Full Transcript
you
[transcription gap]
Good afternoon everybody. Today is Tuesday, July 16, 2024. We're gathered here today for a regular town board meeting and a CDA meeting. And as we start all of our meetings, if we could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilor Kent, would you mind leading us in the pledge? Thank you, Chris.
Okay. Councilman Rothwell, do we have somebody for an invocation today? We do. We are honored today to have James Whelan from the Church of the Harvest right here in Riverhead to come forward and lead us in our invocation. We have him here today? If not, we always have our town clerk, James Whelan, on stage. No, we actually have the Reverend with us today. We do. Come on. Reverend Cooper is in the back. Do you want to fill in? She came in about an hour ago and said, boy, I'm here to do the meeting. Thank you, Reverend Cooper. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Praise God. Would you bow your heads with me? Father, we thank you for this beautiful day that you've made for us to rejoice and be exceedingly glad in. We thank you, O God, for holding back the rain, holding back the storms, O God, and allowing us to enjoy Riverhead. We ask, O God, that you would bless us today as we gather together for you. So we had two or three gathered. You were in the midst. We don't know where you're seated, but we thank you for your presence. We ask your blessing upon our leadership. We ask your prayers, O God, that they will use your will and seek your face, O God. For you said anything they ask in your name, you will do it. And we thank you right now for our town. In Jesus' name, amen. Amen. Thank you, Reverend Cooper. It was great to have you here. Okay, I have a couple announcements to go over today. First, we have a quick technical note. Our IT team has been diligently working to solve what I'm told is a hard drive failure. We're going to have a lot of trouble with the
!
And he suggested we come out there for the first one. I agreed. And I think we're going to do this a couple times a year. Next time they will come up here to us. And we felt that the town of Riverhead and the town of Southhold have so many common items, common concerns, that it would be great for us to get together and talk about what they want to do, what we want to do. We want to be like for short term rentals. We're thinking we should be on the same page with each other. And it would help because if people come out to the area, they know what the rules are. And it's not different in every township you go into. So there are a lot of things that could good things that could come out of this and we expect to continue it. And like I said, I thought it was very productive today. All right. Due to extreme heat, precautions announced yesterday will be extended through tomorrow, July 17th. They include a cooling center open at the senior center on Shade Tree Lane from 9am to 4.30pm. Hours of operation at South Jamesport. Iron. Pier. Reeves and Wading River beaches will be extended and will be open from 11am to 7pm. They're staying open an extra hour each night. All outdoor recreation programs and activities except in water swim lessons and our summer camp which is moved indoors and air conditioning are canceled and will be rescheduled. Ensure you are drinking plenty of fluids and when possible remain in the air conditioning. If you or someone you know needs assistance due to the heat. Call the Riverhead Police Department at 631-727-4500. Tomorrow night, Wednesday, July 17th, right here in this room at 6 o'clock, there will be a public engagement session about the downtown Riverhead River Riverhead Riverfront Amphitheater. Interested parties may attend in person or via zoom credentials for which are listed on the town website. For those that cannot attend a recording of the meeting. And will be available on the website in the near future. Also happening tomorrow is the always much anticipated annual Jamesport Fire Department annual carnival kickoff parade. The parade will begin at 7pm and will travel from Washington Avenue to the main road and ended to Jamesport Firehouse. This is always a great event, which of course means rides games, the infamous sausage and pepper sandwich and all sorts of other delicious food. It's prepared by the brave men and women of the Jamesport Fire Department. It's an annual right to summer out here. When that parade happens, you know you're in the midst of summer. And it has been since I was a little kid. I don't know when they actually started it, but it's been going on for many, many years. Okay, on a little bit more somber note, I just want to talk a little bit about the events that happened this past Saturday on former President Donald Trump. Okay. Let's get started. Let's get started. Never, ever, ever should the world of politics lead to violence. I don't care if you vote red, blue or white. This country is much better than that. We are considered world leaders. We need to behave like it. Stop all the rhetoric and deal with the real issues during the campaign. My heart goes out to the family of Cory Campitore. And the two other victims. Don't just talk about unity. Embrace it. Use the strength of a ballot and not the weakness of a bullet. Thank you. We are moving on. We have Mr. Wooten, do we have correspondence and reports? Do we ever. Do we ever. Do we ever have a 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] clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear [transcription gap] clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear of agritourism resort zoning, nine on the moratorium, which I think was addressed at the last meeting, but the letters came in after the deadline, so I incorporated them in this agenda, and then one concerning battery storage. I just want to note that there was 35 entries today on the agenda for communications or correspondence, I should say, but there was more than 35 people. There was a couple of what I call petition letters, which were like a me too, that people signed and turned in from the heart of Riverhead and from Jamesport Civic, but I just want to make sure that all those people have been listed, so on the agenda you'll see their names. The letter was only scanned in once. I wasn't going to scan in duplicate letters, but all their names, so everybody will be heard, so I just want to let you know that you will be counted and your name has been recognized. And that's it for correspondence. Under reports, the tax receiver total utility costs. The collection for the month of June was $394,872.97. The Riverhead Building Department collection for the month of June was $147,992.25. The Riverhead Town Clerk collection for the month of June was $10,523.24. And we also received the independent auditor reports for both all three of the Riverhead Fire Department, the Jamesport Fire Department and the Wading River. And that's it for reports. Okay. Moving on, we're going to go to our first public hearing. First public hearing scheduled for 2 o'clock. It is now 2.18. It is regarding a special permit in the RLZ zone, and I would call Greg Bergman up. I would probably use the white clock and not the number one. Is that the clock off? Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, board members. For the record, my name is Greg Bergman, senior planner with the Riverhead Planning Department. What we have today is a public hearing for a special permit application seeking approval to construct a approximately 15,000 square foot medical office on a 3.45 acre parcel of land located at 374 Main Road in Aqabaugh within the rural corridor zoning use district. The property is located on the northeast side of the river. The property is located on the northeast side of the river. The head of head of head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head it was going to be a single two-story building. There was a version that was a campus-style layout, and there was also a version which is before us, which is for a single-story building located close to Main Road with the parking behind it. Both the planning board and the town board desired the single-story building as opposed to the campus-style layout. The thought was keep the buildings further away from the residential properties located to the north. So just procedurally, the town board did classify this action as a type 1 action pursuant to SECRA. We initiated coordinated review. The town board issued a negative declaration by resolution number 2024-646. One of the major components of the SECRA review was a traffic impact study, which was prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the New York State Department of Transportation. Resulting from that traffic impact study, the application will recommend the installation and repair of the building. The project will be completed by the end of the year. The application will result in the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Main Road and Union Avenue, and it will also incorporate an eastbound left turn lane for people traveling east on Main Road to make a left onto Union Avenue. In terms of access to the site, access to the site will be taken from Union Avenue. There will be no direct access on Main Road. There will be new sidewalks and walkways along both frontages of the site. The application I did provide, so on this chip, if we can just zoom in a little bit on the site plan. Go back. We can just zoom in a little bit.
Now, if we can go back to that first page. All right. So, yes. So, this sees the location of the access point on Union Avenue, which is located towards the northern portion of the property. Now, there is a 55-foot-wide scenic buffer easement, which was put on this property as a result of a prior subdivision that is proposed to remain undisturbed in this natural state. So the access will be from Union Avenue. They are providing their parking supply via pervious pavers. They do not need any variances from town code as the application is proposed. I do have, Chip, if we could go down a couple of slides, I believe it's page four. If we could just zoom in on that picture. So we do have renderings of the proposed building. In terms of the materials, the application proposes to utilize cedar rain screens, horizontal tongue and groove cedar siding, insulated windows with black anodized finish, and white ephus, which does comply with the guidelines for building aesthetics for buildings within the rural corridor zoning district. Just for record, that says that non-agricultural use buildings should echo the character of the district's residences or farmhouses in terms of shape, roofline, and massing. The exteriors of buildings shall utilize natural cladding materials such as wood, brick, stucco, stone, or a combination of such materials. The use of synthetic, metallic, and reflective materials should be avoided. So to that extent, this application does comply with the guidelines. They are proposing to retain some of the existing vegetation, and to add some additional
materials. So that's the first part of the application. And then the second part of the application is that we have a public hearing. And I would like to open it up to public comment at this point in time. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this public hearing? We have two people. Okay, sir, come on up to the podium. State your name and where you're from.
My name is Walter Binger. I live at 470 Main Road. One of the first buildings I built was a building that was built in the late 1970s. One of the first residences on the north side after you passed this lot. I do have a question on the size. The size is 15,000 square feet. Is that correct? Yes. And that is because there is a proposal that limits it to 15,000 square feet. So I think it's 14,999. So somebody has done some really good designing. I do have a question of how it conforms to zoning in that rural corridor district. Now, the rural corridor was established in 2004. As opposed to the Hamlet Center, which is the center of Ackerborg, the original commercial zoning. I own one of the original commercial zoned lots. It is not commercially zoned. I have my house there. Somewhere along the line, the owner of this lot or the purchaser of this lot and the other lots adjacent to it came before the town board and asked for a change of the zoning to allow professional offices within a quarter of an hour. I have no clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear particular lot because it was within a quarter mile but it states here here's the rural car this is the zoning special permit uses which is why we're here professional officers provided they were within a quarter mile of the hamlet center okay well that's why we're here but then it says there's a sub chapter b which is special permitted uses and there's a sub article six or a sub paragraph six professional officers of attorneys architects medical doctors or dentists nobody provided that that was going to be an office building this is an office building this is one doctor all right further down on that six you have two three paragraphs a b and c a being the properties approved for a single oh i'm sorry must conform to the following the property is approved with a single family resident at the time of this adoption of sub section b sex there was no house there in 2004 when this was done so it doesn't meet that requirement also subsection b c a paragraph b whatever it is the professional office use shall be within the building footprint of the existing single family residents not happening here 15 000 square feet i have one of the largest houses in the main road it's 2700 square feet the property is furnished look new york route 25 you're proposing the frontage on the side road i don't know how to do that i don't know how to do that i don't know how to do that works i just don't know how we're here talking to finalize something when i don't think they got off the beginning all right i saw all right okay i think it should be looked into before we just say yeah go ahead put up this nice building well that's why we're here beautiful building that's why we're here beautiful building does it belong where we could put it no okay thank you greg if you would address some of those issues please yes uh so the section that the gentleman is referencing is section 301-64b uh section b1 specifically says that a special permit use is professional offices provided there within a quarter mile of the hamlet center or village center zoning use districts which this this property is within a quarter mile of hamlet center uh hamlet center is located just a little bit to the east in the vicinity of edgar avenue there is a separate subsection which is subsection b6 which is more the rural corridor at large so in those areas further east um so as you go further east on main road uh when you get to the vicinity of tuthills lane there is a block of rural corridor um i was not here in 2004 when the zoning was adopted but it's my understanding that that section was added to the code to allow some professional offices in existing single-family residences to sort of reuse existing buildings um there is a dentist's office uh just a little on the north side of main road just east of tuthills lane um so again so they are two separate and sort of distinct characteristics of that special permit use one being within a quarter mile of village center the other sort of addressing rlc zoning district parcels that are not within a quarter mile so if someone wanted to convert a single family residence on one of those parcels that was not within a quarter mile of hamlet center or village center they could do so provided they meet those criteria in b6 thank you very happy clarify what he just clarified it does not say that it says professional officers must be within the footprint of the existing building and it says professional officers must conform to the following it doesn't say it's we could he's making an interpretation that it's existing like the dental office in jamesport i've been there since 1982 i have a folder of every zoning change from 1982 okay this was proposed by the dintel office in jamesport and the dintel office in jamesport was proposed the change within the quarter mile was proposed for a particular set of developers and they were asked for four separate buildings of four thousand square feet each a hamlet campus serve a campus zoning campus style zoning that's what all of this is written for nowhere is there a 15 000 square foot building ever been thought about in 2004 it was written in 2004. if it wants to be changed it's going to be changed in 2004. if it wants to be changed it's going to be changed in 2004. if it wants to be changed it's going to be changed in 2004. if it wants to be changed to allow a 15 000 square foot building then you have to change the zone it doesn't say the interpretation of outside of a quarter mile inside of a quarter mile it's specific within a quarter mile they allowed professional officers but those professional officers have to be within an existing structure like my house okay and my house is limited you cannot exceed this footprint of the existing house i can't knock my house down even though i have bigger zoning than that's this particular zone so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so because she was dehydrated. So pump water into your system and your mother's. So anyway, I'm ill prepared for today, but I do have just a couple of things that I wanted to talk to in terms of this RLC zoning and the special permit. I'm always uncomfortable when there's a special permit because I'm not so sure why we're going outside of the bounds of what we're wanting and permitting for the town. I think exclusions are maybe in a very rare instance necessary or permissible, but I think we see a lot of special permit requests and I'm always a little like, why don't you just follow the rules or don't do it there? And the other thing is, it's the same with negative declarations. There's a propensity of negative declarations, and it seems that a lot of these things that come down the pike have environmental impacts or traffic impacts. And I know Greg listed that there's going to need, they'll need a traffic impact. I know Greg listed that there's going to need, they'll need a traffic impact. And I know Greg listed that there's going to need, they'll need a traffic light and a right turn lane, a right bound, eastbound turn lane, which again, changes the focus of this rural corridor stretch. I was in Brookhaven the other day, and I was driving around Brookhaven and going, the difference between Riverhead and Brookhaven is that Brookhaven never stopped saying yes to development. And you go through long, ugly stretches where it's building after building. And if you give a special permit to this position, this plan, then the next person who comes up and wants to do something outside of what we are asking them to do will say, but you already gave it to him. So I just wanted to say those things because as you know, I'm really interested in preservation. I'm not against development, but I think development should always be smart development in the parameters that we want it to be. And when someone... When someone comes to us and goes, here's the zoning, our project fits into that. Can I do this? Then by all means, yes. And if they go, this is what it's requiring, but we'd like to do this instead, then I think the answer should be no. Anyway, thanks for listening. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Takvi Turchin, Greater Calverton Civic Association. I want to speak on this public hearing. Just want to thank the town board members at this moment for attending the South Old Town Board work session this morning.
So as a leader of the civic in Calverton and listening to a few Jamesport residents that I have over the last couple of weeks and looking at the plan for this project today, it seems to me that it's out of character with its hamlet. In addition to what the previous two speakers brought to you with their specific objections, I'd like to add that the character of our hamlets is very important. And keeping that quality of life while we develop and preserve is the inflection point we need to keep in our... In our minds. If you could keep that in your mind now as you hear from us, really appreciate it. I do stand with the residents who say, hey, we've got a place for this, but it's not here at this corner. Thanks very much. Thank you, Takvi.
Do we have anybody else in-house who would like to comment on this public hearing? Okay, come on up. Hi, Kimberly Judd, 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Just to address some of the comments that were made, looking at the code for the special permit uses, it's not read in totality, meaning you have to meet each of the conditions. Number one says special permit use professional office provided they were within a quarter mile of the Hamlet Center, or country inns, or funeral homes, or bistros, or bed and breakfast, or professional offices of attorneys, architects, et cetera, which the first gentleman was reading. Second of all, we did propose multi-campus buildings. It's a design guideline and special permit criteria. I was not the attorney when this first was put forth to the town board and the planning board several years ago, but it was proposed as multi-campus, one story. It was the thought of your predecessors, maybe some of you were still on the board, and the planning board that they would not want to see several buildings. They would rather see one building because it would be closer to the road and farther from the residential properties in the back. We do not require any variances. We meet our maximum floor ratio area. We comply with lock coverage. We comply with our impervious surface calculation. So we are not proposing. We are not proposing to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. As far as character of the neighborhood, you'll know that Union Square is right on the northwest corner of Union Avenue, which is one story office building. So we don't feel that we are going to be taking this property out of the character of the neighborhood. And we're right next door to the Jehovah's Witness Church as well. And as far as the criteria that the town board has to utilize when you're looking at space, special permit criteria, that's in Chapter 301-310 of the code. And I think Mr. Bergman had already gone through several of those elements when he did his presentation. I also have our traffic expert here from VHB. If you have any questions or the public has any questions regarding the proposed traffic signal, and it's a proposed left turn going eastbound onto Union. I do. I have a question if the traffic expert could come up. Yes. His name is Ryan Winter.
