It's not a concern about any multi-family build out in an area that is along a river without a sewer. So I'm failing to see how development of this area in excess of what it's currently zoned for, even with TDR, is preserving an environmentally sensitive riparian area that the DGEIS states in numerous places is to be preserved. That's discussed also. The next slide, please. The next slide is the Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan on page 208, which says to conserve and protect habitats. On the same page, it says the Peconic Estuary faces challenges from increased development and land use changes leading to water quality degradation and habitat loss, especially in the system's western end near Riverhead. So we have a conflict in the DGEIS and the recommendations in the comprehensive plan saying let's build out this PRC area. And then everything in the DGEIS says let's protect it, let's protect it. So we've got, I think, a significant conflict there that needs to be resolved, in my opinion. Furthermore, under the section 3.7, infrastructure and utilities, flood risk management, page 251, it states that areas along the Peconic River are especially at risk of flood events. And again, we're proposing higher density residential in the PRC. So another conflict. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to other proposed changes in agricultural lands, page 243, that's section 3.6, page 39. There's a list there of other agricultural uses. And it says, these recommended zoning actions for agricultural lands aim to sustain agricultural activities, preserve rural character, and manage environmental impacts through strategic policy interventions, all of which are not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources. The first thing I want to say is that not having a significant, not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources is not the same as not having an impact on environmental resources or on the environment as a whole. And this is a D to EIS, and it should be talking about that. Not just whether it's a D to EIS. But whether it's going to impact what that particular farm. So this area addresses vertical farming on prime farm lands, renewable energy, aka solar on farm lands. Farm operations. Can someone explain to me what a farm operation is versus what farming is? And I mean this most seriously. I don't know what the difference is between farming and farm operations. Does anybody know? Sarah? Can you explain that? I... [transcription gap] Thank you. That's where I'm going. I just lost the page. Thank you for being so patient.

Okay, so farm operations, as defined in 3013, the building structures and land uses associated with agricultural production and processing of agricultural products. It's where you do your processing. Growing and processing are different in ag and markets law, and they're different in the town code. So that's the definition, really. That's helpful to know.

Thank you. That's helpful. So this section, again, talks about the other uses for farmland, renewable energy, farm operations, agritourism, and then it also mentions conditional use permits, introducing contingency. Conditional use permits offers flexibility to accommodate evolving agricultural demands and technologies while mitigating potential impacts. That's a bit of a scary one for me because I think of the special use permits that we've run into with other things in the town, and it's opened a bit of a Pandora's box. But going back to my original statement, is that I think that saying that these activities will preserve rural character, I think, is a misrepresentation. I think that's a misrepresentation of the truth. Further saying that these activities are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impact on agricultural resources, again, is not the same as saying it will have no environmental impact. And in fact, the significant amounts of energy and water required by vertical farming, for example, could have a significant negative impact, even beyond the local community. Renewable energy on farms is an accessory use. It's not a good idea. It should be more specifically defined. Does that mean a few solar panels to provide energy for the farming or the farm operations, as we've learned? Or does it mean several acres of wind or solar? So I think that should be more specifically defined. And map, on page 220 of the document, there's a map showing that indicates, if I interpret this correctly, that most of Riverhead is categorized as prime farmland, categorized by the state, with some of statewide importance. So we urge the town to make every effort through the plan to preserve prime farmland and to keep it in use for agricultural purposes, not as solar or vertical farming. In the utilities chapter of the document, the DGEIS evades the issue of increased energy electric demand by saying that the electric or energy resources are out of the town's control. I think that failure to prepare for the eventuality that utilities may not be able to supply sufficient energy to support additional development in the town is preparing to fail. And we see this in the summer, occasional brownouts, sometimes rolling blackouts. The comp plan in the DGEIS should include what the potential increase in energy demand could be. And at the appropriate time, the town can consult with the energy providers for how to make sure that they're able to provide sufficient energy. And we see that the city has a lot of energy resources that are not available to meet the demand. But to avoid the issue saying you don't generate the electricity so it's not a concern I think is misplaced. It is a concern because you need to know if you can provide enough energy for the town and its residents if you're going to build it out. And then in conclusion, on page 272, section 4, page 1, it says therefore, the document says overall, therefore there are no anticipated adverse environmental impacts if the proposed comprehensive plan is implemented as drafted. And I think we've heard tonight points out that yes, there are potential and significant adverse environmental impacts from what's proposed in the plan and these need to be addressed. Thank you very much. John, would you be so kind as to send that to us also? I beg your pardon? Would you be so kind as to send that in to us also? