Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] I would say. Your attorney, sir? Yes. Okay. Please state your name and address. Yes. My name is... Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, my name is John Armentano. I'm an attorney with Farrell Fritz, 100 Motor Parkway, Hop Hog, New York. Representing the applicant. The mother owns the property. Mr. Perry Malice is here. If there are any questions that you may have, this is a function of what his family will want to do with the property. As you heard from the call of the meeting, we're looking for a minor subdivision. I provided the board with a little more information on our application. The booklets, I could take you through them rather quickly. The first exhibit is a site location map. The property is located at 82 2nd Street and Jamesport. The exhibit two is a Suffolk County GIS aerial showing the subject property, which is significantly oversized for the character of the community. And we'll discuss a little bit of that as part of our variance application. But you'll see the existing home, which is to remain on lot one. And the proposal is to build a new home for Mr. Malice's family on the adjoining lot, which would be lot two. As you can see, there is a circular access point to the property where there's a detached garage. So the proposal, as we get through the presentation, is to utilize both curb cuts to the extent practicable. So we're not going to be changing the curb cuts here in any dramatic way, but it's going to lead straight back to the property. So we're not going to be changing the curb cuts here but it's going to lead straight back to the two homes. Exhibit three is a street shot of the subject property with the house, the hedges, and the access point for the driveway for the house. The second photograph is the access of the circular driveway to the rear, which has the garage, which is to be demolished as part of this proposed application. The other photographs are just other photographs of the existing house and the subject property. Exhibit four is a photograph of the property to the south, which is also on 2nd Street. It is a modest home in that location. To the east is the surrounding property owner, which is a larger lot, but the house is situated centrally on that lot. Exhibit, we're still in four, is a photograph of the west. Exhibit four is a photograph of the west. Exhibit four is a photograph of the east. Exhibit four is a photograph of the west. Exhibit four is a photograph of the west, which shows the small post office as well as the house that is immediately behind it. And that's basically the subject property and its surroundings. Exhibit five is a plan you have, which was submitted as part of this application. It does show the configuration and proposed layout of the existing home, which will remain, and the proposed new home, which is sitting in the envelope, which is the house. The next thing you'll see is an example of an example of an example of an example of an example. Here's an example of an example of an example of an example. Here's an example of an example of an example. Here's an example of an example. [transcription gap] Here's an example. map the blue is the subject property the reddish orange are subject properties which have approximately a half builders acre so it's a 20 acre 20,000 square foot property there are approximately 35 of these in the immediate vicinity some of them are exactly a bar a budding the subject property so the character of this area although it appears to have been up zoned I think the historic development of this property was for a much smaller lot size and this exhibit does depict that and again there are approximately 70 home sites in the immediate vicinity of the subject property which have a square footage of approximately 10,000 square feet so what we are proposing is definitely within the character of the community we are proposing lot sizes which are larger than most and in kind with many of the other areas of the community so the other exhibit the other pull out exhibit there does show the subject property as well as the superimposed tax superimposed tax map lines which shows the the plethora of small size lots as well as 20,000 square foot lots we are seeking the equivalent of what is in the community as it currently stands exhibit 7 is something that we are looking at as a ! [transcription gap] so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so nice aerial photograph indicating the subject property again showing the character of the community this has also pictures of the subject property and it does a list of variances that were previously said at the beginning of the meeting again this was the subject of a planning board meeting where it was recommended that a neg deck be adopted that neg deck was adopted so we are operating although it is an unlisted action we are we do have a neg deck from the Planning Board for this proposed action and then in addition just for just for the record exhibit 8 is a is an approval it was granted by this board on September 12th of 2024 it's not in the immediate location it's morning of the Northville stacks are the the oil tanks but the grant of this application was appeal number 20 of 0 4 and the grant of the variances here was for similarly under sized Lots these worked 12,000 and 8,000 that community has a very small footprint so the grant of this board this also was in the one acre zoning but a grant was granted by this board very recently and then something very similar you similar that was granted is exhibit 9 this was for a two Lots subdivision appeal number 20 of 01 for the property located at 196 South James Port Avenue. A very similar application is also very close to this subject property, so I think it speaks to this board's balancing of the equities in terms of the five-point test. Again, our variances are minimal and minor in terms of their substantial nature. Again, according to the balancing test under state law, as I'm sure you're well familiar with, this is not going to create an undesirable change in the character of the community. It is very much in keeping with the character of the community and is actually bringing this house into something that would fit perfectly in this area. Again, the benefits of the applicant cannot be achieved by any other feasible means. It really is a family property that is being subdivided so that the family can have a better life. The children of the subject property owner can remain on the property. As I said, Mr. Malice is here. He will be in some time inheriting this property as well, so we're looking to subdivide it now. His sister is going to remain in the existing house, and Mr. Malice will be living in the proposed new structure. They're keeping it in the family, which I think is a very nice thing to do. Again, the relief here is not substantial when you consider the capitalization of the property. We're expecting 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 head as well. I just have one. I just want to, you said that the curb cuts aren't going to change. So the concept driveway that's on the, I'll say the vacant lot at this point in time, that's nothing more than a concept that's no longer going to go forward. I think the design here is to utilize the existing curb cut for the existing house. And then a portion, the horseshoe, that curb cut will be removed, but we're going to be coming in, or we can put it wherever you'd like. But I think the idea here is we're not adding to any of the curb cuts here. There are two curb cuts on the property. But according to the concept plan there, you are correct there, the driveway entry is south of the existing horseshoe. Okay. Now I just wanted to make sure, because it sounded like you weren't changing the curb cuts. You're not changing the number of curb cuts. Correct. I may have misspoken on that point. Yes, that's right. Okay. So if I could, Mr. Armantama, your firm, you, your firm submitted a lot of information ahead of time that was provided to all members of the zoning board and they reviewed it. And Heather, if you would just give that laundry list. Sure. So in addition to the fully executed zoning board application, they provided a copy of denial letter, the EAF, the entire chain of title, the subdivision. And they also included resolution number 2024-048, which was the planning board secret resolution, which issued a negative declaration and allowed them to proceed with the zoning board application. So I see on the plan there's a garage on lot two. Yes. Is that going to be removed? Yes. Okay. Yes. Because you can't have a accessory structure without a principal. Understood. Correct. So you are demolishing it. Yes. Okay. Yeah, I think the note is TBR, which I'm assuming is to be removed. Same for the shed that's there as well.