Good afternoon, Supervisor and members of the town board. My name is Ryan Winter. I am a licensed civil engineer in the state of New York with VHB Engineering, assessing the traffic and permitting requirements. I have a clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear
at that location is to mitigate future and existing traffic conditions with vehicles turning from Union onto Main Road. And as most people in this room are currently aware, it is difficult during peak hours to make that movement. So as part of this application, we were requested to assess the viability of putting a traffic signal at this location to try and mitigate some of those concerns. So we went through the process of going through what they call a traffic signal warrant analysis, which involves assessing the traffic volumes on both the Main Road and the side street and seeing whether it's applicable or appropriate to put a traffic signal at that location. Not that it would require one, but you could put one there. So the results of our assessment showed that a traffic signal would be appropriate at this location because of the existing and future traffic conditions. So as a result, it was included in this application. There are traffic impacts to traffic signals versus no traffic signals. But being that there are already existing traffic signals in the area, the implications of the traffic impacts along Main Road are less than they would be otherwise without another signal in the area because traffic is already stopping to create gaps for those side streets that are adjacent to Union. So while there would be... potential to stop on Main Road when otherwise you couldn't now, the overall quality of traffic through the intersection is improved with the incorporation of this traffic signal. Go ahead. So, Ryan, I understand their concerns. You're talking about getting somebody off a Union, making a left onto Main Road, go ahead at ease, right? Yep. [transcription gap] Yep. [transcription gap] Yep. Yep. First of all, West Lane has that problem. Church Lane has that problem, and so does Tuttle's Lane, number one. And I'm going to go a little bit further. I don't think what's being addressed here is the fact that what the supervisor said, you have 105, which has a light, and I don't know if you live out here or experience this, anybody who does knows the situation. It's way backed up, just there. Mm-hmm. turns green, that all heads down towards Edgar. That's all backed up. So now what you're doing is you're singling out one road union to make a left turn. That's number one. Number two is, I'm talking about the evening hours now. Okay. I've got to be clear about that. But in the morning, when you're heading west, it's a nightmare. I mean, it's backed up from Edgar all the way to 105. So I'm not sure. You say the light is not required. And then you talk about the future, which I don't know what the future is going to be, but I'm talking about the congestion at present, even with that light. Should we put a left turning lane at west? One at church and one at tunnels? Because same problem. And when you take church, which Phillips and church, Phillips empties out and church empties out into one lane on church, it's a nightmare. I live out here trying to make a left out of church. Often you have to make a right, go down to Edgar, turn around and go back. So I'm not understanding the light. I mean, I understand what lights do, but I'm not sure it's solving any kind of problem here. I would like to address Shea Tree Lane, Linda Avenue, Broad Avenue. The post office at the end of Linda Avenue. It is almost impossible to make a left-hand turn to go west out of Linda and Broad Avenue. There's just always traffic congestion there. And I do see people on Union Avenue. I travel through there. I live out in Jamesport. I actually grew up on Union Avenue. So I'm very, very familiar with the area. And there's a significant traffic problem there. Right. Application acknowledges the larger traffic issues along Main Road, but the study really focused on the intersections that were going to be immediately impacted by this project, which are namely 25 and Union and Union and 105. Go ahead. My just question is, can you put in a request for like DOT, can they sync the traffic lights from like Edgar? So that they would both correspond. When it's green, you're not stopping at one inching up, you know, stopping at another one. You know, what's the ability to actually sync the traffic lights so they work in a pattern together. So when you're moving on 25, you're moving. And then when one stops, it stops for either crossways. You know what I mean? Yes. So there is technology, to your point, to time the traffic signals so that they're not conflicting with each other so much on the main line. And they have the same green time so that. You're not stopping at every single light. If there's. Through traffic. Whose responsibility would that be? Well, that would be coordinated with the state DOT. They're. They're traffic signals. So that effort would be. Coordinated through them. Could there be a request for coming from the developer, you know, upon the installation of the light that they. That corresponds and become sync with the adjacent lights. We could. Yeah. We could make that request. I mean, we presented the state DOT. With this development of a traffic signal at this location. Because it was at the request of the.
I. [transcription gap] I. [transcription gap] I. I. Well, again, to follow up with Joanne, Shay, Tri, and Linda, even if you sync the lights, the traffic there is already snarled. I mean, what are you going to get? And how much additional traffic is this project going to bring into that area? So in the peak hour, just to step back. So the traffic study not only considered this application, but another one across the street, which is also currently an application with the town. So the traffic volumes were considered for both applications together. There was one single traffic study done for both applications that were immediately adjacent to each other and both have access on Union and will be coming down to Main Road. So that's what... The basis of the traffic study was to assess both of those. With both of those projects developed, the increase in traffic would be at the peak hour, 141 vehicles, which would be in the PM period. It was... I have the numbers. Second. I don't want to misspeak.
So in... In the PM, the peak volume was 141 trips. 57 would be entering. 84 would be exiting. And based on the traffic study, 80% of those would head towards Main Road and utilize that intersection of Union Avenue and Main. That said, this current application is approximately half the traffic volume that the overall study contemplated because it's just the one project. So it's effectively... 70 trips in one single PM peak hour. In the other times that we looked at, the AM peak, 110 total trips, 65 entering, 45 exiting. And on Saturday, 89 trips, 51 entering, and 38 exiting. So, Ryan, when the traffic is heading east and somebody wants to make a left turn onto Union, how do you get around them? Is there going to be a turning lane in there? There's no arrow there, right? So they're going to continue to hold up the eastbound traffic, somebody waiting to make a left. The only cars getting relief are the ones coming off of Union heading east. So as part of the design for the intersection improvements, we are adding an eastbound left turn lane. So there will be a bay of 100 feet where cars can stack up and queue to make that left. That's 10. While allowing the through traffic to continue. In addition to that, the application is also widening 25 to accommodate that left turn lane slightly and addressing some historical drainage issues on the northwest corner of that intersection. One other concern, should the traffic light be installed and in place? One of the things that we're continuously running from in developments with the fire service is the... The optical option that goes in the lights. That clears passageway for ambulance and first responder units. The opticals are running us about $5,000. So I don't want it to continue to keep falling on the town residents. I'd like the developer, if you're putting in a light that's accommodating your facility, your property, then I'd like a commitment of that optical purchase to cover that so that ambulance can pass through that light. And I think that should be paid for by the developer because it's essentially the light is being put in place for that project. So it's just, it sounds like a small. But as we go through and how they need to be continuously repaired and replaced, it adds up throughout the town. So with that, if you have somebody making a left, right? And eastbound traffic coming through, and then you have westbound traffic coming through, and then there's an ambulance or a fire truck, there's no place for cars to pull over. What do they do? See, there are... We are maintaining some shoulders through the intersection. Yeah, I'm familiar with the shoulders. And, you know, I was actually looking at it this morning by Edgar, and I watched things narrow and wide. I'm just, when you say they make it, is it wide enough for a fire truck to get through or an ambulance or police? That's all I'm asking. I mean, you know, I'm not... Well, there's a lot of locations on roadways and on 25 where there are turn lanes where there's smaller shoulders. And the anticipation is that those turn lanes are not always used. And when they do, vehicles move over for emergency vehicles. So when you design turn lanes for the signal, you consider emergency vehicles. But there is not a requirement in the design to establish a clear zone for them to get through. The anticipation is, and the rule is, that if you see an emergency vehicle coming, you get over to the side of the road. Right. And if you adhere to those guidelines, there will be space for fire vehicles to get through, including fire trucks. It's why the Opti-Com is absolutely a necessity under these intersections, because Councilman Kern is correct. There is no non-appropriate shoulder on these areas. And so the Opti-Com would keep that light green for the passage of an ambulance to go through, stopping all traffic in every other direction. And without that, it becomes a logistical nightmare for an ambulance to get through. Yeah. And the Opti-Com is something that we consider on projects. We can discuss with the applicant funding for it. I'm not in a position to speak to that. But every town has their own system. So we would just need to work with you to make sure that we're referencing the correct one.
Okay. Good. Thank you for your answers. Thank you. Do we have anybody else who would like to comment? I know we have. Go ahead.
Good afternoon. Miles Caracciolo, 257 Fishel Avenue in Riverhead. I live right over here on Fishel Avenue, and I work in Jamesport. I drive this route at least twice a day, sometimes more than that. But one question I have for the traffic expert would just be as to when during the year this study was performed. Because driving this 12 months out of the year, there is a large variance just in the seasonality of the traffic. And I'd like to know if this was done in October during the pumpkin picking traffic, during peak hours of that, or if this was done in January. Because I think that has a lot of impact as to what this study actually provides to this application. But I'm just wondering if there's any evidence of traffic changes in the traffic area. Just to answer the question of the traffic study was performed in October of 2022. It was Tuesday, October 25th was the weekday counts and Saturday, October 22nd. Well, 2022 were the Saturday counts. I'm just wondering if you put the left turning lane in, why do you need a light? Again, the light was the request of the town. So we did the warrant analysis to confirm that it was appropriate, and we found that the traffic showed that it was. So we were asked to incorporate that. Good afternoon. Amelia Lance, Fishel Avenue. I'm just curious. I'm not going to deny that I'm not terribly familiar with this, but I'm thinking, is this by any chance a bicycle route, this area? Because that's something also to consider, as we know there's really been some very unfortunate accidents on that road, and that's something also to consider. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I see a nightmare happening here, because I feel that if this is built, all the traffic is going to continue to go to Hubbard Avenue, and it's going to go to Sound Avenue. And it's already a nightmare. When you talk about a nightmare, it's already a nightmare. When you talk about traffic nightmare, it's a nightmare there. Also, we have enough medical buildings in Riverhead. Peconic Bay is great. They're funded by Northwell Health, and I don't see why we need another medical building in our community. Community center, yes, for the children, but not another medical building. Also, there's no through way to, even if you decide that you want to put the traffic signals for our emergency responders, all you have is a walkway there. There's no bike areas for the bikes to go through. I'm just now hearing about this project. Please excuse me if I don't have all the facts right. But I think we as a community need to understand what we're getting ourselves into. Because a lot of people, and I don't condone too much building, although I am a builder. But I think in some areas we need to preserve. And in this area we need to preserve. I know Attorney Law, and she mentioned. I know the church. It's across the street. It's not on the same street. And I'm not family members with Mr. Winter, although my last name is Winter. But I think that needs to, this whole thing needs to be re-evaluated. I think more studies need to happen if you're going to even entertain it. And that's basically what I came up here to say. Is that we do not need another medical building here in Riverhead. We have enough. We have a plethora of medical buildings here. Thank you.
I just want to say that the Jehovah's Witness Church is directly to the east of the parcel. On the same side. On the same side. That's the Lutheran. With Shade Tree Lane. Where is this? Union Avenue. Okay, Union. So I think you're right on that. You're right on that. Church. And see what they said. Because, you know, they want to be their neighbors. So it would be beneficial to talk to your neighbors to see how they feel.
Good afternoon. I'm Maureen Murphy. I grew up in Riverhead. I live in Ackleburg. I live off of Union Avenue, Grant Drive. So I've lived there for 30 years. I've lived there for 34 years now. And every year it gets worse. And to put another light there, to me, is just not justifiable. It's you have 105 and you have Edgar Avenue. When Edgar Avenue put a light there, I mean, there's a school there and everything like that. But you do see the backup. And it gets worse and worse. I mean, everybody who lives on Union, you kind of look to the main road to see, is the traffic stopped? So then you, Joanne, you know. I do. You go around the other way. You go to Northville Turnpike. You go down, you know. So I just want to say that I don't think a light is necessary there. And I don't think another medical office building is necessary there either. We have them in closer to 58, the medical office buildings. This is a hamlet. Let's keep it and preserve it. That's why I bought my property there. To keep it, you know. We knew that. Past 105, it would be more of a hamlet type of property. And I just thank you for listening. That's my opinion. I did want to make one other point. For the light, if anyone who travels and makes the left onto Union Avenue, the veterinary office right across the street, they come down. They try to make a left or a right. But a lot of times they'll come all the way down. And people cannot. They come right to the end of the driveway. And I don't know how they're going to widen that, to tell you the truth. Maybe a left-hand turn is like, to me, would be the only possible thing that they should really consider. Thank you. Thank you, Maureen.
Hi. Hi, my name is Judy Shivers. I live on Grant Drive, which is right off. I live in the area of Union. We've lived there for 26 years. I was surprised when the first thing I heard coming in here was talking about a traffic light. I thought we were going to talk about the building, the medical building, if it was allowed or if it wasn't allowed. But when I hear a traffic light, it sounds like it's a done deal and the building is going to be there. It's a very close area. I don't know how the people would come out of the building should there be one built. It's a very close area. It's a very tight area to get back onto the road, number one. Number two, just like Maureen said, we have so many medical buildings in the area. I don't know why they would have to put it in Aquebog. We were told when we bought there that it was going to be just either residential or farmland. We didn't know that they were going to be putting more medical buildings up. So thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. My name is Stephanie. I also live off of Union Avenue on Grand Drive. Beautiful neighborhood, by the way. It is. Yeah. I am concerned with increased traffic issues. I don't know if anybody. I mean, you guys all live around here. But when you during the fall, when you go to make a right off of 105 on to the main road, you cannot move. And I'm afraid that if you add another traffic light, that is going to back up and people are going to want to take Hubbard. And then they're going to want to take Peconic Bay Boulevard. And it's going to pour into the South Streets. And if you choose to come through 105 from Riverhead, that traffic light is going to be on the main road. I have no idea how you guys do this. [transcription gap] up to God knows where. And so it could potentially cause a ripple effect and affect the entire traffic flow of town. So that's what I am considering, you know, is a consideration. And I'd also like to bring the attention back to the medical buildings. I did do a research this morning. There are at least 14 medical offices that are available for lease or rent in on 58, well, not on 58, but in Riverhead town right now. So if somebody wanted to rent it or lease it, they're there. They're available already. Not to say that, you know, you purchase this piece of land, you get to build on it. But I do think that within means of the integrity of the town, because people don't, we have a lot of tourists. There are tons of businesses that survive off of tourism. And I am just afraid of that. I am afraid that people are going to be turned away by increased traffic and people are going to be turned away the more buildings that we add into our quaint North Fork. People come for the trees. They come for the farmland. They come for the preservation of it and its integrity. And when we get rid of that a little bit by a little bit by a little bit, it is going to, it is going to hurt the citizens of the town. I think it could potentially be detrimental to the communities in the surrounding area. So thank you for your time and thank you for listening. Thank you.
We have people online, Chip.
Hi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I just wasn't sure if I was on. So this is Laura Jen Smith. Speaking on behalf of this public hearing. So I just wanted to. Just bring us back to the fact that this is rural corridor zoning and the intent of the rural corridor zoning use district is to allow a very limited range of roadside shops and services that are compatible with the agricultural and rural setting along major arterial roads such as New York State 25 and the roads leading into downtown Riverhead. So, you know, and the zoning that comes along with it. So what's being asked to be built here is not even necessarily straight out of Lassen. I just wanted to clear up just so clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear housing and campus style buildings not to be more than 5,000 square feet and not more than 25% impervious lot coverage. And what you're being asked to evaluate is almost a 15,000 square foot building with 40% lot coverage and a traffic light. So, you know, I'm not sure how that fits into the rural corridor. I know all of you have spoken quite extensively about preservation and open space and maintaining the character of Riverhead. And I think that this is a unique opportunity for you to actually, you know, put your decisions with what you're professing. Because this is something that is very large. I don't think there's any other buildings in the rural corridor that are anywhere near 15,000 square feet. I don't think, you know, the 40% lot coverage of the parking that they want to put in are 100 spaces. I know they want to put them as, call them pervious services, but they're still considered hardscape. The same as a paved parking lot, which you have the decision to say that that is 40% of the coverage on the lot. So I think that you have a lot to consider here. And I believe at your last meeting in June, when Mr. Bergman spoke to you and said that the most they could build if they followed the zoning and what was the recommendations of the zoning in there, that their building could not be more than 6,000 square feet. So to turn around and ask for a greater return on investment by the developer and build a 15,000 square foot building with 40% lot coverage and trying to get around that by impervious surface, I think this is where, you know, you as council people, need to take a look at our zoning and kind of protect it. You know, we're in the middle of a comprehensive plan. I'm sure all the work we do with the comprehensive plan and another board came in and said, well, you know, that was a nice thought, but we're not even going to bother, you know, adhering to any of it. You would see the fault in that. And so I hope that you take a look at this and really consider it. It's a few other things. If you do move forward with this, I know that you can put special covenants on this. I think that you want a couple of the covenants that you would do with this would be that I would ask, hopefully you would consider is that any of the impervious surface, any of the pervious surfaces could never be changed to impervious surfaces, that there's a complete drainage plan because we know with the pervious surfaces, they turn very hard and impervious, almost pervious at points. And also, you know, we've got a maintenance plan that is spelled out and bonded for so that it is maintained. And I just wanted to point out one other thing. I know when Mr. Bergman was talking to you about this, he compared this many times to the buildings on the west side of Union Avenue. I believe that when those were built, they were built under business CR zoning, which is a totally different zone. So to take these buildings and compare them without saying they're under a completely different zoning code than what you're looking at and saying, well, we can build this because we built that is very misleading. So I'm just wondering if that was built under rural corridor, the west side when you spoke about it or not?