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Phil Barbato, Jamesport. Just one quick one on the agritourism point. If the plan could require that the agricultural land that's been set aside within that development. Could be permanently preserved. Either through purchase by the town or the county or donation by the owner. That should be a requirement because it's too wishy-washy now. Oh yeah, we're going to have some agricultural land there. Ten years down the road if they start nipping away at that and building some more tourism stuff. How are we going to enforce that? I think it should be permanently preserved if it's going to be used for agriculture. And Phil, that was written into the agritourism code. And so it was specifically listed in there that it would be a 70% preservation tool and a 30% development. The thing that we disagreed with the farmers, I'll tell you, is that many people are talking about vertical farming and agritourism and seem to be putting it together. But we refuse to only separate from the ag and markets rule in terms of that I won't support vertical farming along Sound Avenue, along the coast. I think that's a good point. I'll clear up a little bit more so you guys can clear up. [transcription gap] that's preserving our agricultural heritage. That's where we disagreed with the farming community is that I want to keep the role character of that farming process, that soil work. And it does the agritourism code that was originally presented for a public hearing stated that 70% of it would be put into preserve. The only thing that we disagreed with the farmers is that you wanted to be able to put vertical farming on Sound Avenue, and I said that's going to destroy the look of the Sound Avenue historic corridor by stacking MRSA containers three or four high on there, and I simply wouldn't support that, and I believe the majority of this board won't support that because we want to protect the integrity, the aesthetics, and the view of the Sound Avenue. It's a historic corridor. It doesn't belong to look like a seaport, and so that's where we disagreed. I think everybody keeps tying in vertical farming with agritourism, but that's the code that was presented to the public did not allow vertical farming with the agritourism code along the Sound Avenue corridor. Thank you. As a farmer, I completely agree with you. Well, thank you, Phil. I wish you would have come to some of the meetings and expressed that out loud. I did. I did. Maybe you didn't hear me. Thank you. Vertical farming is not farming. It's industrial. Exactly. And there's a place for it, and I 100% support the farmers, but there's a place for it, and I don't think shipping containers stacked high on Sound Avenue works for me. It doesn't. That's not the legacy this town is looking to do. Right. But on the point of agritourism, how will that agricultural land be permanently preserved? Is it in the contract somewhere, or is it going to be? It's upon granting the zoning use of it for the property. So it's a zoning code enforcement that would be necessary? Based on the issuance of a building permit? Go ahead, Matt. I wanted to . Yep. So it required the purchase development rights for, as you said, 70% preservation, and it required either the owner or, you know, whoever they're going to lease the land to to have an active agricultural production. Seventy percent of that 70% had to be in field crops, and then a portion could be buildings or what have you. It could be a small portion. It could be Sound Avenue. But seven, it could be, sorry, vertical farming, but 70% had to be in field crops. So TDRs, essentially, PDRs. But not really related to the DGIS. Matt, did you just say vertical farming? Yeah, could you clarify that? Correct. So that was in the draft. Okay. I don't really want to, we're a little far from what we're supposed to be covering, but 70% had to be preserved. Of that 70%, you had to be in field crops. The remaining, you could be in other forms of agriculture, which does include vertical farming, however, there was a provision that it could be visible from Sound Avenue, but it's, we'd have to address that if that ever came up for a public hearing again. If we ever got an application, it's a future action. And it doesn't, on a small scale like that, by limiting to 30%, it was deemed that it wouldn't be a choice of production up there because you would need, you know, you need closer to the 100 acres to be successful in vertical farming. You need the sheer size, the magnitude of it in order to be successful. Yeah. Excellent. It's a, it's a. And you didn't want that. It's a future action, I would say. I mean, it's not something that's addressed the DJI. Can I just add to this that the person who owns the land has the ability to lease to a farmer that's not doing vertical farming. Correct. Because you can't ask for follow ag and markets 301 code and then say, except. So the people that somebody is building a hotel and they want to lease to a farmer, they say, yeah, we're fine. We're fine with an orchard. You can't do vertical farming. They own the land. They can dictate to the farmer. The farmer doesn't own the land. I don't want to go too deep. It's a separate conversation for a separate time for a separate public hearing. But it's our job to protect the area that it doesn't happen. And that's what we're trying to do. That's our job is to make sure that it's not allowable and it doesn't happen. Correct. Okay. I'll pass this next one's question by then. Sorry. That's okay. I guess my only point was, if, if, if it's, uh, enforcement of town code, it's a lot more difficult. If it's preserved farmland and the County has purchased the right to develop it, or the town has purchased the right to develop, that's a lot easier to enforce. And. That's exactly what it is. That's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's Thank you. Thank you, Phil.

Kathy McGraw again. Just a quick question, Mr. Rothwell. The comp plan recommends allowing farm operations and vertical farming on all agricultural land, not just the APZ. They recommend a change to allow it in the RA80 zone north of Sound Avenue. Are you all prepared to reject that in the comp plan? Because it's there. Is it not? Yes, it's there. It is. It is clearly in there. And on our last comprehensive plan discussion, I've already put notes that I do not support vertical farming, and I intend to address it in our revisions. So, yes, we've been making notes. You are correct. It's there, but I don't support it. Okay. But I'm one person on the board. You said we are not going to support that, but I didn't understand that to be the case. Thank you. We got the draft, just like you, and there are going to be changes to this. And so stay tuned. I absolutely do not support it. Thank you. Neither do I. For farm on Sound Avenue. Neither do I. So you got the draft when we got the draft. And we're making notes. And there are. There will be changes. I do not support it.