Anyone else? I see on the survey it says concept house building or whatever.

Do they, do they meet this curtain setbacks now or are you going to actually move the house around? No, we're meeting the- Speak at the mic, sir. You're going to, you're going to meet- I'm going to answer, yeah, I'll, yes, we are, we just have lot with and lot area issues. The- That we're going to resolve now. Correct. We will- But then you may need to come back if you design a house and put it on the lot. But you'll deal with that then? But I think, and I may be speaking ahead of what I hope I'm going to hear is that we are going to, we are proposing a compliant location of the new home to not require setbacks from- Are you going to stay in the building envelope? That is correct. Yes. Okay. That is correct. And how are you making out with the health department on this one? I'm curious. Have you been to the health department? Have you made an application? Let me speak to this because I'm not aware of that yet. Please. Oh, he's going to talk to him. That's great. So again, we will be, we are under, we are at the half acre mark. So, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to talk to you about that. I'm not sure. [transcription gap] But there is a half acre mark. So, sanitary approval should be forthcoming. I mean, we will have to go to them for health department approval subject to this board of course. So, we know where we are putting things. But yes. I was just more curious to see how the health department is going to handle it. That's all. Are there anybody on zoom? We don't have anyone on zoom. Anyone from the audience? Anyone in the audience like to speak? Alright. Who has this? it okay just before i do it um i appreciate the completeness of the package it was a really nice package so thank you thank you so mr chairman with respect to appeal number 2024-028 i moved at the appeal of the markella malice family trust 86 second street suffolk county tax map number 600 dash 92-2-38 and residents b40 rb40 zoning for variances and or relief from town code chapter 301-17 where proposed lot area for lot one is 21 776 square foot and the minimum required is 40 000 square foot where proposed lot width for lot one is 107.58 inches and minimum required is 150 foot with a proposed maximum impervious surface for lot one is 21.1 percent the maximum permitted is 15 percent with the proposed lot area for lot two is 25 567 square foot the minimum required is 40 000 square foot where the proposed lot for lot width for lot two is 82.28 foot minimum required is 150 foot be granted subject to the following conditions one subject to suffolk county health department approval two the garage on the proposed lot two must be removed and the shed as pursuant to town code you may not know that you may not know that you may not know that you may not know that you may not know that you may not have an accessory structure without a principal use three the future development of lots one and lot two shall meet the defined dimensional requirements front side rear and lot coverage applicable to existing zoning district three approval from the suffolk county health department of services i think we just covered that now approval and fourth and fifth approval from the town of riverhead planning board note this grant of approval by the zoning board of appeals does not include approval of the building envelopes and proposed setbacks depicted in the sketch plan and instead to the extent required by the planning board upon application to the building inspector such building envelopes and setbacks related thereto must be revised to conform to two above be granted in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments thereto if any filed with the building inspector second all right mr porsche aye this is the west aye mr burns aye nine vote aye so your variances are granted and good luck thank you very much