Matt, do you have an answer to that? Because I'm not sure that was before my time on the board. No, those. So to the point, those buildings on the northwest corner do predate the RLC zoning district. Doesn't change the fact that they are there. They do contribute to the character in the area. They are office buildings. And I did scale out and I will acknowledge they were built under a different zoning code. But when you look at the total and there's sort of a difference between, say, lot coverage, impervious surface when we talk about just I'll throw out the term a total developed area, both of those properties on the northwest corner, when you scale out the amount of developed area, meaning parking areas, building surface, both of those properties are at about 40% of total developed lot coverage. So even to Miss Jen Smith's point, I will acknowledge the RLC zoning district does have a 25% impervious surface coverage. If you considered the total developed lot coverage, they would both be commensurate with what is there. Again, with the acknowledgement that those buildings were developed under a prior zoning code, doesn't change the fact that they are there and they are contributing to the area. Greg, I have a quick question. When you originally had this as campus design, what was the total square footage of what the individual buildings would have totaled? They were. So both the campus style development as well as the concept for the two-story single building were both at about the same 15,000 square foot floor area. So it would not have changed the total floor area, which again, commensurate with water usage, traffic impacts, whether you had four buildings totaling 15,000 square feet or one building totaling 15,000 square feet, those impacts would be the same level, whether it was campus style. So. To your point, they were all. Could have met their parking requirements. Yep. So to your point, they were all 15,000. Right. So even if they came back at this point with a campus design, they would still have to come before the town board for a special permit. So the question before the town board is authorizing the use, not necessarily the site plan. The review sort of gets a little bit intermingled when you talk about community character in the area. Right. But yes. I mean, they would. If the board at this point would like to. I can provide you the alternative. That showed that. That demonstrated that. Campus style. Development. I. Remember seeing. It. But. Yes. So. I. Mean. The. Board. And. I. Believe. It. Was. August. Of. 2020. Directed. The. Applicant. To. Do. A. Single. Story. Building. Close. To. The. Main. Roads. But. If. The. Board. Consider. All. parking, pervious or impervious, as part of the 25% impervious coverage, that's what limits, and that's what was limiting the development from these sort of large business buildings in the rural corridor, right? So right now you have 40% impervious surface on this proposed building. Rural corridor only allows 25% of impervious surface. If you're using 25% of impervious surface, then it reduces the size of your building to be able to build. So that's not correct. The application does not propose 40% impervious, again, through the use of this paper. I'm talking about for parking of cars. How much is covered? I believe it's just under 25% in terms of impervious coverage. Again, I've said to the board both at work and I brought this up. Greg, I believe I listened to your meeting on the 27th, and I believe that you said if they switched all their pervious, what they're asking to build is pervious parking spots to regular parking spots, not pervious parking, how much lot coverage would they have? Well, so that's correct, but that is not how those uses impervious versus impervious, that's not how it's currently defined in our code. I get that, but that would be 40% then, right? Correct, which again would be exactly with the reason. And as the board figuring out a special permit, you have the opportunity to maintain the rural corridor and say whether it's pervious or impervious, it doesn't matter. You only want 25% of lot coverage for parking. It doesn't matter what it's made of. You have the opportunity to do that to help protect this rural corridor, and that's what we're asking you, to make sure that whether... A parking lot is a parking lot, but it's not a parking lot. It's a parking lot, it's not going to change what it is, whether it's gravel or whether it's gravel and rock, and then it doesn't matter, it's still a parking lot. So when they did the impervious surface, the intention was that was considered where cars would park. So you have the option, this is a special permit, so you have the option to say anything that's a parking area, we're considered in hardscape at that 25% and limited to that. And that's what we're asking you to do. And that helps maintain the rural corridor zoning. That's your option as a board. So the planning department, we did propose to the board a code revision, which would address the use of pervious versus impervious surface. So to that point, she's not incorrect. But right. Yep. Which would reduce the size of the building, correct? Yes. [transcription gap] Correct. To about 6,000 feet. I mean, I don't know the exact calculations. I haven't done a full build out of the site. But. That's what you said the other day. On the 25th. That's where I got that number from. That's all. I don't know for sure. Either. But that's certainly more fitting with the rural character. And if you put that into four buildings at 2000 square feet each or 1500 square feet or even three buildings. You know. That. That really goes more with the rural corridor zoning that is in the zone. Anyhow, thank you for listening. Thank you, Laura. Sir, just give me a minute since you already spoke because I still have somebody online. No problem. We have one more online still? Two more. Okay.
Good afternoon, members of the board and Mr. Supervisor. Lee Mendelson, Church Lane, Aquabog, New York. I just want to be clear that today I am not here wearing any of my other hats as a member of a board or as a member of any group. I'm just here as a resident of the hamlet of Aquabog. And also to be clear, I'm in favor of development, generally in favor of it. But the development has to be in proportion to the area, which is in this case a rural corridor. The size of this development requires a light at Union. We already have a light at 58 and 105, and we have a light at Edgar. Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. far as church, if not past church. And coming home, the traffic heading east, we know that the traffic, because of the light at 58, can already be backed up, sometimes as far as Northville Turnpike. And on the weekends, you can just reverse the timing of the backups. So by putting a light at Union, traffic's going to be increased considerably, not just on Main, but it's going to be increased on all the tertiary roads, such as Church and West and Linder and all of the other roads. And in fact, what you will have in eight-tenths of a mile going from the light at 58 to the light at 58, you're going to have a lot of traffic. So from 58 to the light at Edgar, three traffic lights in eight-tenths of a mile. So this is land that's supposed to be a rural corridor. And what you're effectively doing by adding a traffic light at Union is increasing the length of 58 so that it will really begin starting at Edgar. Instead of starting at 105. That's where the Aquabog and James Port and all of the other towns going east are going to begin. Rather than that, I can't even begin to imagine how far the backup will be. So my suggestion is this project be scaled in such a way that a traffic light is not necessary. There is no problem as it exists now other than the existing traffic lights. I go to the post office every single day. I have to make a left onto Linder and I have given up trying to make a left back onto Main. Instead, I go the back way to get onto side roads to get to work in the morning. But I think you're going to have a lot of that. So I'm not opposed to development. I'm just in favor of development that makes sense given the character of the area. Thank you. Thank you, Lee. One more online? No, not there. Okay. Mr. Binger. Yes. Okay. Come on back up. I'd just like to speak maybe because the traffic light didn't come up prior to me speaking. That traffic light would be a nightmare. I'll explain it better. I live between Edgar Avenue and Union Avenue. It is backed up every afternoon at that light up to my house, which is probably a quarter mile, maybe a quarter of an hour. It'll be a quarter mile, maybe longer. But coming off Route 58, the 105 traffic light backs up all the way up to Doctor's Path. That amount of traffic is there every time of the day, no matter whether it's the 22nd of October or June 1st. It's backed up all the time. That amount of traffic backed up, you're now going to move up to Union Avenue. They'll be backed up from Union Avenue. That'll reach 105. You can't have that stop of track of traffic in there to block 105. 105 is tremendous. And also any of these traffic studies I've seen over the years, they put the traffic counters west of 105. There's a lot of traffic that comes on off some 105, off heading south and then turning east onto Main Road. We have a lot of what they call the trade brigade. The trade brigade they used to have on the South Fork, we now have it on the North Fork. We've had a lot of people move out since COVID. Moved out their houses, built houses, south toll. Everybody's welcoming them out there. But the Main Road is only two lanes. It is a bike path. Bikes are allowed on it. All right. It's not marked as a bike path, but bikes use it. I don't see how they're going to widen it for a turn lane. And anything you put there as a turn lane is going to divert traffic probably both east and west directions where now it goes straight. So we shouldn't be more blocking up. Doing this. My question also would be this. If this office, and it doesn't say doctor's office, it could be a professional office, is not built, do we need a light? Okay. And I think the answer is no. Now, can you get off Union Avenue? It's terrible. What my wife and I do if we're going south is go over to the light at 105. We continue down 105. We don't turn by McKay's Farm Stand. It's impossible to make a left or right. And it's impossible to get out of my driveway. But I'm not going to complain. But I will tell you. There are times when we wait five, seven, eight minutes to turn. The cars come off 105 as a group. They turn off 105 light. 10 come down. Okay. You wait for those 10. 10 come off the Edgar Avenue light. And you have to wait for that to clear. And then meanwhile, somebody might come out of a driveway. It is already a nightmare. We don't need a light. We don't need a light except for doctor's office. Like I said earlier, I don't think it belongs there. I don't think the zoning allows it. And as a further comment. Okay. I'm going to go back to the last point. And it's not just about this particular meeting. I personally get angry. And I'm going to use that word. Because that's what my. I haven't come to these meetings in 20 years. Because the warehouse manager that used to work for my son-in-law said, why is your father-in-law angry all the time? Because I'd come to these meetings. It would be up in TV. And I'd be angry. Well, I'd be angry because I have tenants. I have commercial zoning. I have a farm. I have residential. I have everything that. I have everything that gets involved with all this stuff in Ackerbock. But I also, I just want to say. Now, I'm getting away from what I want to say. Town employees should not be interpreting what's in the code. The code is black and white. The code says pervious, impervious. Pavers are not impervious or pervious. Well, they block water. They're not impervious. Impervious in the prior zones. And I have that with me. CR zoning. All that. And I have a lot of stone. That's impervious. That's what they consider impervious. To interpret that a paver is okay when a paver doesn't allow water through. And the cracks between them fill up with dirt. And you need drainage just as much as you would on a blacktop stone. So, I'm going to. I don't think we should be interpreting what's in there. We should read it. And if it doesn't read right, we should change it. Okay? That's what I say. And I'm sorry to take up everybody's time. I'll head over to Sean's next slide. Sean's next slide. [transcription gap] Sean's next slide. [transcription gap] the town personnel to say, we would like a light here for this project. And so we went out, worked with the DOT, worked with the traffic study to present that light. If the board says they don't want a light, the developer is just as happy doing the project without a light instead of putting a light in there. And the traffic study doesn't mandate a light according to DOT standards. In the event that there was a light and this board took action to Councilman Rothschild's question, the Opti-Com, the developer would be happy to pay for that and include that in that if we got to that point. I'm not saying we do. You're going to still make your decision, but to clarify for your question and answer it, we would pay for it. No question about that. Okay. The previous speaker online that indicated what the project was and indicated to what the board can do, your town attorney will indicate to you how you can or cannot proceed, but the code is the code. The application before you is 25% of impervious service based on the code, not a future interpretation, not a future change that may have been proposed. The application before you, that's what the impervious service is for everybody listening online or in person here. The church we were asked, which is the neighbor to the east, we had approached them, had had discussions with them. The town had asked us to put cross-access agreement into the back of this lot so that it would alleviate some through traffic. That can't happen because the church put a solar array down the western side of their property. So anybody that wanted to take advantage of that cross-access, they can do that. Okay. So the church put a solar array down the western side of their property. So anybody that wanted to take advantage of that cross-access, they can do that. But there's a property owner agreed to with the town doesn't work because now there's a solar array that would block access from any property to the east on that. The applicant, which I believe was smart planning, proposed it as medical because that's the highest parking and traffic demand. It could also be used as professional offices. There's not a specific tenant for the property. So those demands can go down, but it's better to propose the highest and best use so that everybody gets traffic counts, gets lights, and it's smart. So that's the first thing that we did. and it's smart versus proposing less and then coming in with something more. So it always can go down depending on what the use is. And I think that's just smart planning and gives you all the facts so that no one here can stand up and say, oh, they're proposing a little use and now you're going to have more use, right? That's not the way it works. You should have highest and best use. What's the maximum amount of cars so you can make an informed decision and anything less than that would be better for you. There is a full drainage plan. There is a full engineered set of plans that's on file with the town. So to speak to some of the online comments and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have had on behalf of the property owner, conditions you wanted, we'd be happy to have that discussion anytime. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. Having not seen anybody else, I will make a motion to end this public hearing. It is now 3.23 and we will keep it open for written comment for 10 days, which will be July 26th. So open for written comment until July 26th. Moving on to our next public hearing. It's a hearing to amend chapter 257 called food trucks. And I guess Matt is going to come up. Yes. All right. For something near and dear to my heart, which is my stomach, this is to change the code 257, which is currently peddling and soliciting to incorporate regulations for food trucks. If the town board's aware, we do have a lot of food trucks out there. Operating in town, but they're not regulated right now. So going through code revision, this was the logical place to sort of drop this in to make sure they're being regulated properly. So if you've had the opportunity to review the draft code in 257.2, we've added a definition for food trucks as well as a food truck operator. I'm not going to read that because it's pretty self-explanatory. Then onto the second page, which is 257-5 permitted activities. So this would allow the operation of one food truck as defined herein on properties where the principal use of the property is agreed. We're doing this so, you know, if a brewery, a vineyard has one food truck, it's pretty reasonable. But in case they want to do a food truck festival, that's going to draw a lot of people. We want to go to 255 where the board can review to make sure that special events happen properly. In terms of the outreach, we're doing this so that we can have a full system of food trucks. We're doing this so that we can have full system of food trucks. We're doing this so that we can have full system of food trucks. the application process, it's going to be as drafted, pretty similar to a peddler's license. They'll go to the clerk's office. Some additional criteria that a food truck will need to meet, they'll need to comply with the Suffolk County Health Department requirements for this. There's a special permit that they would get from the health department and also comply with the buyer code. And then finally in 257-8, which are the restrictions, this is kind of the meats and potatoes of how this use will be restricted. So a food truck shall not operate between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. Two shall be located at a minimum of 500 feet from the main entrance of any eating establishment or similar food service business. Excuse me, one second. Sure. 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. 9 a.m. instead of 5 p.m. Yeah. If you say that first one again. 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. Not operate. Well, not engaged. Look at... 9 a.m. to 5 a.m.? Sorry, 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. Not operate between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. That's not what our... Ours says not between the hours of 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. Yes. I eat a lot at night, so... Okay. I just want to make sure everyone has the right copy. This is the one I printed, I believe, from... Yeah, maybe we're looking at it... You might have... On the next page, it says 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. That's where I am. I'm on B, a food truck. We're on 257-8, restrictions, number one. Hold on. 8 p.m. to 9 a.m.? Are these all things that you struck? That's existing restrictions for a hawker or a peddler. So if you go to the next page, B, they're just getting renumbered. Go through what you struck out. It's on the letter. Gotcha. I got it. I had the same observation. Okay. Yeah, so if you go to... So there's a new section B, a food truck. So that's the preclusion for 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Gotcha. Shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from the main entrance to any eating establishment or similar food service business. 500 feet from any... Outdoor dining area as measured from the designated location on the lot. Accommodating the food truck unless such eating establishment is owned or operated by the food truck operator. So that's a competition thing. We don't want someone parking right next to someone else's restaurant with a food truck. But if you own a restaurant and you want to have a food truck, probably okay. Shall not operate on a public right-of-way or in locations designated as municipal parking unless especially permitted by the town board. Shall not operate at a municipal park, beach, marine, or other town-owned or maintained recreational park. Shall not operate at a municipal park, beach, marine, or maintained recreational park. Unless specifically authorized by the town board to operate said food truck by concession, lease, or otherwise. Number five, a food truck that is participating in a 255 special event that has been approved by the town board or is participating in another town-sponsored or co-sponsored event are exempt from the restrictions in B2 and 3. So that's like another live on 25 situation. So they're not going to meet the distance requirement from a restaurant for a live on 25. Number six, operator must have permission of property owner to operate from the site and ground sign shall be prohibited. Shall be parked on improved surfaces that provide adequate room for customers and their vehicles. And then eight, shall not be parked in required parking stalls that cause the principal use to be below the minimum required parking by town code. Pretty straightforward stuff if anybody has any questions. Nice job on this. I know that we kicked this around for a couple of years. A couple of years, yeah. And to put it together the way that you have, I appreciate the work you put into it. Oh, thank you. This is going to make things a lot easier. Good. Do we have anybody from the public who would like to comment on this? Do we have anybody on Zoom? Nope. Okay. Not seeing anybody, I make a motion to close this public hearing and keep it open for written comment until July 26th. So moved. So moved. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Opposed? Okay. Our next public hearing, which was scheduled for 2-0-5 and it is now 3-28, is one-story warehouses in Calverton. And Matt? Back again. Okay. So this is a public hearing for the site plan application entitled Hildreth Real Estate Advisors Calverton, which proposes the construction of a one-story, 70,455-square-foot warehouse building. So it'll be divided into three tenant units, each with an office restaurant, and a one-story, 75,000-square-foot warehouse building. The site plan also proposes two outdoor storage areas. About one's 34,750 square feet and the other is 31,000 square feet with related site improvements, including parking, lighting, and landscaping and on-site drainage. This is a 10-acre parcel known as Lot 26 of the Calverton Camelot to subdivision in the PIP. So that is in the industrial core at EpCal, situated at 1001 Scott Avenue, Calverton, more particularly identified as Suffolk County Tax Map. Number 600-135-1.10-1-1. We'll turn it over to Mr. Kent, who is the applicant's attorney. He has a couple things to say, and I think we can probably open it to the public. For the people listening, and Matt mentioned it, but this is inside defense at EpCal, and it's inside the industrial core at EpCal, just to be clear. So everybody knows exactly where this is that we're talking about. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Hi, how are you? Thank you, sir.