That was one of the things, too, Kathy, that I wanted to discuss earlier, the time frame, so we understand that we're not just listening. There has to be an incorporation of changes and updates as we go along. Good evening, Supervisor, members of the board, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Barbara Blass. I live in Jamesport. I want to thank you for having this separate. Public hearing on the G. I. S. It is a standalone document, and it really deserves focused attention. But I just have to say that the process itself is not. It's not like anything I've ever seen before, and it's not people friendly. It's difficult for though to follow, even for those who may have a basic understanding of what's supposed to happen and how these documents actually relate to each other. I've never encountered a hearing on an impact statement for an action or a document that is still a moving target. I count myself among those that are confused. Tonight, I was prepared to talk about those actions in the G. I. S. Not any of those things in the Complan, and I have a host of pages, pages and pages, which you'll be receiving on agritourism, vertical farming, battery energy storage, all of those things. But I thought we were focusing on generic environmental impact statement for those actions that are going to be recommended to be implemented without further study. And there's really. Only a handful of them, which is in and of itself a little disappointing, considering the significant amount of time and energy that went into this document. And we have a couple only a few things that could actually be implemented in the in the near future. I think that's pretty. I'll say remarkable, but not necessarily in a positive way. The G. I. S. Evaluates only a few Complan recommendations that can be implemented without further study. It should. Ever. Emphasize that the population projections do not reflect a saturation population. Should the Complan be implemented in its entirety. Saturation population is it's really very important, whether it's just these handful of of recommendations or everything that is included in the Complan. We got to know we have a we have a carrying capacity. We have limited resources. The population projections themselves are problematic due to the fact that different sources and time periods which provide. In some cases, questionable conclusions. One data set projected a population in twenty thirty five, which was actually less than our population was four years ago. The G. I. S. Should use the same sources and project over the same time period to produce meaningful comparisons. One affordable housing demand analysis concluded at three to five hundred units of newly designated affordables would be required to meet the community needs and then using a. Different data source. That changed to nine hundred new income restricted affordables over the planning period. There's something needs to be. Looked at a little bit differently here. The G. I. S. Fails to qualify a qualitatively assess the potential cumulative growth inducing impacts from implementation of the plan. I think I said that when will this actually occur. I'm going to speak a little bit more about the accessory apartments because there's another aspect. The code currently permits them in ten zoning use districts. There's a recommendation to remove the CEO. We've talked about that on accessory or principal structure. For fifty three year requirement. And it does mean that every. New single family residents in any one of the ten zoning use districts could be constructed with an accessory unit. A standard yield map. Something that councilwoman. Waski. I'm sure. Is familiar with a standard yield map in a subdivision would look no different. But each single family residents depicted on that map could provide an additional living area for rent. Recommendation clearly has growth inducing impacts which should be evaluated. Analyzing such recommendations as a separate action sometime in the future. Is a problem. All of the mechanisms introduced to promote a variety of housing options designed to meet community needs contribute to an open. And a growth and development which is a concern for community of otherwise limited resources. CRC zoning use district it's recommended as a TD this is one of that supposed to be implemented without further analysis. CRC zoning use district as a TDR receiving area proposes density from four to twelve units per acre with necessary infrastructure infrastructure which does not currently exist. TDR guidance documents as well as the state statue. Says that the governor governing body shall find that the receiving areas contain adequate resources and services. The town cannot make such a finding in this case and I object to the mapping and designation of the CRC district as a receiving area as a result of that. The PRC district is similarly situated in the sense that it is also intended to be designated and mapped as a receiving area with a density of up to eight units per acre. And I object to the mapping and designation of the CRC district as a receiving area as a result of that. The PRC district is similarly situated in the sense that it is also intended to be designated and mapped as a receiving area with a density of up to eight units per acre. The PRC district is similarly situated in the sense that it is also intended to be designated and mapped as a receiving area with a density of up to eight units per acre.