Yeah, you can put it right in the middle and our crack IT crew will, you have to do one at a time in the middle there if you want. We'll head over to you next. Right over that. Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Supervisor, members of the town board, my name is Christopher Kent from Farrell Fritz PC, 100 Motor Parkway in Hoppog, New York. I'm here for the applicant, Hildreth Real Estate Advisors. With me today is Ike Israel, who's one of the partners in the ownership of the property. Also, I have Alex Holman, who's a PE from Bowler Engineering. He's the project engineer for the property, for the proposed development of the property. And we have William McGeever, who's an architect from Frank Relf Architect PC. And he's the one who did the... He's the one who did the building designs, which you're going to see shortly. First of all, I wanted to start by saying that we submitted the affidavits of mailing and posting were submitted to the town clerk. I also drove by the property this afternoon, about half an hour before the meeting, took a photo. The property is still posted. And I forwarded the photo to the town clerk showing that it was posted as of today. I did receive it. Received it. [transcription gap] So if we take a look at the... So if we take a look at the... The proposed project is... The project is proposed on a 10.047 acre vacant site located at 1001 Scott Avenue within the planned industrial park zoning use district at Aptow, also known as lot 26 on the approved Calverton Camelot 2 subdivision map. So if you look at exhibit one, that gives you a location of the site. It's on the curve of Scott Avenue. Also, exhibit two is the county tax map showing the parcel in relation to surrounding parcels within the industrial park.
Exhibit three is an aerial photo of the property. You can see it's a vacant parcel that's kind of been encroached upon by the neighboring parcels. You can see that the... The existing conditions of the site, the subject property is located between Island International Enterprises to the northeast. And it's a densely industrially zoned industrial developed parcel held by the Riverhead... Currently held by the Riverhead IDA with existing buildings and outside storage. And you can see some of the storage encroaches upon... This property. To the south... Excuse me, Chris. Folks? Mr. Banger? Could you guys take the conversation outside, please? It's interrupting what we're hearing here. Okay, thank you. To the south is Tomcat Realty Holdings property. That has an existing structure, but is primarily used for outdoor storage. Okay. Thank you. On the other side of the street, the other side of Scott Avenue, you have Stony Brook material... Excuse me, Stony Brook manufacturing that has existing structures and outside storage. The industrial park is mostly developed with industrial buildings and accessory outside storage, which is permitted under the PIP zoning district. If you go to exhibit four, which you can see on the screen... But you have it in your... You have it in your... Oh, excuse me. Exhibit four is the view from the street. As you can see, it's got a wooded area right along Scott Avenue. Exhibit five is the existing survey, which you have on the screen now. It shows the property is wooded. It has a wooded area near Scott Avenue. And it has a lot of wooded areas. And it has a lot of wooded areas. It's on Scott Avenue. And it's encumbered by an easement area that goes across the property, which we are negotiating a relocation of that easement area with the town attorney's office.
Exhibit six is the proposed site plan for the property. That includes a one-story 70,445 square foot warehouse. With two drive aisles that provide separate access to the 21 loading bays on one side of the building and 70 parking stalls on the other side of the building. It also includes two screened outdoor areas. It will be screened with fence and landscaping, existing vegetation near Scott Avenue and also some landscaping that we're going to be adding. The property... Currently, the proposed plan divides the building into three separate tenant units, each with an office and restrooms. We're not sure if that's the way it's going to actually be demised at this point because the tenants are still unknown. The plan also provides code-compliant lighting, landscaping, and on-site drainage. The existing utility easement, as I said before, would be across the property. The property will be relocated as agreed to by the town. We'll work with the town attorney on the relocation of that, those existing easements for utilities. If you turn to exhibit seven, this shows the site plan in color. And we can show that on the screen. It's shown in color overlaid on an aerial photo of the existing site. And you can see that our property is located between two adjacent properties that are fully developed and have outdoor storage. And our outdoor storage will be in that area in the front. If you push that a little bit up, you can see that we're going to retain... We are going to retain the wooded area along Scott Avenue that will buffer and screen that outdoor storage area on the front of the building. And then in the back side, which will be the southwest corner of the property, there's an outdoor storage area that will be screened by existing vegetation. And that backs up to the existing vegetation that is to the... near the 7,000-foot runway. But this is inside the industrial park. Exhibit eight is a table of lot restrictions that was part of the approved and filed Calverton-Camelot II subdivision map. The subject property is lot 26 and is highlighted on the table. The restrictions included in the table was part of the environmental review undertaken in connection with the approval of the subdivision map. If you can read the table, I don't know, hopefully you can. I have a bigger version if you want that. You can see that we are... The proposed plan complies with all the restrictions included on the table for the development of this lot. And it's consistent with the existing uses throughout the industrial park. So we don't exceed any of the restrictions included in the approved and filed map. And we don't exceed any of the restrictions in the code. So this project is something that's permitted by the code. And all proposed development is within the code requirements. Exhibit nine. We can also show that on the screen. Are the elevations, the design elevations for the proposed building. Which shows it from various views. And that's really it. We're completely compliant with the code and with the environmental studies done when the subdivision was approved. And if you have any questions, I'm here, Alex is here, and William is here. Chris, just in terms of traffic, what do you kind of expect? Like a number of these are track to trails going in and out. Are there operating hours? Are these just like 24-7 warehouses during the day? Tell me a little bit about traffic impacts. A traffic study was, an analysis was prepared. It was not yet submitted. They are projecting roughly one truck per hour during operations. What's hours of operation? Daytime? It's not 24-7. We won't know the hours of operation until tenants are determined. We don't have tenants yet. I mean, maybe I can speak to that better than I can. I'm not marketing the property. However, this is in the EPCAL. This is not outside the industrial park. This is within the VIP. I'm seeing what happens on River Road or 25 and so forth. How you go? Just curiosity of, you know. This property has a controlled intersection at Berkshire. This is a controlled intersection at Berman Boulevard. Most trucks would come in off of Middle Country Road through the intersection of Berman Boulevard. Come down Berman Boulevard and turn right onto Scott Avenue directly to the site. Mr. Kent, this is a one-story building, right? Correct. It's 41 feet tall. Is that what I'm reading? I'm having a hard time reading the height. It's in there, but it's really small. Is that 41 feet? Okay. The head of the head of the head of head of head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head Do we have any questions from anybody in the room? Anybody would like to comment? John McAuliffe from Roanoke Landing. And Chris, I'm not coming in opposition to this. We're not in a deja vu all over again situation. I've never had a problem with opposition. I do have just some questions that have already, Supervisor Hubbard has already answered them to some extent. This is not what is colloquially called the Berman property. It's some other property that is still owned by the- It's the PIP. It's the industrial core that was sold many years ago. Jan Berman was- He was just a developer or owner of that property and he developed that industrial core. Right. But is this particular property, you said it was IDA owned, right? No. Do you want me to answer the question? Sure. I can kind of educate you. This property is owned by Hiltreth Real Estate Advisors. Prior to that, it was owned by EBS. Is that correct? The property that's owned by the IDA is next door. It's a 36 acre piece. Can you put that back up? Give me the aerial, the color aerial. That's fine. I just was confused about- Well, the IDA used to do that. They don't do it anymore. But many years ago, the IDA took ownership of the property in order to give you economic incentives. They currently use what they call a straight lease transaction. They lease it to the IDA and then it's leased back. But many years ago, the property was actually conveyed to the Riverhead IDA in order to get your economic incentives. That doesn't happen anymore. That doesn't happen anymore. But this property is still next door. The property to the north is owned by the IDA. Okay. Thank you. And Hiltreth will remain the owner and developer of the property? Or someone else might purchase it? We can't speak to that specifically at this moment. Okay. So in other words, it could be changed. All right. Everything's for sale, John. Everything's for sale. I noticed that. At any rate, so the only other comment I'd make is that this clearly is different than what we normally talk about as EPCAL. But I think it does emphasize the fact that we really need a comprehensive plan with priorities and processes and all the rest of it. And so that we're looking forward to the report on that and hope that it doesn't wait for the legal stuff to finish. But at any rate, as I say, I have no specific objection on behalf of EPCAL Watch to this particular project. Do we have anybody else? Hi. Good afternoon. Takwee Turchin, Greater Calerton Civic Association President. Thanks for clarifying, Supervisor Hubbard, that this indeed is in the PIP zoning district. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't get your full attention. [transcription gap] in all senses for Seeker, include this property and any other property inside EpCal that would like to become a warehouse. As small in comparison that this one is compared to the mega warehouses that are elsewhere proposed in Calverton, it still has impacts and it can't act alone and be built alone without recognizing it. So we'd like to see this project and any other project included in an analysis for Seeker on all cumulative impacts. Thanks very much. Thank you, Takmi.
Do we have anybody else? And we have nobody on Zoom. Okay. Make a motion to close this public hearing. It is now 3.46 and we will keep it open for written comment until July 26th or 10 days, which is our normal route. Okay. A motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. All opposed? Okay. Public hearing is closed on the one-story warehouse in Calverton. Moving on, we have a public hearing on Chapter 301 for prohibited signs scheduled for 2.10 p.m. It is now 3.46 p.m. and I believe, Councillor Howard, you're going to run with us. Thank you, Mr. Supervisor. This is a relatively straightforward proposed total. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right now, reading the prohibited signs section of our zoning code would seem to prohibit a traditional Barber's Pole. This creates a specific exception for a Barber's Pole and defines the same as a staffer pole with a helix of red, white, and blue stripes that may be stationary or rotate, but shall not be illuminated. Okay. Do we have anybody from the public that would like to comment? comments on barber poles. Seeing no one and no one on Zoom, I will make a motion to close this public hearing at 3.47 p.m. Motion, please. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. It is now closed and we will keep it open for written comment until July 26th. It's been a long time since I've been to the barber. Don't knock it. It's not what it's cracked up to be. Okay, our last public hearing of the day is a public hearing, a special meeting on two-family dwelling and Heather Trojanowski from our planning department is going to come up and it is now 3.48 p.m. and we will open that public hearing. Good afternoon, everyone. For the record, Heather Trojanowski, planner for the town of Riverhead. I'm going to make this brief because I'm sure there are people who want to comment on this hearing. So this is a special permit application seeking approval to construct a two-family dwelling at 4592 Middle Country Road in Calverton within the residence B40 Zoning Use District. It's identified as Suffolk County Tax Up Number 600-97-1-79.1 and it's a .49 acre parcel. So I'm just going to keep it brief. The representative for the applicant is here. If the board has any questions, but I'd like to open it up for public comment if the board is amenable. Heather, what was the size of the property? .49 acres. Yeah, 21,282 square feet. Heather, did we get confirmation that the applicant sent notice as required? Yes, I have the mailings, everything. I know we had a couple of instances where the property didn't get mailed, but all the certified mailings were done. The property was posted. If you have any questions, the applicant is here. Thank you. Okay. We have anybody who would like to comment on this 4592 Middle Country Road Riverhead. Public hearing on a two-family dwelling.
My name is Karen Kemp and I live in Calverton in Timber Park. This property abuts Timber Park and I'm against this development. Two-story or two-family houses should be where they're properly zoned and this is a single-family residential area. It's also on a very busy street. The speed limit is 50 miles per hour and when there's a green light, people go whizzing through. And then, the intersection of 25A meeting Route 25, it's a really bad area for a multifamily house. So, I'm against this. Thank you. Thank you. And I'd like to add, too, that many of my neighbors are against this development because it sets a precedence and we don't want any more multifamily homes in our area. Being that this meeting is in the afternoon, they were not able to make it here. We've received their letters and their concerns and their emails. So, we do have that as part of the public record. Okay. Thank you. So, Heather, can I just ask you a question? With the site plan, I think during the work session, we discussed I believe this one had a garage in the back as well. Yes. The board had questions about the use of the garage. I would leave that to the representative for the applicant. He was not at the work session, but feel free to ask him what the proposed use of the garage is. What the proposed use of the garage would be. It would be for the people who are living in the house or... My concern is that it's not a third rental site, but it's going out and it becomes a storage unit or becomes somebody else. I want to know that it specifically pertains just to whoever is renting. Yeah. So, that's... Again, my name is Sean Morrison. I'm here representing 3D Space Building Corp. They put a garage up so they have off-site parking, which would... It's just... Covered parking for the cars. It's not separate storage to be leased that are anything different. It's parking for the residents that would be renting. It's a covered port or it's enclosed? I mean, it's enclosed. Is it a two-story garage? It's a single-story garage. It's divided into two carports. So, each tenant has access to put their car away. Okay. Are there any other questions for me right now? No, I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to become a third rental or anything else of that nature. Absolutely not. Yeah. I don't think the code even allows that. It doesn't. We have anybody else who would like to comment on this? I have a question for Heather just real quick. Yes. Sorry. Are you aware of any other two-family uses in the area? So, in my staff report, I did note on... Let me just see. On page six of my staff report, which was on the town website for the work session, 45... 14 Middle Country Road, which is about 900 feet to the east, was granted a special permit in 2006 by the town board for a two-family dwelling. Thank you. You're welcome.
An affrontage to this property is on the main road, correct? On Middle Country Road? Yes. Yes.
Hi, Taku Church and Greater Caloratian Civic Association President. Once again, I'm here to stand up with the residents of Timber Park. They've spoken with me. Some have written to you. The precedence of this dwelling is unwelcomed. I'm sorry. Is the applicant here in the room? There. It kind of speaks to the fact that they're not looking to be a neighbor and get to know anybody. I don't know if anyone's been reached out to. So, not to alienate anyone, but this isn't something that is good for their neighborhood and good for their... that section of the road. Thanks very much. Thank you. I have somebody else coming up first. Good afternoon. Ed Ryder. 115 Old Sovereign Timber Park. My property actually is adjacent or I would say on the property line right behind this property. I'm a resident there for 37 years. And, you know, we've dealt with a lot of issues specifically with that property. As you all probably know, a long time ago, there used to be a bar there and there's all the problems with that. The building that they're talking about with the two-car garage was also being utilized by one of the car dealerships in Riverhead to store his cars there for a while until we got that all cleaned out. My only concern is I'm really having a hard time understanding where is the frontage of that piece of property. I mean, these garages look like Costco's behind my house. There's actually two of them on the left. And the right of my property line. I'm not saying I'm against development of putting a house there. I would rather see a one-story house there, a single family that, you know, but I understand that, you know, we got to do what we got to do. So, so I have some questions about maybe you guys could guide me on that. Where is the front? Where's 25A on that drawing? Route 25 is to the right. Okay. All right. So this is the garage and this is the other rental property. Is over here. It's totally separate. The other properties do not part of this. So there's a commercial piece of property here with a barn. Right. That's not this property. Okay. So this is going to be an additional garage that's being built. Excuse me, sir. Could you let us know on this diagram what you two are speaking about? Sure. He's looking at the same thing. I just don't think you can see it. Okay. So I'm showing him something a little closer. No, I'm just saying if you could just reference on here so we can all follow along. So the frontage of the building is Middle Country Road, which would be the right side. Okay. That's the, that's the street front. He's asking about the property, which would be to the west. There's a commercial, it must be his own commercial. There's a commercial warehouse on that property. I think he was concerned about. That's not showing on this map. That's not a property. It's an adjacent property. I think it's a white, like Morton style building. And I think he was thinking that this was turning into like white Morton style building garages in the back, which it's not. Okay. So my property, would be right here. Yeah. Okay. So this is a single, like single level construction for the garage, which is in the back. That would be abutting his property. What is the setback from 25A for the house? You should be able to see. Yeah. On my client. So I'm 60 feet. 60 feet. Okay. If you want to look back here, there's your setback to the property. Okay. Yep. If you haven't seen, like the other, so. Is that setback consistent with the house to the east? So you're talking about the adjacent property to the. Yeah. It looked like 4584. So I haven't looked at that property. That's a rental property as well. But like, as the other person was mentioning, like it's dangerous to have houses on the street there. I think there's like nine houses in a room. Yeah. What exactly is the objection to having residential there? Because I know that. I have no objection to having residential. Okay. I just wanted to really get information about what was going there and the elevation of the house. I mean, my backyard spent a lot of money there. Nice pool, you know, the whole deal, you know, is my privacy going to be invaded? Right. You know, so that would only be the only concerns I have. And I just mean in general from others that have come up and spoken today. I would think that having residential in place there, as opposed to somebody wanting, to put up a garage or something more commercial, not directed at you, but maybe Calverton Civic. Would you come up, please? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reuter.