AREA AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE PECONIC, THE GEIS SHOULD ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE RIVER BY CALCULATING THE TOTAL LOAD AND TRAVEL TIME FOR NUTRIENTS FROM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE TO REACH THE RIVER. RA80 DISTRICT, ONCE THE MOST COVETANT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, NOW PERMITS RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. CAN IT BE ALL THINGS AND REMAIN TRUE TO THE INTENT STATED IN THE CODE? AND I WON'T GO INTO IT. IT'S IN THE CODE. BUT HAVING RA80 MAPPED AS A SENDING AND A RECEIVING AREA SEEMS TO DEFY LOGIC BECAUSE THE INTENTS THEMSELVES ARE AT CROSS PURPOSES. THE GEIS DOES NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT PLANNING JUSTIFICATION TO SUPPORT THIS CONFLICTING DESIGNATION WHICH SEEMS TO BE DRIVEN BY AD HOC OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. THE GEIS ACTUALLY DISCLOSED THAT 90 DEVELOPMENT ROUTE. DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SOLD FROM THIS AREA WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED. DESIGNATING RA80 AND RB80 AS SENDING DISTRICTS WOULD PLACE 3,929 MORE TDRS IN PLAY IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE APZ. UNDERSTAND, I'M NOT AGAINST TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM. IT NEEDED TO BE GIVEN A SECOND LOOK. BUT IT REALLY IS NOT AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM. I'M NOT AGAINST IT. [transcription gap] as it is a growth tool for these reasons. The GEIS indicates the proposed action has the potential to use only 173 of those 3,929-plus development rights. The GEIS should discuss how this significant increase in available TDRs put out on the market is not in and of itself a growth-inducing impact. The same system should be clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear [transcription gap] Right, okay. The Calverton Industrial District, if adopted, this new district would reduce the allowable industrial build-out of 7.42 million square feet by 166,968 square feet and utilize 17 TDRs. Calling that a significant reduction is quite startling. The proposed dimensional regulations address primarily the visual impacts and live coverage and do incorporate TDRs but do little less. There was an expectation that the moratorium would have provided the planning consultants an opportunity to assess cumulative impacts to air quality, traffic congestion, water supply, etc., from industrial development in the Calverton community, including from the projects that were actually listed in the local law establishing the moratorium. That certainly didn't happen and it's disturbing. And if it's not going to happen now, when will we see that analysis? The GEIS used a 9% growth factor to project the industrial build-out over the next 10 years. The GEIS must justify the basis for using this percentage. And with respect to the text recommendations that they say should be implemented now, the proposal is that the board should be able to request a cluster development in the APZ district in the APZ district. To require cluster development in RA80, RB80 in the APZ district, please see sections 301, 24, 32 and 40, which already include the requirement for clustering. The proposed text change that the planning board should be, quote, allowed to request a cluster development in RA40 and RA80, I'm sorry, this is an embarrassing text request, and it's an embarrassing request. Thank you. It's actually offensive. The planning board has full authority to request any layout they believe to be in the best interest of the community and represents the most orderly and appropriate development. This statement should be deleted from the GEIS completely. GEIS acknowledges that changes to existing districts and certain new districts require further study. We've heard just about all the rest of what I was about to say, other than the fact that I have a lot of information and comments on urban farming, or also known as vertical farming, which demands, you know, the energy demands, the battery energy storage, agrivoltaics, conditional use permits, all of those things, which I will submit at another time. I didn't think it was appropriate at this particular hearing. And I thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you, Barbara.

Do we have anybody else from the audience?

John McAuliffe from Rolling Woods, or Roanoke Landing, however. You want to characterize it as part of Riverhead. I have a question. Thank you. I have a question about process, or comment about process and a question. We started out with a very participatory grass roots involvement in the Hamlets and the development of, I remember, all of the little tags and there was a similar process here with people putting tags on things. We're now in a stage where we're going to have to go back and forth. I'm sorry. [transcription gap]

that that's what the participatory piece would be. I think you've got, as I said, you had this process of creating things for the planners, for the consultants. And I don't know, maybe I wasn't at all of them and I didn't hear everything, but what's come up last week and today are very controversial areas. I think you've responded quite well to the organized controversy around the school question and the industrial areas, but it's clear that injected into this comprehensive plan now and the GEIS now are things that are by no means a consensus in the community. It may be a consensus among staff, or among the staff of the town, or among board members, but the issue of the agritourism, of the develop agricultural development and tourism merged together. I think it's not clear to me whether that started out as an agricultural development tool or a protection of land tool, or it started out as a developer in Connecticut, wanting to do a project, and then finding the language that would make it more acceptable. And I think that sort of deep question about whether the town really wants that needs to be separated rather than injected in. I think similarly the issue of housing, both the increase in the number of apartments is a separate topic. It's not something that ought to just suddenly appear, because again, I don't remember a discussion of increasing the number of apartments in all of these preparatory meetings. The other, this accessory housing, I think people can have feelings positively and negatively about it. Obviously there's a need for housing, but the accessory housing does become a rezoning. You know, if there was a clear, clear decision on the part of Riverhead, as a lot of other rural areas, that it was gonna protect itself by having one acre or two acre minimums for property, and then all of a sudden you have accessory housing in them, well then it's not the same kind of zoning anymore. And I don't know if that's really been thought out as a question of our goals and policy, or again, having it appear within, the context of the DGIS and the comprehensive plan, I don't think is adequate to that. I think also the issue of moving, allowing distribution centers, which are described in terms of the footage and the height, but really create a very, as people have said, a very, but really create a very, as people have said, a very, very different kind of consequence for the environment and for traffic. I don't think there's, I mean, at least I've not heard, maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people, but I've not heard any kind of a consensus that we want that kind of distribution center development.