I'm sorry. I don't know if you heard what I was saying. I did. Okay. The objection would be that, it's precedent setting. It's, it's residential is not, not, I don't think we have only two choices here, either residential or commercial. I think you said something like a commercial building. It's precedent setting in the size of it, the use of it, the history of families, and that it just adds to the nine houses, I think that were just mentioned on a 50 mile an hour roadway. It doesn't look to me to be fitting. It doesn't look to be fitting with the rest of the neighborhood. Yes, 900, 900 feet away is another two family home permitted in 2006. I don't, I don't see that that's going to be in keeping with the rest of the Timber Park neighborhood. I think it's something around the order of 125 homes are there. I just get concerned because I do know that we need housing here in Riverhead. You know, we need places that our younger generation are able to afford to live. Sorry. He is great. I will say it is good music. So I just, I mean, I, I realize there, there's always the, we don't want this here, but I just think that it might be a better fit than a year down the road coming back here because somebody wants to put a gas station up. I don't know if that's an allowed use. I'm just saying it. I get your meaning. I think that what's yes, we're looking for entry-level homes for home ownership for folks who live here. I don't know that this fits that bill. Okay. It's a shared question, I presume, of single family or multifamily. Is that what we're talking about? It's less desirable in that area. And there's two factors. It's not a part of the Timber Park neighborhood yet it affects it. And it's not a 50 mile an hour roadway, which is going to add to the troubles that are there, you know, with traffic right now, just trying to enter and exit that roadway. I don't see that that's a positive addition. I can tell you this, that having been a police officer in this town, I handled calls up in that area at those properties. And I think that might be what the neighbors were afraid of because they had been multiple dwelling units on pieces of property up there. They weren't kept up and they were unsightly and they required frequent police visits. So I think that might be a fear of some of the residents of Timber Park and I understand that. When you go to a two-family house, there are some negatives to a two-family house as to how they look and how they're occupied. There are some beautiful two-family houses that fit right in and work perfectly fine. So I think I understand where they're coming from. Thanks very much. Do you have any more questions? No. Okay, great. Thanks. Just for our town attorney, Eric, you can guide me with our new code in terms of parking on the lawn and so forth. Like now that they've repositioned, instead of having to do that, we have to have instead of a driveway being to the front, now it's obviously going down the full length of the property to a garage in the rear. Does the code in any way affect that? Is it a move? I'm just going to ask is there a way of circumnavigating around the parking on the front lawn by adding a driveway that goes to the length of the property and then creates multiple parking spots along its way? Well, the proposed code change that I think we have a public hearing on coming up in a few months prohibits any parking in the front yard entirely. Now, we also have code that requires some form of front yard space, some defined front yard. You can't really direct what type of material is to be used for that, but some area that has to be reserved for a front yard that you cannot park on. This is just a, I mean, it appears to be a long driveway with parking in front of it, of each of the proposed units, and then one car on each side of the carport. In terms of the requirements of lot coverage for a driveway, maybe defer that to Heather as to whether there's anything that would restrict that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for that.
I will note that on the site plan, they calculated there, block coverage, their impervious surface coverage based on the size of the entire property. And I, they don't need any variances. So, I mean, whether it's gravel or asphalt, you know, as long as it's improved and they provide adequate parking, which they appear to be doing based on this, it would comply with code. Heather, just by definition, looking at this blueprint, the front yard would be defined as the south end of the house to Middle Country Road. Correct. The frontage on Miller Road would be the front yard. So, the two cars showing park there would be considered the front yard. The other two cars in the garage would not be considered front yard. Would that be correct? Yes, but I don't, are there restrictions on having a driveway in your front yard? Or it's just parking on the front yard in general? No, it's parking on grass. Yeah. So, they're not proposing to park on grass. They're showing that as improved area. And then the side yards would be more traditionally set out with grass. Correct. Landscaping. Right. Yeah. And in my staff report, I noted that I would prefer that they maintain some of the more mature trees to be cognizant of neighbors. Buffering in the back. Also, just while you're up here, do you know or have any idea about any other undeveloped lots along Middle Road in R.B.? So, Middle Country Road? No, I believe they're all... They're all developed within the entire Timber Park neighborhood. There might be maybe one other lot. There's actually one under construction right now on South Path, I believe. But the entirety of the neighborhood, I think, is generally built out at this point. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Heather. Anybody else would like to comment on this? And nobody on Zoom? Yes, sir. Sure. We're going to get you back at these meetings on a regular basis now, aren't we, Mr. Banger? I should have left an hour ago. I happen to own a two-family house in Ackerborg. It's legal two-family. It's been a two-family since 1952. I renovated it in 2011, and I had the town building department come down and look it over before I tore anything out, just to prove it. It's been there. It's really old. It's a new apartment. I don't see any difference myself in why a two-family is any worse than a one-family with 10 people in it. I mean, you can have a family of 10 kids, and you have two vans and three cars and whatever. I've never had a problem with my two-family. It's on a 50-mile-an-hour road. In fact, I'd like them to go slower, but they don't. I believe the speed limit from my house is 40 because of the school. But very rarely does anybody go 50. There's never been a problem with the speed. And if this is a development which is next door of single-family homes, apparently off the main road that we're talking about, I forgot the name in a subdivision now, but I don't see how this would hurt them. And I don't see how a lot in that area would be detrimental because they wouldn't build on a smaller lot. I also have two ladies that now live in my house who could not afford a single-family. All right? They're two very nice girls. They've been there three or four years at this point. I don't know. I've had tenants up to seven and eight years. And they're just as quiet as anybody else. I live in that house. It's not two-family, and I live in Southampton. I live in my house. And I don't see any disturbance of a two-family house, especially if it's on the main road. Restriction to the main road, hey, that'd be great. I think the question here was, can he build a two-family? I believe that's what it is. All right? Not that it's allowed. And I don't know anything. I don't know about residential being restricted by impervious surface and all that. I don't know anything about that anymore, whether that happens. That's just commercial, I believe, properties. But I can't see where you restrict to a two-family to be kept as a residential two-family. Okay? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bing. I'm sorry. Not a problem. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? And nobody on Zoom. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing for a special meeting on two-family dwelling. We'll keep it open for written comment until July 26th. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. The public hearing is closed at 4.07.
And believe it or not, that's all we have for public hearings. Now we are moving on to the public hearing. Moving on to resolutions. And we will open the floor to comments on any resolution in today's packet. Comments on any resolution in today's packet. I'll read it. I haven't yet. I'm . George Bartnik. I live in Bading Hollow. And I want to make some comments on resolutions. I think I have a resolution 2024-657, which are the definitions for the proposed agritourism complex on Sound Avenue. But I think before I do that, I have to make a comment. When I was thinking about running for town board, this is in 2003. And, of course, what you did, probably you conferred with your family members of whether you really should get a job. I didn't have a full head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head It really hasn't, Denise. I've recovered.
Your meeting that you had with Southhold earlier today, Tim, is an excellent idea. And it's a great segue to some of the comments that I will be making about the definitions in a moment. Prior to the meeting, I was able to collect now up to, when you put the packet together for this meeting, 40 letters opposed to agritourism on Sound Avenue. And I think the one comment that really is a synopsis of the feelings of the rest of the 39 letters is actually the one from Mark Terry, who obviously was in the meeting that you had this morning. He must have been there. Also. He was online for it. He wasn't present at it, but I think he was watching it on Zoom from his office. Okay. Well, Mark, in case anybody doesn't know, Mark is the main principal planner for the town of Southhold, as well as a resident of Sound Avenue. Probably the family goes back to before the town of Riverhead existed, as a matter of fact. And his comments are, I'll just read them very quickly. The proposal to include the areas. North of Sound Avenue in a TDR receiving a plan for commercial use reads like a business plan for a developer. It is the wrong direction and the wrong place to develop a very large commercial resort. These areas have unique natural values, including protected species habitats. TDR receiving areas should not include these sensitive areas. The proposed commercial agritourism. Resort proposal north of Sound Avenue should be struck from the plan for many reasons. But the most compelling is its decline in the quality of life to Sound Avenue residents and those who live near it due to traffic. Environmental and other adverse impacts would also be expected. Regional planning, which is what the meeting was for this morning. The town of Southhold has had recent large investments in hotels and more proposed. A regional approach should be discussed on how these will impact the residents. As you know, Tim, probably more than any other person sitting on the town board, there were a lot of really radical proposals in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. And when I had my meeting with Joanne and Bob a couple of days ago, I mentioned a few of them. And I think you're familiar with the live-on dredging for a harbor. It turned out to be a sand mining fiasco. Another proposal was to have an industrial park where the state park is right now. That was going to be another proposal. By that life of property. And one really crazy one is that, and I only found this in one article. In a newspaper was a desulfurization complex, which was going to be someplace west of where the state park is now and where the docks are. All of that disappeared when the Sound Avenue was given the designation as a rural and historic corridor by the state legislature and adopted by the town board. Now, the town board, as everybody knows, didn't follow. They didn't follow up with any particular protective measurements for Sound Avenue. It was probably left for 50 years as just maybe you want to describe it as benign neglect or lazy fare, whatever you want to call it. But the point is that you have to wonder if the supervisors 50 years ago, when these projects for... Okay. Industrial park or the nuclear power plants, when they finally decided that it was not a good idea for the town to be built. If those supervisors would look back at the history of their town, their time on the town board, and either say they wish they had pushed for the development, or if they kind of look at the condition of Sound Avenue right now and say, thank God it didn't happen. Who knows? Who knows how they would have looked back at that? The proposal for the two nuclear power plants, and by the way, I came across an article in a newspaper at that time. This was probably around 1974, 1975, just before the designation of a scenic and historic corridor. And one of the supervisors, I don't remember exactly which one, and it wouldn't do any good to name any names. But that supervisor actually went to the Atomic Energy Commission, I believe in Manhattan. And was trying to convince them that they should have the nuclear... They should put the nuclear power plants there at what is now the Halleck State Park. You can imagine what impact that would have had on Sound Avenue and how people now, 50 years later, would look at a four-lane... And that's what they required. They required a four-lane road to do the construction. How the people of Riverhead... Now, looking back... Would look at and say, what were they thinking? Why did they destroy a beautiful road like this? Just to give you an idea of what it was like at that time. This is after I just came back from the service. I wasn't aware of any of the stuff that was going on. I was just trying to get my teeth in teaching job and trying to control people like Joanne in the classroom. But Soundshore Road. Everybody's familiar with the development on Soundshore Road. At that time, my cousin and her family was the only family that lived on Soundshore Road year-round. That's the type of development that was taking place there. Regardless, there were people that came... Farmers. There were a number of farmers that came out. When they saw what was going to happen to Sound Avenue, they came out in force. And they combined forces with environmental... Environmentalists, which is... You look back at that and you say, that's incredible. The feelings and the attitudes and the passion that they had for Sound Avenue at that time to combine forces. And they made it happen. They beat Lilco, which is incredible if you stop and think about it. Enough said about that. Talking about the definitions. The definition for... This is in Resolution 657. The definition for agritourism does not... As you're probably aware, you're probably aware it does not comply with the State Department of Agricultural and Markets definition. The definition for ag and markets for agritourism, activities conducted by a farmer on farm for the enjoyment and education of the public, which primarily promotes the sale... Marketing, production, harvesting, or use of products of the farm and enhance the public's understanding of the awareness of farming and family life. If you were to adopt this definition, the complex, the resort will become the primary use. The definition of agritourism as... From ag and markets, the farm has to remain the primary use. The definition of agritourism as... From ag and markets, the farm has to remain the primary use. What you're proposing here for agritourism resort, they're going to be the primary use and farmland, if farmland were to remain active, is going to be secondary. That's just the way it's written here. This is written for a developer. That's why this is here. And Tim and the rest of the town board people, why don't you just eliminate agriculture? Just call it what it is. It's a tourism inn and resort. You are proposing the possibility of having six hotels, six resorts, or whatever you want to call them, along Sound Avenue. It's not going to be agriculture. When I gave this, the code that was given to me, I didn't even know. When we had our meeting, you should have told me that the proposal for the zoning change was going to be coming out in two days. We could have... Talked about it during the meeting would have been a little more maybe productive. But anyway, I passed it off to a very respected gentleman in the town who I'm not going to mention any more about this person. But the comment was that it doesn't protect agriculture. And his comment was it makes no sense. This is... I'm not going to mention who it was because I didn't ask for permission to bring that up. The definition of agriculture... It's a tourism inn and resort. I mean, you're talking about the possibility of an inn of 150 rooms. You're talking about the possibility of a restaurant that would have two and a half times the number of rooms for the inn. That comes out to a possible potential dining area for 375 people. Each location. You have got... You've got to look at the cumulative... If you move forward on this, you've got to look at the cumulative impact of all of these projects. It's not just one that you're talking about. I don't remember if we had the conversation the other day and I brought this up and you said it's only one. Bob, I don't remember if you said this or somebody else I had a conversation with. It's only one at this time and probably another one won't happen for years. Regardless, 50 years goes by. How are people going to look back? At you, this town board, and ask, what were they thinking? I don't know. That's something you're going to have to ask yourselves. But I looked for the definition yesterday. I looked up to find out some examples of agritourism inn and resorts. I came to two sites. And this is what I found. Just for an example. This is in Italy. And their idea of a resort is a 17th century... Tuscany villa. Croatia. Apartment adjacent to a working olive farm. Costa Rica. 13-room retreat on an estate with 36 acres on a coffee farm. Poland. A guest house on a working farm again for an apple cider production. Chile. A V.I.K. hotel and winery. Hotel. 22 rooms. That's more in keeping with our definition of what I... What's the... No, no. The small hotels. We came up for a definition of... Back in 2000. Boutique hotel or something like that. That's more in keeping with what that definition was. Ashland, Oregon. A furnished... Here's a really good... Really good one for people to consider. I can see people coming out from Queens for this one. It's on a working farm and ranch. A furnished wall tent. Okay. That's one hospitality. Or a cozy farmhouse studio. Or a three-bedroom house. I can see people... Anyway. And the other one is Curacao. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly. It's a six-room cottage. And that's it. That's the definition of... Resort housing on agricultural land. It has nothing... There's nothing comparable to what the town is even considering here, Tim. Well, first of all, George, you're addressing me that I'm considering this. And I haven't said I am considering this. I understand that, Tim. And I could just add one word to that. From what I hear from people and some of the things that you've said, you seem to be vacillating... You're vacillating... [transcription gap] I'm hearing all sides. But the thing is, Tim, if you look... You look at the newspaper articles from 50 years ago. Do they mention the different town... Yeah, a couple of them actually did mention some of the town board people. But whose name is up front? The supervisor. Sure. And this is how you're going to be remembered, Tim. Well, they'll be spitting on my grave, George, because... One word here, now I won't be here. But having said that, this is why we have these public hearings. This is what we do. We listen to the people. Everybody has a different feeling, a different opinion on this. And my ears are open. I'd like to see a letter, Tim, in favor of this. I was looking for it. I was looking for... A letter in favor of... Of agritourism? Of agritourism, these agritourism resorts. No, there was no letter in your file so far. I have not spoken to one person who's in favor of this. Yeah. Enough said, Tim. Thank you very much for your time. You're welcome. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Sorry, Cindy. George used up everybody's time. You know, he was so much fun, wasn't he? Let's give him another round of applause. Oh, thank you. And what a font of information. What... How much history. I love that. I just want to make a couple of comments about this amending Chapter 301. First, it does seem premature. I know a lot of people are saying this, to be moving ahead with any kind of zoning change before the comp plan is completed. And also, I think George talked about the definition of agritourism. I think before you have a public hearing, that there should be a really specific definition. Not, you know, this one seems kind of generic, kind of general, like, well, it's got to do with this and that. Like, what will be permitted and what won't be permitted, I think that needs to be really clear. And I think that's what's going to be presented. Again, it's a special permit, which like I said before, not always crazy about. But then the other thing I want to mention is, I was looking at the specifics and I see that there's going to be a single walkway to the bluffs with no more than 10% disturbance of the bluff area, which is good. But there's no mention, while there's specific distances from the front and the sides and there'll be buffers, there's no mention between any building up to the bluffs. Sorry. I didn't get what she's saying. [transcription gap] client approval there is protection area from the bluffs that you know what that is offhand i'm just curious matt could come up and talk about it we just had this discussion just recently about the protection area okay what we just did was tighten it down so like making it only 10 so we want to make sure that 90 of it in other words we didn't want multiple staircases going down in one area and then um this is separate but just i want to ask quickly um i'm wondering why the minutes aren't any longer transcribed for people who don't you know who want to like see everything that was said but don't want to be watching it they're just it's just like the list the agenda now well because jimmy won't address that well because they're all everything's videotaped and recorded on the website so you can go back and watch it was back if we need something for litigation we would send that tape out to be transcribed oh because by the end of the year last year it was all the meetings were the transcriptions were there yeah well during the transition i was talking with diane wilhelm and she felt and we discussed it that it was a twenty thousand dollar expenditure to have these transcribed it wasn't worth it so we transcribe them as needed for litigation and otherwise they can if we need to go to the tape and transcribe something we can do that all right and then also um i'm really happy to see that you're you know taking a vote about extending the calverton moratorium so thank you thank you shannon hello again talkie church and greater calvary and civic association president uh just three things um thank you very much for um the ratification of the uh industrial moratorium can i get that end date please the new three month i'm having a hard time oh i'm sorry um thank you i want to thank you very much for um it's at 673 resolution um i'm looking for the end date of the three month extension october 12 2024 2024 thank you um george bartnik i know i haven't known you that long but boy i've only seen you that passionate twice and i i really would like to as a as i'm not going into it here in public um one of the reasons that i i cherish the the position i'm able to be in is that people i learned from people like george bartnik and if it weren't for him um caring in the way he is demonstrating today he doesn't often come down into town hall and he's giving me his reasons but boy he got motivated today and the stuff i learned