As Ms. Waski knows, I have particular concerns with something we've already slipped through on the HKV, the HK Ventures project, but I think there's, these kinds of things ought to be taken out of the comprehensive plan and the DGIS and debated in and of themselves. The vertical farming question obviously is also, we've heard a lot of discussion about it. I must say the language, even more in the DGIS than in the comp plan, the language about EPCAP, is very good. It's very open. It's very positive about considering all kinds of environmental factors and consequence for the town factors. But I would like to see some of these problems like vertical farming. There may be a lot of places on the EPCAL land where vertical farming would be very intelligent and it would not have, some sort of contamination of the land would not be an effect on the vertical farming while it would be of traditional farming. Similarly, the question of the charter school, that if we include in EPCAL the concept of not-for-profit educational and cultural institutions, it seems to me as I've said in previous meetings, that EPCAL ought to be the place, that you should look to for the charter school. The other question that obviously has slipped in without a real policy community consensus discussion is this short-term housing. I mean, our family has used Airbnbs all over the world and we love them and they're great. But I know that our neighborhood, there's short-term housing, where we are in Rolling Woods, there's gonna be a lot of Airbnbs there. And as somebody at the last meeting said, the last hearing said, that that's going to have a consequence. Now, maybe you wanna put that profit for the owners or the potential new owners of that property higher than the atmosphere and the environment of the people who are already resident. But I think, you know, I think that's a good question. I think that should be discussed in and of itself. Not entered into the comp plan. And then. I'm certain that you will hear about the short-term rentals in our work session study. Because I think again, it's something that was put in there. And again, it does not carry overall support from this board. But again, these are ideas that have been shared over years. You know. And so we got it when everybody else got it. We read it. when you read it, and then we will have a work session as the supervisor mentioned earlier to kind of, for us sitting up here as a panel of the board to discuss our concerns within it as well. But that is certainly on the topic of, I do not support short-term rentals. I don't do it, but, you know, but. James McBride- There are times we are in complete agreement, Mr. Rothwell. Robert Rothwell, Jr.: Strange, isn't it? James McBride- Finally, again, on process, because it was a little confusing at the beginning. This document will now be modified based on reactions. It's a little fuzzy to me what the difference is between a substantive point and a comment. Is what I just said substantive, or is it just a generalized comment which doesn't have to be responded to? It's been said that if things are taken out, then, yeah, obviously, there's an ! I mean, it's not a reason to have a hearing again about them. But if things stay in, if things like the farm issues, vertical, whatever, these issues, if these stay in, is there going to be another opportunity where you can get reaction? In other words, you have now the draft, you'll have your final, and you'll be doing some kind of hearing. If, by the way, you're not going to get a response, you're going to have to do some kind of hearing. I just have to clear up opinion has emerged. I mean, I think we have to thank Kathy and Barbara in particular for having both the intellectual weight and the energy to dig deeper than any of the rest of us have. Maybe you have all done that already, or the professional staff have done that already. But I suspect that over the next several weeks, not just June 10th, but over the next month or two, there's going to be continuing discussion of these things. And when you're really, when you're back at the point of having the document to approve that's going to have a 20-year impact on the town, I would hope that there is at that point a hearing where you can hear from people this point, which we objected to two months ago, we object to, and there's now 100 people objecting to it. I mean, it's, I think you need to be that, sort of openness of the final process of things, not additional things, but things that have been maintained from the version we're now looking at. If there's reconsideration of them, it comes from the community and from the civics. At any rate. But also, John, that large-scale projects, I mean, we've been updating our code, you know, over the last few years, but things that are going to require special permits, it's like you still always have the opportunity for public service. You still have the opportunity to speak to the public hearings on an individual project that may be at hand to discuss your openly concerns. They still have to go through their individual secret. And so you still always have an opportunity. This isn't like this closes the door and like everything that's slightly mentioned in here just goes forward. You still will always have, you know, on those regulations, especially, you know, by special permits, you'll still have that opportunity. You'll always have your public hearings. You'll always have a chance to speak forward. They'll always have to go through the secret hearings and so forth. And so you'll have to review it. A lot of stuff that's in here is conceptual ideas. But it doesn't mean that that's going to be acted upon or it's not a God-given right because it's written in here, you know, put it in stone. I agree with that. And certainly we used to hear that logic about EPCAL, too. The point that I would make is that if it doesn't have broad community support, it shouldn't be in. Because at a certain point, whether it's you or a different set of people and whether there are economic interests behind it, like, frankly, this resort area, the fact somebody is going to say, well, this is already in the comprehensive plan and it's essentially now been approved. So you're right that there are other guardrails or are other points where objection can be made. But I think the first guardrail is to take it out now. And have it be debated separately. So thank you very much. One thing I just want to add and hasn't been mentioned and it should have been. Our planning staff is available Monday through Friday, 830 to 430, for anybody that has any questions. These documents are very complex. And they are more than willing to help you with any questions, anything you don't understand. I use them all the time. But they're available to the public. Call. Add me. I'll be there. Ask them. They would love nothing more. And we had this conversation today. They wish more people would call them and ask them questions because they could help solve some of the conundrums that we get up here at the microphone. But they're available. And they're there for that. So please take advantage of it. I think that's great, Mr. Herbert. But there is a certain shyness for many people. I mean, it's not everybody that's prepared to even come into the office. That's what I'm saying. It's even easier to make a phone call. Well, I'm suggesting that you're actually triggering another idea, which is if you take these two documents and you say at lunchtime on this date, we're going to talk about this section. And people who have questions can come and ask us those questions. And then three days later or four days later, we're going to do this section. And again, people with questions can come and ask them. And sort of walk through these documents. I think you're right that part of the conundrums or the nervousness is simple comprehension. It's understanding it. And if your staff are prepared to do it, you have beautiful facilities here. And there isn't much food immediately available. But you can think about that one. At any rate, I think that would. Not really. So it's a bring your own, right? A brown bag event. A brown bag event. But at any rate, I think that would be very good. So thank you very much. Thank you. You better start bringing the food. You'll be there. I'll be there. It's more than just me that wants a soda machine, Supervisor. Ken Zelnicki from Riverhead. Also a member of the planning board. And I want to thank you guys for letting me serve the town of Riverhead so much. Some are retired. And I just want to make a point, Tim, that you said the planning board is some of the best people I've ever worked with. They are spectacular. They're hardworking. And they wonder why I'm in their room so often. But just a couple of things. I'm from a farm family. And we've been out here since my grandfather came, 1918. And some of the questions you guys have on farming. Some are good. Some are, you know, I wonder about. One of the things on the hotel that wants to go up on a sound. What a lot of people don't realize is that the two developments just to the west of that, Willow Ponds and Soundview Meadows, were farms. My family farmed them. Now they're houses and condos. And I don't think anyone ever wanted to deny the fact that I'm a farmer. I'm a farmer. I don't think anyone ever wanted to deny these people, you know, a nice place to live. But they did take over approximately 70 acres each parcel. So about 140 acres of farmland. The hotel that wants to go in, the whole front area, about 70 or 80 acres, are in the county program. So will have to remain forever. Development rights have been sold. There's only 18 acres on the Sound. I'm neither for or against it because we're not that quite involved as the planning members yet. But I think it's something to look into. Because if the person put up condos instead of hotel, it would be much worse for the school system. Where a hotel, you come there for a couple of days, you go home. And I understand the traffic. But that. That hotel will never have the traffic as one weekend during pumpkin season. At Harbs and all the other farms. And everyone enjoys that. I'm just saying, just consideration, something to look into. On the vertical farming. I've been in contact with Joanne and Bob for the last month or so. Many farmers have never heard of vertical farming. And I've talked to at least a dozen other farmers, family included. They don't like to be told what you can and can't grow. They're a farmer. They should be allowed their land to grow whatever they want. And I understand, Ken, I don't particularly like the container situation. But when you do vertical farming, it is less than a year. It is less than a half a percent of what land it covers on a farm. I don't believe they should go on good farmland. That was never the intent of the program. The intent was to put it in buildings, an urban farm. But if someone wants to try it out here, I suggested to Joanne that if you're going to do trailers and close it in a nice, rural-looking barn. And if you can, it's very tough to restrict a farmer on what he can grow. But you can put in building codes to say, listen, if you're going to do that, put it in. And I believe there is some vertical farming going on, but they're set in barns. So you don't even see them. So that's a consideration. Instead of, you know, fighting the farmer, try to work with them. Say. And because it's. You don't need a lot of it. And it's so expensive that nobody's going to put a lot of money into it. So let it be enclosed in something nice. Just a thought. And the one question I have on the accessory apartments. Now, 40 percent is the of the existing house or you can add on 40 percent. How does. That work? If you don't mind. Hello, everyone. For the record, Heather Chodnowski, planner for the town. So the existing accessory apartment code, which is chapter in Chapter 105, it's 40 percent of the entire square footage of the dwelling. And the current square footage is the entire square footage of the building. So. [transcription gap]

so. in addition to their principal dwelling right now, the total square footage of that, the accessory apartment can exceed 40% of it. Does that make sense? But I, you know, with the vertical farming, I would love to sit down with any one of you guys, and maybe we can go over it, because some of the farmers have different views. You know, they don't necessarily like the vertical farming. They really don't know how it's going to work, because all it is is hydroponics. There's no soil involved. And then what do you do with the wastewater and everything else? So it's something to consider. I don't think it should be discarded, but I think could be worked with if it's done nicely. Because, Ken, it's not just north of Sound Avenue. I don't think I'd want to see those trailers anywhere, you know, whether it be south of Sound Avenue, Jamesport, or anywhere. If it's done nicely, and, you know, go with the architectural review board to have a building put up, or something done around these trailers. Ken Krausmanis But just to clarify one of your comments, when you say that don't argue with the farmers, we've never argued with the farmers. I've done nothing but support the farmers. Ken Krausmanis No, I'm not. Ken Krausmanis Let me just be. So when it came time to that particular program in agritourism, north of Sound Avenue, the idea was to twist the hand of the developer and say, you must now engage with a farmer. Ken Krausmanis And so, if you want to work, you have to do it. Ken Krausmanis And so, if you want to work on your 30 acres, you need to put a farmer to use on the other 70 acres. And because it was the historic corridor, we said it's about preserving the agricultural heritage and the aesthetics of Sound Avenue corridor. And that's why we said we, there was two things that were concerns. We didn't want containers stacked up in vertical farming, and that was what was prevented, that was what was presented to the farm preservation group. Ken Krausmanis And so, we said, we're going to put a farmer to use on the other 70 acres. Ken Krausmanis And so, we