today i don't know if you all knew all that he was talking about and all his historical references but now i got to take notes because i got to go back to the recording and figure out what all those proposals were back in who knows what years he was referring to but um what a stellar performance he gave to us today and i thank you very much um and the third piece is um i did thank you for for the um town board meeting today at the work session for a south hole town board um miss merrifield mr rothwell mr hubbard and mizwoski um i attended that and uh i i learned quite a bit from about their board i'd never sat at a work session before i have gone uh and sat last year twice in front of their planning board um it it it was very collegial it was informative from a resident's point of view and i i saw that each of you um it appeared that you learned something from from your counterparts in south hold and the one thing that i took away from that was we are a region and we need to think regionally we are the gateway to the north fork but we we do control what happens there to the north fork and we need to think regionally and we need to think regionally to some extent um in terms of water and traffic pollution and um it's very heartening to see our leadership working together and and i look forward to your um invitation that you gave to them to come in six months and as long as you provide them lunch i'm thinking about lunch yes yeah yeah thank you very much it's well worth it it was a really good meeting and uh if you've ever i've worked with al krupsky since i've been on the board and uh there's no finer gentleman to try to work with and uh you know he's just got a great demeanor and the partisanship that you know he could be one team on the other team but you would never know what one work together because it's just not the way we work together and and i credit learning a lot from him so any other comments on any resolutions three there's three there's three on the board and i think that's a good one i think that's a good one i think that's a good one i think that's a good one i think that's a good one i think that's a good one i think that's a good one as well three online okay all right i'm going to go online we'll take somebody from zoom chip kathy can you hear us yes i'm trying to start my video there we go okay we got you good afternoon kathy mcgraw from northville i'm speak can you hear me okay yes okay i'm speaking to ask you all to postpone the public hearing on agritourism resorts so that you can set up a committee that will include residents to study this proposed zoning change it's pretty clear that you've been meeting with farmers on an occasional basis but i think it's really important to get all the stakeholders involved before moving forward these resorts as george pointed out will have a an immense impact on this town as well as the east end and that is evidenced by your invitation to south hold today and one of the topics of discussion which was just a great meeting i watched it and thank you all for participating i do have a few observations about that meeting this morning mr rothwell gave an overview of the zoning for agritourism and needless to say it was in glowing terms he was then asked some questions by south hold trustees one was a question as to whether traffic studies have been done as well as a study of the impacts on infrastructure mr rothwell you've been a member of the south hold council of the city of california and he responded that a secret evaluation on traffic isn't necessary or triggered by a resort of 150 rooms it has to be 250 rooms but we are talking about a zoning code change that will allow at least six such resorts or 900 rooms on the sound avenue corridor the cumulative impact of this code change on traffic is going to be a major factor in the traffic needs to be studied now, not one resort at a time each time they come for a building permit. And as an aside, I'm just curious, Mr. Rothwell, we have been told all along that there were seven possible locations for this kind of resort. And I also heard you say that you told, heard you say to Southhold that Riverhead is starting out small with just six resorts. And you said, we'll see how it goes and maybe we'll expand from there. I have to say, I found that really alarming. I don't like the idea of six resorts. And to think that this could lead to more was really disturbing. You were also asked about a study of wastewater systems. And your response was, there has been no study. That will be left up to each developer, resort by resort. But again, when making a zoning choice, you have to think about the cost of each developer. And I think that's a really clear example of how important this is. isn't it the town's responsibility to conduct such a study not the developers doesn't the town have to consider the impact on the town of all such potential development as a whole not one resort at a time and one other response that was given by you mr rothwell also gave me some concern when asked if the town had been working with any specific developer one of the one of the trustees asked you that you said the town had met with one one specific developer one or two years ago but there was no guarantee that that developer will actually be building a resort there's no site plan or anything like that well i found that a bit in disingenuous since we know that a specific Westchester developer actually paid consultants to work with this town both in 2022 and 2023 on this very code change as well as the changes to the TDR program to enable the resort. I seriously doubt any tweaks that you have made to the code would discourage that developer or any other developer from building a luxury resort on the bluffs of the sound. There just aren't many such prime locations left on the Long Island Sound. A final question that was posed by a Southhold trustee was whether the town would include in this zoning legislation a prohibition against seeking IDA tax relief. The reason for that is that the town would be required to pay the tax relief for the resort by the developer. Since one of the reasons you give for allowing these resorts is to expand the tax base for Riverhead. Mr. Rothwell, you responded such a restriction would be too controlling to put into the code. I really doubt the residents of Riverhead would agree with that. Developers of luxury resorts. I would like to acknowledge Supervisor Hubbard that you told Southhold Board that you have some reservations about this zoning code. You know the people are not on board with it and the farmers still have some issues. You said it was not a done deal and I respect and thank you for that. So it seems to me that the town is not on board with this zoning code. I would like to acknowledge Supervisor Hubbard that you told Southhold Board that you have some reservations about this zoning code. I really doubt the residents of Riverhead would agree with that. I really doubt the residents of Riverhead would agree with that. So it seems to me that this is the perfect time to pause, regroup and talk this out. Actually do the studies necessary to determine the impact of this zoning change as a whole. Not just resort by resort. What impacts will this code change have overall on the Sound Avenue corridor and the bluffs of the Sanford? What impacts will this code change have overall on the Sound Avenue corridor and the bluffs of the Sound? The ComPlan update didn't do this essential work and it needs to be done before holding a hearing on this code change. So I ask you and respectfully please create a committee of town officials, farmers and residents. The group that has essentially been left out of this conversation on agritourism resorts. The group that has essentially been left out of this conversation on agritourism resorts. Hold some meetings with all the stakeholders, not just the farmers. There are alternatives, concessions and compromises that can be made. There are other ways to preserve land. Please postpone the public hearing. Pause. Give these resorts, which will be a game changer for Riverhead as well as the whole east end of Long Island, a chance to Give these resorts, which will be a game changer for Riverhead as well as the whole east end of Long Island, a chance to clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear Thank you, Kathy. We have two more on Zoom. Okay. Comments on today's resolutions.
Hi, Connie. Can you hear us? Can you hear me? We can hear you. Good afternoon. I just want to briefly thank the board very much for Resolution 670. I was really very, very pleased to see that the town of Riverhead, in particular, the board, is taking a positive approach on a solution to a serious problem that we have not only in New York, but in this country. And taking a positive step to alleviate housing crisis by adopting the Pro-Housing Community Pledge. I applaud you for it, and I thank you. And I just would hope that the other communities would follow suit and take such a positive step like you've taken. It's a great thing for what's going on in today's market. And I just applaud you, and I just, you know, I don't like to. I always complain. So I like to, you know, compliment when, you know, it's due, and it's certainly due in this case. And thank you very much. Thank you, Connie. But a lot of that credit goes to Dawn Thomas. She and I met with people from the state and presented this to us and kind of nudged us to get into it because there's a lot of money that's involved or available, I should say, with very few people applying for it. So there was a deadline, I believe, at the end of this month. And we had to get everything in for it. And Dawn worked feverishly to get that done. So I appreciate that. And it was a good program, and it's a good opportunity for the town of Riverhead. Yes, it is. And I'm really glad to see this happening. And I'm sure it's going to – I think it's going to work well. I thank you again. Excellent. Thank you, Connie. Uh-huh. Have a good one. You too. They clapped for George. I think we should clap for Dawn. Okay. We'll do that. Laura, can you hear us? Yeah, I can. Hi. I just have one question. I know Cindy had come up before, and Ken, you had said about the bluffs that – for the agritourism resolution for the public hearing, that it would be taken under other restrictions that we have in there now. Since we don't have any zoning – Yeah. If we don't have any zoning for agritourism resorts, what would be used for the setback from the bluffs? It's pre-existing in the code. I know, but pre-existing under what zone? Like, you know, we have residential. There's not much else up there by type of residential, so I'm just curious. Hi, Laura. Can you hear me? So the regulations are cited specifically in the agritourism code. I shared that with Cindy before. It's the Chapter 219 regulations. Okay. So obviously anything that's within the jurisdiction of the coastal erosion hazard area, they would need permits. Provided, you know, whatever the activity is going to be in that area. If they're more than 50 feet landward of the Seahaw line, then they would not have to comply. So it would be a 50-foot setback from the bluff? That would mean that it would be in jurisdiction. Chapter 219 is a little – you know, this is state legislation, so it speaks to the point of inflection. It points to the Seahaw line, whichever is more seaword. You have to really look at it at a specific property to know what the jurisdictional line is going to be. And what, you know, would demand compliance. But if they're more than 50 feet landward of the line or the crest of the bluff, they wouldn't be subject to those restrictions. They'd be subject to whatever the rear yard setback is in that code. And is that the same restrictions as it would be for a residential unit? I mean, it depends on what the activity is. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep. But it's in the agritourism code. So my other – Okay. So my other – Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. of the comp plan supposed to be being studied. Now, if we have to do that separately as this code is there another expense to the town and why wouldn't we just include it with the comp plan where the expense is already accounted for? Amory Prudente, Deputy Town Attorney, just right out of the gate, very important to make some corrections. Mr. Terry said Mr. Bartnik and there was one other person. This is RA 80. It is a TDR receiving area already in our code. It's not new. This agritourism isn't proposing that. That's the way the code. 25. 25. 25. It's not new. This agritourism isn't proposing that. That's the way the code currently exists. In addition, just to dovetail onto the master plan, I've been up here before. Under the current master plan, agritourism, and you can look for yourself. I'll just cite the sections quick because I don't want to prolong it. Take a look at section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6E, 3.6G, 3.7C, 5.2, 5.5B, 7.3, 7.7, 7.7C. That's in our existing comprehensive plan. Then again, I don't want to put Matt on the spot, but he could probably highlight it better for me. But if you take a look at the draft comp plan that has been presented to the public, it's online, just a couple pages. Take a look at page 65. Take a look at, I believe, 78. Take a look at, the heading chapter 6. It doesn't have a page number. Take a look at page 90 and 91. Those sections, and when you do a compare and contrast, have not deviated with respect to agritourism and discussions regarding integrating lodging with agriculture to foster the tourism economy. So no. Will it cost more money? Answer no. So there'll be no payment if you want to move forward and do SECRA on this. I mean, if you look what happened with solar, right. So code was passed for solar without a full SECRA. Okay. And we ended up doing a moratorium on it because it was not studied well enough. And in order to keep the code. You ended up doing a moratorium on it because there was too much going in the, and the eventual impacts of it were not studied completely. Okay. So if you're familiar with SECRA on the EAF, SECRA for legislation and SECRA for a specific app, like development are very different. SECRA on legislation, it's your, the SECRA action is the actual adoption of the legislation and whatever environmental impacts the adoption of the legislation would be. Obviously we cannot speculate on a specific. Project or if we have five areas, we can't speculate on any impact because we didn't know what the market. But you do have a proposed project already that was brought to the town, correct? No. So everything that was in the newspapers that some of the council people spoke to somebody about a project that they had on their website. We have no current application before any board within this town. I mean, I'll speak to SECRA like I did. SECRA on legislation, the action is the secret impacts of adopting the legislation. Obviously, if we got a specific. Application submitted per whatever legislation we adopted, that would also need to comply with the SECRA and you would do an environmental review at that time. But if the town is aware of a proposal, since you did speak to an actual developer that came forward with a proposal that they would like you to build, when you develop this code, the town does have knowledge, very intimate knowledge of what they would propose to build there. So in your secret, do you not have to include what the potential proposal is since you are aware of it? No, because it's not an application. The town routinely meets with developers of all kinds of projects that have never seen the light of day. So you don't think it was taking one step forward when you actually worked with the developer on the project? I didn't hear your question. Laurie, you're talking over him when he's talking. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. It's hard to hear with my feedback here. So go ahead. What was your question? My question is, is the developer came to you guys to pick up the code? No. So this code just came out of nowhere and you just decided to do agritourism without any impetus from anybody, from a developer or anybody. It just popped into the town's head to do. I would say it's not atypical for the town to meet with anyone about any project they want to develop within the town and whether or not the town board chooses to entertain those ideas. I think it's a good question. [transcription gap] need to be considered. It's not an application of something that has the potential for any board within this town hall, so we can't speculate to what the impacts are. I don't know. It's pretty black and white. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. John, go ahead. John McAuliffe from Rolling Woods, Roanoke Landing. I've changed what I was going to say because some really excellent presentations have been made already. I'm obviously not speaking on behalf of EpCal Watch and that this is not land within EpCal, but I am speaking from the experience of EpCal Watch. Just from a citizen's viewpoint, there is a certain similarity of a sense that people within certain levels of the town have decided they want to do something and people who object to it are seen as obstacles for whatever motives, but an annoyance, not a serious something. What reso are you commenting on? Excuse me? What reso are you commenting on? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm commenting on 656 and 657. Sorry, I should have said that at the beginning. I thought that was implicit. What I'm commenting on is the, I'd say, agricultural resort. I think the fluidity between agro-tourism and agro-resort, there's a certain use of language that I think is important. I think there's a certain use of language that I think there's a certain use of language that I think there's a certain use of language. But I think we're talking about something very different from agro-tourism. We're talking about agro-resorts. And a case can be made for them. And Mr. Rothwell has passionately argued for that. And that's, he's certainly entitled to. But I think also a case can be made that this is not good for the kind of development that Riverhead should be pursuing. I... I mean, there's, I'm also finding it a little bit disingenuous for us to hear that there is no proposal. Well, and as Laura said, I mean, so where did this come from? I mean, did somebody had a bright idea on the board or in the planning department thought, oh, this is a good thing to do? Or did it come from the fact that you had meetings and you had a proposal for a particular project? That seems what happened. And these were people who also were very generous in their campaign contribution. So they're people who had a serious interest in a particular project and the town responded to that. I mean, that's fine. That's the way the democratic process works. But I think that as Kathy said, and my suggestion for you is that you suspend these two resolutions and not vote on them today because... I... [transcription gap] put up for a public hearing. Well, no, no, I'm saying don't put them up. Let's hear those comments at the public hearing, John. I think you're rushing the process. That's the whole process. That's the whole purpose of doing this. They go to public. We publish in post. We have a public hearing on them. That's when we hear from everybody. Oh, and you can certainly do that. I'm just saying that I'd be premature to do that. We'll listen to what is being said at the public hearings. Well, I think you can actually make a decision now not to go to the public hearing because you think that the whole area is too fraught and too much contradictory information around right now. I mean, we can. We can go to a public hearing on the 20th. I appreciate you letting us do that, John. Oh, I'm not. Tim, come on. Don't keep us sarcastic. Well, I'm just saying that the process of how you engage with people. This is the process of how you engage with people. This is the process of how you engage with people. The process is to go to public hearing. And at the public hearing, we hear from the public. The decision to go to public hearing is a decision in and of itself. If you decide not to go to public hearing, then you can take up what Kathy suggested or George suggested, which is to have a deeper consultative dive among people with lots of interest. Or we can determine we're going to go to public hearing. You can. You have two ways of proceeding. And all I'm saying is given this history and the nature of this project, I think you're better off not going. And I think we're better. That's my opinion. All right. So we can hear from the public. There's two things then that I think it would be useful to have. Maybe you could do some research on. One is when and why did this change from an original proposal that the closest it came to agriculture was farm to table? When did the concept of agricultural resort get injected and who did it come from? What's the forensics of how this actual process, the actual proposal developed? I think it'd be very useful for us to know that from the board. The second thing that would be very useful to know is how it got into the comprehensive plan. I mean, I didn't go to every comprehensive plan meeting, but I didn't see this in the community meetings that took place. I'd have to go back and figure out when is this suddenly part of the comprehensive plan? I think that ought to get accepted. Every one of the board members, John, had conversations with BFJ during this entire process. So it could have come from any board member up here to put it in and have a discussion about it. All right. I think that's useful to know that it came from board members. We had public meetings and we had meetings individually with them. And even two at a time, I imagine. Probably happened. I didn't participate in any, but we're more than welcome to do that. That's part of how the comp plan works. All right. I think that public input and board input. I was on the steering committee and there was a recommendation in the comp plan that we should be looking into allowing resorts, different kinds of- Where did that recommendation come from? I couldn't tell you. I think it'd be worth knowing whose initiative that was. I don't- What mode? I'm not motivated. Anyway, I think- Resolutions. Sorry. I'm sorry. If you could just focus on the resolution. Okay. All right. My comment on the resolution is that I think you'd be better off suspending it and coming back to this topic in a much more developed process along the way that Kathy recommended. Okay. Thank you very much. We will agree to disagree on that like gentlemen. John, thank you. Let me make one point. more um comment about this if if i may george barnett again from dating hall the proposal for this type of resort activity was in the master plan of 2003 it's i pointed this out to bob and joanne and it's nothing it's nothing radical it's just that dfj just kind of looked at that and said if it's there for 20 years we'll put it back in the question is where is the best place to put it and one comment i would like to make and i know this is supposed to come at the end of all the votes on the resolutions i'm not going to stick around for that believe me and i want to compliment the the recommendation of bfj that north of sound avenue should not be a receiving area when when that was being proposed i was the i was junior on the town board and it was explained to me at the time even though i protested because there's a lot i knew there was a lot of a great agricultural land north of sound avenue and it was explained to me that the only way that tdr was going to work is if sound north of sound avenue was a receiving area personally thank god it didn't work so now that now that now the consideration the consideration is to have a combination of receiving and sending area north of sound avenue i don't know exactly how that's going to work but it seems to me that the way it should be considered is sending and receiving solely for properties north of sound avenue instead of sending development rights from the agricultural protection zone thank you very much folks thank you george george you sure you don't want to stick around for the resolutions now so Okay, we have one more online on Zoom. Losing my voice here.