said, we're going to put a farmer to use on the other 70 acres. And that was what was presented to the agriculture farm preservation group. And then the second thing was mulching, that we didn't want large mulching operations where they're bringing in like large tree stumps, large things and grinding up. Those are definitely farming techniques, and you can do them right now on your own current farming property. Ken Krausmanis Right. Ken Krausmanis But we weren't looking to take a historic card and go, hmm, this is a good place to start vertical farming here. I believe that that is a definite use, but maybe go over into the industrial use area where you're sitting on sand, and maybe, I'm totally against sand mining, but stack the vertical farm as much as you want on top of sand that we never intend to mine, but don't take one of the area's most richest soils and stack containers on top of it. But the man standing in the back, Mr. Carpenter, said on behalf of the farmland preservation and the bureau that he speaks for, said that the farmers will come out against you if you try to do this. Ken Krausmanis Right. Ken Krausmanis And that I had the hardest time comprehending why that this was a gift. This was saying that this is not your farm. We're not, none of this legislation in any way affected an individual farmer and currently any farming rights whatsoever. It was the complete opposite. It was making a developer have to come to you and say, in order for me to do this project, I need the help of a farmer. I need to engage with you. Will you come work my land? I will give you 70 acres. One of the hardest things about farming from what I've heard is people say, I simply can't afford to expand my farm. Because I can't afford to buy more land. That's the most cost effective thing. But when a developer goes, I got 70 acres, can't operate without you, I thought that was a pretty incredible gift. And that was a way to engage in local farmers to expand farming operations. My only thing is that was that I just don't want shipping containers stacked up on Sound Avenue. I made that as clear as I can. Robert R. And I agree because the intent of vertical farming was to, in inner cities or in buildings. Robert R. But the problem is. Robert R. The problem is when you have 70 acres, it's not so much keeping it as farmland, it's getting the farmers. There's not a lot of farmers. There's not as many as there used to be. Robert R. But there are many that did come out that spoke very positive and wanted that and were looking forward to engage in a project like this. But it was very clear by Mr. Carpenter that he was not going to support it and I just wasn't prepared to go down that road. Robert R. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Robert R. As you know, when the development rights are sold on a piece of land, you get 10% lot coverage, whether it's greenhouses, vertical farm. It's not like you can do 70 acres of vertical farming, number one. Robert R. Well, right. It's right. Robert R. I think there's a lot. Number one. Number two, if you own the hotel, you make the decision of what kind of farming you want on that land. Right? Robert R. Correct. And you have no control of what happens directly next door or on either side of you. So are you asking somebody to complete a project, to invest $100 million and then find out right next door there's just a row of shipping containers from the water to the Sound Avenue? Robert R. Well, yeah. Robert R. You can't. You've got to be fair and you've got to look at the plan as a whole. It's not spot zoning. It's a whole. It was intended of a project or an area to preserve agricultural heritage. Robert R. So you just want to keep it off of the north side of Sound Avenue? Robert R. I don't want to see it. I don't want to see. There are preexisting farms that have a right to do anything you want, but in terms of trying to make an incentive for vertical farming, I don't think it fit in the historic corridor, creating an incentive for that. Robert R. Okay. We're blowing off the- Robert R. Yeah. Sorry. D.J. Robert R. I know. D.J. We've gotten off track, so- Robert R. Thank you for your time. D.J. We'll get back on track with this. Robert R. But I'll chat any time you want. D.J. Thank you, Ken. K. I just have a question, because it was just a question about the accessory apartments. Only the code for the accessory apartments is that the maximum they can be is 650 square feet for an accessory apartment, or 40 percent. So it could be 40 percent if it's less, but the max is 650 unless you're preexisting, then you could go up to 850. But I mean, the intention of this code is to further build out. And the new- Robert R. No code. There's no code. D.J. It's the accessory apartment. Robert R. It's just a concept. Oh. D.J. I'm reading the code that we have now, which was what we were just asking. Right? Robert R. Right. 300 to 650. D.J. So the code, it was unclear. That's what I'm trying to find. So currently, you cannot build an accessory apartment at 40 percent of your house size, correct? Robert R. Correct. D.J. Right. And what's in the comp plan would allow that in moving forward for accessory apartments, right? Is that correct? Robert R. 300 to 650 is what the current code is. D.J. Right. Robert R. With the comp plan, it's 300 to 650, or 40 percent or less, correct? D.J. So if you have a 10,000 square foot house, you could build 4,500, whatever the 40 percent of, which would not be permissible. The most you could build right now would be 600. Robert R. Correct. D.J. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Robert R. Correct. D.J. Okay. Thank you. Laura Jensman. Robert R. Do we have anybody online? D.J. What? Robert R. We have one person. Let's take that person online on Zoom. D.J. Okay. Okay. D.J. Okay. D.J. [transcription gap] Good evening, Mike Foley, Reeves Park. Ken and I have had a handful of conversations about a hotel development under the term of agritourism. And there was some very interesting concepts that we were going to be teaching people farming, that the people were going to be there were really intending to learn more about that, get a farming experience. And all that sounds good. When we're talking about agritourism, and there's a possibility of catering, I think that changes the complexion and the definition of agritourism. And my concern is that if we allow catering halls on farmland, under the guise of being a hotel, but all of a sudden they can put in a wedding reception, or something else, it can very rapidly get out of control. So I would ask we talk about exclusions. When we're talking about the DGEIS, and Ken's talking about excluding vertical farming north of Sound Avenue, of course, I agree with that wholeheartedly. What about excluding catering halls? On any development, any project, I think if I remember, Dawn had mentioned that there was seven, I think lots of 100 acres or more. Might have been Ann Marie that mentioned that. So we're talking conceptually, possibly having seven of these agritourism, and then we're talking about the !

I didn't have full head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear [transcription gap] head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear we have to define agritourism does not mean catering halls under any circumstances thanks and like we tried to address that mike by limiting the capacity size the square footage size because it was about defining what a catering hall is a catering hall could accommodate 20 people you know like so initially what what is the definition of a catering hall you mentioned about well how about no weddings but what's the definition of a wedding if if two couple you know a wedding is is where you we say your vows if if you say your vows in church and then you're just going to a reception later on and we won't call it a wedding reception we'll just call it a gathering a celebration of life there's things like that so we really were trying to figure out this way onwards to limit i think the goal was not so much if i have a if we have somebody that gets married and they go to a restaurant with 10 of their friends because that's that's what you know that's what they're looking for to celebrate their wedding day is that a wedding and saying that you can't go to that restaurant you can't do that because that's really what it is so we tried to do is work it on square footage so we reduced the overall capacity the size of any facility and the maximum allow people to gather and so that was our way of and and we kept tightening that code on restrictions and i'll gladly go over that at any time i think we did talk about it at some length but because it was just the terminology i think if you just said you can't have a wedding it's really not a legal term of like what is that well we didn't have a wedding we got married two hours ago and now we're just having a party you know trying to parse it is is not something that i'm here to do to know what's going on in the world but i think that's what we're trying to do tonight yeah i think the concept of catering everybody understands what a catering hall is if we have 20 rooms in a hotel uh that 20 couples are in and they're getting married on the beach would that constitute a reception not in my mind if they're using a hotel to sweep over and do all that and they're not closing a restaurant to put us something and they have a piece of a room uh something that we were concerned about the cider house doing when they opened up that six thousand square foot side thing right now not nothing bad that i've seen has happened there and i'm hopeful that that continues but it to try and cut it off before it can be become an abusive thing that all of a sudden land is used for something we never wanted none of us ever wanted it to be i think it's something to take a look at thanks ken thank you thank you thanks mike nobody online okay anybody else

there's no running in town hall what did you forget i was under the speed i thought what did you think i don't run it fast any longer um just a quick comment as long as we're straying well we're really not because i was just going to say we're really straight but go ahead for just quickly quickly uh and i'm not sure i have to say i'm not sure if this stay in the red line version of the comp plan but i took this uh and this comment actually went directly to bfj early on when the draft started and i think that's what we're trying to do tonight cpo came out most of us in the room will remember the discussions under the battery energy storage systems the public hearings while we get into the mic the very extensive concerns over a period of time we had and the town and we went into pretty uh uh debt we went into depth in reviewing the eafs all of the narrative everything okay so what am i getting at i'm getting at the fact that uh when you spoke about the town having done some additional zoning prior to the plan update that was one of them battery energy storage systems have are now in the code um and we actually paid ten thousand dollars additional money to the consultants to write that code and they ended up you know it was given a negative declaration under seeker here's what it is the the excerpt from the document right now battery energy storage quote riverhead must persist in efforts to guarantee the compatibility of proposed battery energy storage facilities with the surrounding land uses minimizing visual and groundwater impacts and addressing emergency and fire safety concerns i find that ironic that the same consultants that wrote that wrote the neg deck and those were the comments that came out of the community uh in um passionately so i just thought that was an interesting um and ironic comment to be included in thank you thank you

all right i wish to thank everybody for coming tonight oh wait oh well uh we're moving a little slow back there let's go

just checking to see if there's anyone else who wanted to speak before me hi good evening talk retouching with greater calverton civic association um many of our speakers tonight have spoken at a granular level at detail in detail about the concerns i i would bring to you so i won't repeat them i'll put ditto marks on quite a lot of them and i think you know what they are one thing that wasn't mentioned is in the deis is a table on i believe it's 1.1 it's on the square footage of change in with regard to development and i would ask that we put in also another table kind of looking like this and it's called a land use under the recommended plan land use under the recommended plan under the plan land uses so you know down the left hand side would be all the different types of land usage and how much acreage there is devoted to it so it's an inventory of the square footage i'm sorry of the acreage in our town and how it is now what's proposed and what the change is that would show us what we have and maybe what we visually what we have and maybe what we would like to change i can submit this in a letter to you our civic has um different residents who have written detailed letters already and they're being resubmitted and i'll make sure that this comes along with it then thanks very much thank you taki great idea do we have anybody else and nobody on zoom thank you all for coming out tonight thank you for the comment if you can send your comments in because a lot was discussed tonight we would appreciate it seeing it in black and white it helps us digest it better also and thanks again for caring and coming out we appreciate it i make a motion to close the dgis meeting second it will remain open for written comment until june 10th we'll close the open comment period um do i have a motion second all in favor aye all opposed thank you all thank you so so so [transcription gap]