Hi, Kathy McGraw, real quickly. Supervisor Hubbard, you say that you're going to go to public hearing and hear from the public at that time. Well, when the farmers didn't like what was in the proposed code, you all withdrew the public hearing. And you met with the farmers and you talked to them about it. And you came to some agreements. You are hearing from the public that the public doesn't like the zoning code. Don't push us to the public hearing. We want the opportunity to participate in meetings like the farmers. The farmers did. We count here, too. We don't want to just be the talking at the public hearing after the whole thing has been set up. We want input like the farmers had input because we are as important in this town as they are. And I really ask you to step back and pause for a minute. Thanks very much. Thank you, Kathy. I'll give it consideration. Thank you. Considered. Thank you. Barbara? Yeah. We saved the best for the last. Oh, hardly. Barbara Glass came for it. First, I'm really excited that you went to Southville today. I wish I had known. It was really good. Yeah. It was really good. I could understand this. There's a lot that we have. In common. A lot in common between the two towns. I'm wondering if they mentioned that they just last month actually passed a moratorium on hotels. Resorts. They actually passed a moratorium on resorts and hotels and motels and wondered if they had a particular. They didn't mention it, but I have read about it. So I'm up to speed with it. Right. In the vein of being in sync, it's something to keep in mind that they're a little bit concerned. I think they mentioned also there was a problem. They were concerned because they don't have an IDA. Right. They were concerned that Suffolk County runs all their IDA projects. Go through Suffolk County and they feel kind of. Left out. Yeah. They can't control that too much. Not that we can really control our IDA rather than other than appointing the people to it. But it's when you have a local IDA, I think you have much better handle on it than relying on somebody at the county level to determine what's going to happen way out there. I just think that that was part of the, if I'm reading that correctly, I think that was part of why they wanted that moratorium. Right. Because they didn't feel they had a stake in how this was going to play out in their town. Okay. That's an interesting. They might be able to engage with Roof Ahead IDA. They should look into that. Right.
I really have just some questions and I know this isn't. Sorry. Okay. I'm speaking about the resolution calling for a public hearing on the agritourism as well. And I don't. I'm not rendering an opinion here. I know that questions and information will be exchanged at the public hearing itself, but it would help me to understand things that are written in here that I don't know right now. So I could form a better opinion as to where this all really is in the realm of our future. The change to R.A. 80 zoning is on the town's own motion. You're passing legislation that is going to affect more than 25. Acres on your own motion. That's different from when an applicant comes in that there's their threshold is higher. So I really don't understand and hope that by the time of the public hearing, there's a better explanation as to why this is not a type one action. It's affecting from what I understand, possibly 600 acres of property and should have the those impacts identified and vetted properly in. In a secret review. I'm wondering when the seeker is going to start.
That's out of 617 for B2, by the way, I always sign my name B2. Anyhow, that's an aside. I'm interested in understanding. They said the total agricultural square footage for for ag buildings is 300,000 square feet. That's a total amount of square feet allotted for the ag buildings themselves. Which. Actually, I guess we'll all be in the front yard, considering everything. You know, the rear yard is facing the sound. Is that how I understand it? So the front yard is Sound Avenue. It's not. So it can be configured anyway. It just can't be within view of Sound Avenue. Well, that back requirements. But that doesn't mean that it can't be in front of an in or behind an in or the placement of it. I'm I'm speaking specifically to what is. Stated as 5000 square foot buildings. Agricultural structures can be located in the front yard. It says that. So I'm assuming that your front yard then is. Sound Avenue. Yes. Correct. Okay. So that's that's where I am. And I'm wondering how many of those 5000. I mean, are they limited to just the total square footage allotted on the ag property? I mean, how many 5000 square foot buildings are could we possibly be seeing in the front yard? That was just a question. I don't know if there's an other way, another way to limit those. I also have to say that. Agritourism was indeed mentioned in the Complan in 2003. I have. I totally acknowledge that. But it was not this kind of agritourism legislation or consideration. That incorporates. Vertical farming as an example. That's allowed in this code up to 5% of the ag properties allowed for those kinds of things were not vetted. At all. Not studied, not analyzed. So I'm just wondering if at some point. We will see the potential for what. Energy uses. And. [transcription gap] And so. Okay. All right. The other thing that I would like to ask about is the agricultural worker housing. It says it could be part of this. I'm wondering if that square footage is in that 300,000 square feet total max. It is? Okay. And it's been a while since I've really looked at that particular section. Is ag worker housing for workers that are working on that property only? On the agricultural portion of that. On the agriculture. So that ag worker housing, those agricultural workers will be working on that 70 acres. Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Not hotel people staying there. It's just 300,000. 300,000 square feet to manage a 70 acre farm, I understand is pretty, it's a lot. And I'm wondering where that, I wondered if it was only 30,000 square feet, but 300,000 square feet seems to be excessive to me. And if there's a rational reason that, well, we need one of these and one of those, and they're generally 100 by 30, 300 square feet, I don't know.
Another thing, solar panels. If they choose to put on-site solar up to 110%, which they're allowed to do, is that part of the 300,000 square feet? That's agricultural equipment. Is it part of their structures? I don't know. But I think I would like to have an understanding of what that 300,000 square feet could actually be used for. Again, because. For the most part, it's facing Sound Avenue. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate any information you can provide for that prior to the public hearing would be helpful so that people have a better understanding of what we're actually looking at. Thank you very much. Yeah, Barbara, if you want to email these questions to Anne-Marie, she drafted the legislation. I'm sure she could answer all of your questions. I'd be happy to do that. Yep. [transcription gap] Absolutely. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Yeah, it sounds a lot. Let me just ask the board, is there a sense that you would want to put together a group of people to study this or no? Including farmers and residents? I spoke for my feelings, but I didn't ask you guys. I think we've been working on this for two years. We've had multiple work sessions. I know that I have participated in publicly. I've been engaging in going to different farms and talking to people, talking to people within the development of neighborhoods. It's been a common topic for approximately a year and a half and two years. I don't agree with that. I just wanted to give you guys the opportunity to say. I would like to hear from the people. I mean, you've been very lenient today with your time. Usually you have five minutes for comment periods. When you have a... You know, a... A public hearing, there is no time limit. There is no time limit. So people can come. They can speak. We can hear. There's some people that don't even realize that this is going on. At least it would be published and posted and raise awareness to other people that might say, hey, that's a really good idea or no, that's a really bad idea. So I would prefer to hear from the residents, the people that voted for us, to come down and tell us what they think. Okay. I agree. I don't disagree with that. I spoke for myself, but I didn't ask you guys how you felt. And also generally, I mean, anybody go to the business advisory committee with anything like this, that's also why they're there. It's a bunch of businessmen and they can, you know, you bring code there. They work on that quite often. It's how projects get developed. In other words, they're conceptual ideas. Yeah. I mean, and I... You know, quite frankly, I didn't... I sell 300,000 square feet for agricultural buildings. I thought that's a typo, but 300,000 is a lot. Nobody online? Okay. We're going to go to the resolutions. Mr. Town Clerk? No. Okay. I'll back you. Okay. We're going to show resolution 648. Ratifies Stotsky Walking Trail Project number 72324. ARPA budget transfer. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 649. That's you. Yeah. Okay. Riverhead Sewer District Capital Project number 82227. Budget adjustment. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Seconded. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 650. Capital Project number 72404. Budget adjustment. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution adopted. Resolution 651. Water District Capital Project 82419 Carsonwood Subdivision. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 652. Amends Town Board Resolution 2024-601. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 653. Resolution 653. Amends Town Board Resolution 2024-602. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 654. Rescinds Unissued Bond Authorization. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 655. Classifies the special permit application of 431 Griffin Avenue to convert an office to a single-family dwelling as a Type II action pursuant to SECRA and schedules public hearing 431 Griffin Avenue, Riverhead, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-128-130. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 656. Yes. Authorizes town clerk to publish and post public notice to amend Chapter 301, Zoning and Land Development. So moved. Mr. Lange? Yes. Jim? Second. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 657. Actually, I don't have that. Okay. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 658. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 659. Appoints a maintenance mechanic to the sewer district. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 660. Points an on-call seasonal pump-out boat operator. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 661. Appoints seasonal staff to the recreation department. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 663. Amends a portion of resolution number 2024-459 adopted on May 22, 2024 to correct the salary of a seasonal recreation aid. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Congratulations, Liam. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 663. Amends a portion of resolution number 2024-459 adopted on May 22, 2024 to correct the salary of a seasonal recreation aid. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 664. Authorizes the promotion of police officers to the position of Detective Grade 3. So moved. Seconded. Congratulations, Byron Perez. Vote, please. Waskey? Yes. Merrifield? Yes. Kern? Yes. Rothwell? Yes. abges. abges. ! abges. abges. three congratulations sean evans second book please waski yes merrifield yes kern yes rothwell yep also congratulations great officer good hands thank you all around to sean evans i vote yes covered again ditto ditto uh congratulations sean well deserved resolution is adopted resolution six six six approved special event chapter 255 application for cornell cooperative extension of nassau county centennial celebration so moved seconded book please waski yes merrifield yes kern yes rothwell yes hubbard yes resolution is adopted resolution six six seven approved special event chapter 255 application for hallockville museum farm country fair so moved second vote please waski yes merrifield yes kern yes rothwell yes hubbard yes resolution is adopted resolution six six eight rescinds resolution number 2024-433 and resolution number 2024-500 time change townscape country fest so moved second vote please waski yes merrifield yes kern yes rothwell yes hubbard yes this is the cancellation of the abges so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved so moved Pro-housing communities resolution. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Thank you, Dawn Thomas, and pushing for this timeline. So appreciate it. And great staff behind you. Vote yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 671. Pay his bills. So moved. Seconded. Vote please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 672. Approve salary increase for senior water treatment plant operator 1B. Keller. So moved. Second. Vote please. Waski. Yes. Merrifield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 673. Ratifies adoption of local law to amend Chapter 303, Calvichan Industrial Moratorium. Sublet's Sublet's for three month extension of moratorium period i'm not going to move this vote somebody else needs to do that so moved seconded vote please write down that waski yes murrayfield yes turn no rothwell i just want to say that um i you know i want to hold off on warehouses but i would we had put in a specific request i know certainly myself and certainly councilman kern i believe to uh you know take out some of the limitations for some of the recreation projects projects and so forth up there so without the amendment i vote no hubbard yes resolution is adopted uh resolution 674 authorizes the community development department to apply for 2024 cfa grants for pro housing new york state parks and esc capital funding so moved seconded vote please waski yes murrayfield yes kern yes rothwell yes hubbard yes resolution is adopted resolution 675 resolution authorizing nunc pro tonc legal action against the owner robert james hartman and all tenants and occupant occupants of premises located at 1524 osborne avenue riverhead new york so moved 10. second vote please waski yes murrayfield yes kern yes rothwell yes hubbard yes resolution is adopted resolution 676 authorizes town clerk to publish and post public notice to consider a local law to amend chapter 217 section 67 of the riverhead town code entitled front yard parking restrictions certain areas. So moved. Second. Vote, please. Waski. Yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. Yes. Hubbard. Yes. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 677. Authorizes supervisor to execute agreement with the Board of Education of the Riverhead Central School District for the School Resource Officer Program. So moved. Seconded. Vote, please. Waski. Absolutely, yes. This is such a great step in the right direction to have SRO officers in our school. So I vote yes. Murrayfield. Yes. Kern. Yes. Rothwell. I just think the general public needs to know that the town stepped up to pay for this. I believe we're paying in its entirety the first year. No. They're going to pay. They're going to pay 50 percent of one of the SROs the first year and then but we have two. There's going to be two SROs. Yeah. The school district is paying for 50 percent of the cost of one for year one and then 100 percent of the cost of one for year two. So I'm just saying we've stepped up to put one full resource in and then basically we're sharing the expenses of a secondary one split. Correct. Yeah. And I agree. That's important to note. Thank you. And I think we have to put that out there because I truly believe that this really should have been covered and paid for by the school budget on the side of things. But I do want the resources in there. I think they're in guiding our youth. And so I support this. But it is us that's running the majority of the money. The public should know that. So but I vote yes. And Hubbard. Absolutely. With what you just said is 100 percent correct. And we negotiated back and forth and back and forth. And I appreciate the board agreeing to go with the terms that we have set forth. The school district did post their issues with their budget that they didn't have. I didn't have the money to do this. And they came up with some funding for it. And at the end of the day, the funding is all coming from the same people. That's the taxpayers. So whether the town gets it or pays forward or whether the school district pays forward, we're hitting in the same pocket. But I appreciate your support because it's really important for me that this program is back in the school district. Schools do much better with SRO officers in them than if they don't. And in today's day and age, we can't be safe enough so i appreciate the board's support on this and uh i definitely vote yes okay that motion is adopted that ends our resolutions you have no more jim okay i would like to at this point make a motion to close the town board meeting and open up the cda meeting so moved so moved we have a second all in favor aye aye opposed okay town board meeting is closed and on the cda meeting is now open very well thank you um good afternoon very short agenda today um we have no resolution so we would take comments from the public on cda matters only at this point any comments from the public on any cda matters having seen no one in the audience uh and nobody on zoom okay okay then we can close the meeting and so we need a motion and a second so i just want to say that you run a very thorough brief meeting i like very many where were you four hours ago this is how you do it she has no speakers bring in anybody from the street you okay um so we i need a motion and a second to close yes okay uh my second okay okay uh waski yes maryfield yes her yes rothwell yes hubbard yes okay until another month we'll see back then thank you cda meeting is closed i now would like to open it up to comments from the public on any matter tomorrow comments on any matter from the great excuse me from the public yes i know hi barbara blast james ford i'll be brief you're bringing us treats well it's not it's a little show and tell but it's not treats unfortunately um there's always a lot of press and and warnings about fourth of july and the dangers of setting off fireworks and and property damage and personal injuries always a concern, and rightfully so. But we never really hear about the aftermath. Like, is there any residual issues with fireworks? And I have to say, in all the years that I've lived where I've lived, in Jamesport and South Jamesport, I've never experienced anything such as what I experienced this past Fourth of July. And I'm going to show you what washed up on the beach that I can tell you, it's sharp enough to poke right through this plastic bag. What is it, Barbara? Okay, this is a residual of what are called Saturn missiles. And this is plastic shards. They're huge. They are. Sharp enough to definitely, they're like glass, okay? This came from one section of the beach. This is a very popular beach. People walk. They walk their dogs. The kids play. The little kids dig. The babies crawl into the water. This is serious stuff. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say I doubt very much this is biodegradable. I'm just going to say that. I didn't research it. And this is the other part. This is part of it. This is the base of it. And, you know, these are the big pieces. We were, I mean, just feel this stuff. Punch it in your hand, Bob. Really feel it. And then it goes into smaller shards that you can't even pick up because they blend right into the sand. It's just nasty. And something should be done is all I'm saying. I know they're illegal. And we talk about how they're illegal. I know they're illegal. And we talk about how they're illegal. But there's some extra element of danger and hazard. You know, we have so little respect for people, the environment, certainly, and the rules and the laws. I'm sorry. You think these washed up on the beach? I believe they, well, they were in the rack line. Okay. So it makes me believe that they were washed up from, I don't want to say across the bay, but there was considerable fireworks on the Flanders side. It could have been anywhere. Quite honestly. But it came across on a section of Simmons Point that is just a very well-walked and traveled area. And it's clearly hazardous. There's no doubt about the fact that this could really, you know, harm people and the wildlife, the bay, whatever's in the bay. And I kind of, this is a little dorky. But I know that there's so many people that are going to say, oh, they're trying to take another. It's a fun thing away from us. There's so many people that are way, you know, that are concerned about restricting outdoor fun, whether it's the race cars or whether it's the water park or now fireworks. But I'll be a part of that society as it pertains to fireworks. And I actually named, I came up with a name. How dorky is this? The No Fair Society. No outdoor fun anywhere in Riverhead. Right? That's what I'm probably going to be accused of being part of. But this. Really. Something. Something has to be. We're union carrying cards for that. So we'll just, we'll admit you to the union and it'll be good. It didn't seem like there was some, like, professional fireworks that were going off. And if the other side of the bay. And they were two nights worth, quite honestly. And the thing is, maybe we should know when, even for those professionals and those organizations where we do give permits, just to understand what it is there. And if there is any kind of. Debris. This is not your typical beach cleanup. You know, we had people out there doing this. It was really unfortunate. So I thank you very much. Am I, am I shaded? Don't leave those here, Barbara. I'm sorry. Don't drop it. It's literally. No, no. I don't want to be accused of causing harm. No. It came right. They poked right through the bag. Look. Chief, you let her bring in sharp objects into the room. I actually went to ask if it was okay to bring them. Okay. Where's the, where's the detective for that chief? Do you want to see? I'm good. Sorry. I didn't cut my finger rope. But yeah, look nasty. Oh yeah. Nasty. So thank you. I appreciate your indulgence, whatever, whatever your creative minds can come up with, with perhaps doing, you know, taking a handle. Well, thank you. I'm really causing havoc. I'm leaving. I'm just so sorry. I didn't do so much. on the podium. Can I do say this though, Barbara? Thank you for cleaning the beach. You're welcome. We do that regularly anyway, but never this kind of stuff. Thank you. And also it helps warn people that just be careful if you are walking on the beach right now, you might step on it. Actually, at the end, the beginning of Simmons, if it's not even by the canal, by Cases Creek, the American Hotel Aqua, is at the end there. And they're doing very well in terms of tourists, a lot of activity. So we were actually telling them, I said, unfortunately, this is a great place, but just be careful. Try to walk almost right by the water. But that wasn't going to ensure anything anyway, because I'm sure there's a lot of this on the bottom. So anyway, we try. Barbara, I have a beach committee meeting tomorrow. You want to take us? Four o'clock. Would you like to come? What is tomorrow? I know you help out. It's here at four o'clock. I will try. I will try. I'll bring it up tomorrow, though. Oh, no, I don't want that. OK. And I did. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Thanks. Thank you. I want one. She's trying. Can't give them away. Good afternoon, Amelia Lance. Are you able to take us? I'm going to take you. Tell me more about 675 resolution. Are you permitted to do that about the authorizing legal action against the owner, Robert James Hartman? Are you able to speak to that a little? No, maybe. I would ask since it's going to court, I would say we probably can't, but I'll defer to the town. OK, that's fine. I just was curious. Yeah. And as far as what Barbara had just said. The 4th of July. A couple of my neighbors are here with me and support our neighbor. Our good neighbor back on 250 Newton Avenue was at it again. And to use your word, which is a good word. Professional fireworks were going off now. Little where I live. I am. So I'm south. One house. Southeast of this particular house and small little detail. I happen to have a wooden roof and a wooden roof. And I have a wooden house. And these professional type of fireworks. My husband called the police. We're going off. Not to mention what my porn dogs were going through. If one of those. Pieces land on my cedar roof. I don't think it's going to end well. I really don't. And again, that's our good people over at 250. The folks across that I mentioned to you at the last meeting at 278. Is it 278? Is it 278? Is it 270 next to you? 258. Now have three families living there. Three families. And kids are still out in the street. Came home yesterday in the middle of the day. Granted. But these kids were very, very little. Very little. So I was just wondering if you were able to make any headway with, you know, the issue that I had brought up last meeting and same issue now. As far as the overcrowding and the noise and all of that. I would have to check with code and see what they've done about it. I did not get an update from them prior to today, but we will look into it. So I actually have an update on that. They were previously issued justice court violations for not having a CEO. And lack of building permits for various alterations they did to the property. They did get a certificate of occupancy for the finished. Basement. It's supposed to be a rec room. And they did not. Get a rental permit. So after the last meeting code opened a new complaint and we'll be reinvestigating property. And there's also an air conditioner in the garage. Hooked up in the window in the garage. Okay. Yeah. I'm hoping. Cool. Yeah. Are you talking about Newton Avenue? I'm hoping. I'm hoping Tony will speak. I hate to. No. Yes. But Tony lives immediately next door to this particular house from us to 58. And she has a wealth of information. But I do appreciate you listening because it's, it's starting to get really near and dear to home and whatever you can look into is greatly appreciated. Okay. Thank you. We would appreciate any help. At last count. From what I counted, it has to be. Upwards of somewhere between 15 and 20 people living in there. And my understanding is, I don't know for sure that our community is comprised of single family homes. So they constructed a swimming pool. I've been back and forth with code. For the last month or so they constructed a swimming pool. About a half an inch from the property line. Adjoining my property. And. Code came out and told them, a month ago that they had to take it down. It was a. Huge pool for four feet, I guess maybe four feet tall. It had a, they had a ladder. And at that time they hadn't put water in it, but I observed them about a week ago. They put water in it. I saw the kids. Climbing in and out drying off. So I came back to code yesterday and they were going to go out again because they said that the people that live there, they're going to be able to get a permit. And they're going to be able to get a permit. And they're going to be able to get a permit. So. They're going to be able to get a permit. And they're going to be able to get a permit. So my concern is, is the amount of people that are living next door. I just, I believe that it's two or three families that are living in there. I can't say for sure, but that's what I believe. Cause I know that I've counted at least 20 or more people coming in and out. There's small children again, like miss Lance had mentioned that runs up and down the sidewalk unattended. There's a baby. That was running in the backyard with no clothes on. You know, I moved in this neighborhood about four years ago, beautiful, beautiful place to live. My husband and I purchased a house. It was our first time purchasing a house. We worked hard and saved long for it. And I just, I'm just concerned about the integrity of my neighborhood. I just wanted, I want to be a good neighbor and I can live next door to a rattlesnake. As long as they're a good neighbor, I can live next door to a rattlesnake. And I just, yeah. And I just see the deterioration or the lack of caring for where they live. And that's just my concern. Stay in your name, ma'am. And Tonya Turner. And I live in two 54. I live at two. I don't need your address. I just, yeah, just your name is fine. And thank you. Ma'am. I was just, just going to suggest that if anybody living in the community, you know, you know, sees children that appear to be endangered. CPS hotline is anonymous. They don't ask the name, but if you see anybody or, you know, anybody that sees children that don't look attended to roaming in the streets and you feel they're in danger, you can contact the CPS hotline. And the thing is that we have, we live on a pretty busy through way. So there's cars that are coming and going all the time. So sometimes the kids are out in the middle of the street. They have one of these little kind of Flintstone kind of cars and you'll see a bigger one pushing an 18, a kid that looks like about an 18 month old. Toddler, you know, and it's just dangerous. Right. Your neighbor mentioned that one of the other times that she saw the children just out in the street, just very little. I think you said 18 months. Yeah. [transcription gap] I would recommend calling the police and let them make the CPS referral because they have a different phone number than, than you do. Cause you can be on that phone for hours, sometimes waiting for to get through to somebody and the police have a special hotline they can call. And I think you might see a faster reaction also if a police officer is making the report rather than a civilian, that's just, just a suggestion. Well, I thank you. And I thank you for the suggestion. I work for the Riverhead central school district and I've worked there for 20 years. So children are near and dear to my heart. So when you see these kinds of things, when I look outside and see them outside playing unattended and there's a swimming pool there with water in it and it's illegal, you know, I'm concerned. Right. Understood. Rightfully so. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. Thank you. We have anybody else and we have nobody online. Okay. Great. One more. Go ahead. Just miles. Another concerned neighbor over on official Avenue. I first wanted to speak to the what Amy was talking about at two 50 Newton. My wife just gave birth to our first child. So we have a two month old baby at home. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And when do you look so tired between that and work? Yeah. It's actually nice to get out of the heat. But that house has been over the past, probably say it's about two years constantly in the summer when the weather is nice on the weekends, they're playing music till, you know, 11, 12, 12 o'clock at night. And it's something that I have called the police about to make a noise complaint. I called the department, but it's something that I don't really feel good about tying up police resources, dealing with this thing. Don't worry about that. And I just, I just don't know if there's anything else that can be. It's quality of life for you. And that's, that's a police issue. Yeah. So don't worry about tying up the police. And this along with, you know, with the music and with the fireworks, there's something that's more recently come with having a baby at home. You know, I just kind of like, you know, he's, he's a great sleeper. But, you know, not having fireworks on the fourth, the fourth of July weekend coming over the homes on official. Right. And not having the, you know, this loud music playing that I can hear it, you know, clearly in our bedroom, you know, at midnight. I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done outside of just us continuing to, you know, call the police and have them come down and just keep filing those complaints. Do we know, Eric, do we know if this is a rental or a. No, it's owned by a woman. Yeah. It's owned by a woman in South Hampton. Oh, nice. They have a nice stick file on this house. Cause we started investigating this a few years ago. I was over there last week with the loud stuff. The police were there already. When I drove over there. The owner of the house. Oh. And let her hear some of these complaints. We think she'll hear some. This is a Rocky Palmer's old house. Well, she'll have to respond to court. Yeah. Some of these things. And the only other item was my neighbor at two 45. I know that. Code is probably. Had, or I think someone's contacted code about them. I sent an email. Into the town inspector, but I haven't heard back. I'm sure that they're just very busy. As you know, there are a lot of. Things to be inspected in the town of overhead. But there was recently some work done on. The installment installation of a new driveway. Where they cut the curb, cut the sidewalks and all the work themselves. I'm not sure if that work was permitted. It was. It was. Okay. Yeah. And also on the. North side of the property. They installed a fence and put some cobblestone in. That is kind of encroaching. On the monument and on my property line. And I was just wondering if, if, if you know, if anyone had been out to just take a look at that, because it was part of the correspondence I had. Chief inspector. They investigated this. Last month. Okay. And they did have permits. And they closed out the complaint. So you're saying that. What was constructed. Something was constructed. There was like an addition of cobblestone. Okay. [transcription gap] And like a repaving of their driveway. That kind of crossed the monument. Onto my property. I noticed they also took the paint. Like it went on your property. Well, like in line with the monument. I wasn't sure what the towns. Like definitions. And that is like, if the monument itself should be like a neutral zone or if. Either party can encroach on the, with the width of that monument. Okay. I'll, I'll ask about that. Okay. Yeah. I think it's 18 inches off the line. Is it a fence? I believe. Off the top of my head. Yeah. Just, just if someone could look into that. I know there is a distance. If a neighbor puts up a fence, it's supposed to be. Yes. It's like on, on, on the line. It's on the line. So much over on the side. Which I mean, it's a beautiful fence. I like the fact that they're doing a lot of work to improve their home and improve the look of the neighborhood. But it's just one thing that, you know, going forward. It's a single family too. I believe. I know they have a boy that's in the school. I don't think there's a multiple families. Yeah. And they're. Well, no, no, the house there. No, it's a single family. Great people get along with them. Well, just I've asked him about it and he said it was fine. And I just could, I was trying to look up definitions online and look up the code. And I just was having a little bit of difficulty finding it. Well, if it's on the property line, it's probably not. It's probably not an issue. Okay. Because if you don't have it on the property line, then. He would have a portion of his property that's outside the fence, which then when he sells the house, he has an affidavit from you saying he's not out of possession. So, I mean, that typically comes up when fences aren't, you know, on the property line. Okay. But if you're comfortable with how the survey was done and how the property lines depicted, it's probably, you know, it's probably done correctly. Okay. Perfect. Yes. Make sure it's not on your property. That's so I'm just gonna have to get a surveyor out just to properly check. Yeah. It becomes an issue later on. Yeah. Yeah. Which is my concern, but it goes both ways. Right. Which is my concern, but I can have a surveyor come down and take a look at it. No problem. Yeah. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. For the record, you're all welcome to come and voice concerns, but you can also have private conversations with code enforcement, you know, Monday through Friday, any day and get updates. You don't need to wait like next month to come back to a meeting and say, how did we do? You know what I mean? So I'm just like, you know, don't let the summer pass by. you know, absolutely. You're more than welcome. Absolutely. I just don't want you to feel like I got to wait till another month. Rich was out. About the noise. I just, I'm just wondering if you're the same person that was up here. So when the police come, they turn it down. And when the police leave. Okay. What do we do about that chief? I mean, we send an unmarked car or what, what happens? They probably can identify. I know my husband would volunteer.
Yeah. You have it on video, right? Because I remember speaking with you. Okay. Yes. It's, you know, it's really strange to cell phones nowadays. You, they block out the background noise. So I can't even tape it on my cell phone. Really? Yeah. I got to get a new cell phone. Get rid of AT&T. Get Verizon. I'm like. When we put up our fence, it was two feet off of our property marker. That the fence was allowed. I put up a fence about 15, 16 years ago. And it's had to be two feet off the property line. So. How many feet? Two, two feet. That's right on it. I'm sorry. Mine is right on the line. You got to be on the line. By the way, all the way in the town, Jimmy. But we put up to give it away. Your brother. Well, I'm going for it. No, no, no. I mean, I mean, our existing, our marker is very, you know, defined and it's, yeah, it's all mapped out, but, um, just want to thank you guys for coming. Thank you very much. Thank you, Amelia. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming down and letting us know. And really to councilman Rothwell's point. Don't, don't wait. Cause just come in, come back, you know, don't wait till the next meeting. Last, last question. So after someone, um, has so many indiscretions that goes to the town and there's, they're dealt with at what point does it become, you know, okay, something seriously needs to be done is at what point does that happen? Does it, after five complaints, 10 complaints, what happens? It depends a, on the type of complaint and the seriousness of the complaint. If it's, if it's violations, it could probably go on forever without any real recourse from the town to put something together. But as it gets more serious, there are other options that can be looked at. Okay. But we can continue writing summons. This could. Yes, absolutely. We can, you know, loud music is different than loud music tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Right. You got to keep you, you, you, you made a comment earlier about refraining with the police call, call every day, more summonses get more financially. It hurts. The chief is right there. He'll tell you. He'll tell you to call. Yeah. I think the person on the other side that miles was speaking about, he's the person that is, was, was banging nails at nighttime and shimmied up the telephone pole to hook up electrical. That's serious. If he would have gotten hurt. Oh my God. I mean, and is it legal to build the town sidewalk on his own? Was that above? Was it? Was it illegal? Was it illegal to build the town of board to do something like that? He built, he built the, the, the, the sidewalk. You can, you can, can you? Okay. Do you need to back the homeowners responsible for the sidewalk? The reason I asked was because way back when my daughter on her bicycle broke her arm. On the sidewalk. And my husband's like, oh, I'll just do it. And the town was like, no, you can't do that. So, I mean, that was 15 plus years ago, but yeah. But yeah, that person was, she was there. She was there. [transcription gap] shimmying up the telephone pole, hooking up something, something electrical. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Okay. Nobody else? Okay. Everybody have a great weekend. I'd like to make a motion to close the town board meeting. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Meeting is over. Have a great weekend. Be careful in the heat. It's Tuesday.
Thank you.