and i'll just uh give you a word of advice if you change those curb cuts please make certain to apply to the highway department for permits in order to do that don't stay the same once we get in yep okay

thank you

! okay um so we will be taking appeal 2024-024 next uh michael gangler 159 sunset boulevard waiting river suffolk county tax amount number 600-30-2-34.3 residents be 80 zoning for a 12 by 24 foot accessory structure applicant request variances and or relief from town code chapter 301-29a1b where proposed side yard abutting side street setback is 32 feet 6 inches where the minimum required is 60 feet and where proposed accessory setback to dwelling is four feet where the minimum required is 10 feet this was adjourned from september 26 of 2024. you might have been sworn in. no. [transcription gap] so head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head finished and he was required to go and apply for building permit for to legalize that structure which he has done and we were waiting the board's decision I can confirm I have a receipt from the building department for legalization of it was the former garage that is labeled as frame building on the survey so he did apply and pay the permit fee for the legalization of the that structure so that's still pending correct it's not yet no CEO has been approved but it's fun he's made progress yes anybody on zoom no one on zoom

he just wanted to be safe because the homeowner couldn't be here yeah how were you good to see you okay mr. chairman with respect to appeal number two zero two four zero two four I moved at the appeal of Michael Gangler 159 sunset Boulevard waiting River STM number 600-30-2-34.3 residents be 80 RB 80 zoning for clear head clear head clear clear head clear [transcription gap] clear legalizing alterations made to 14.3 feet times 22.3 feet accessory building, formerly a detached garage, per CO number 6855, dated July 9, 1986, in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments thereto, if any, as filed with the building inspector. I second. Mr. Porsche? Aye. Mr. Zawieski? Aye. Mr. Barnes? Aye. I vote aye. So the variance has been granted. Good luck. Thank you. [transcription gap] Okay, and our last appeal of the night, appeal number 2024-016, CAV 896 LLC, 896 Old Country Road, Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-108-3-24, business center zoning for a parking stall variance, applicant requests variances and or relief from Chapter, 301-94B1, where site has 77 parking spaces provided, and the spaces required by square foot of occupancy is 118. This was remanded to the planning board and is now back before the zoning board. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening. Please state your name and address. Sure. Bram Weber, Weber Law Group, 290 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 200E, Melville, New York, for the applicant. So this is your first time as far as a presentation, so good luck. Thank you so very much. It's good to see you all again. Yes, as you recall, we were here in July to ostensibly start this hearing. At the time, we, Council had made, had issued a requirement that we go to the planning board. I may have had a disagreement at the time, but ultimately we went to the planning board, and that issue had to do with covenants and restrictions that had been placed on the property previously. Um, when the property was converted to a medical building, planning board had put covenants and restrictions on regarding certain requirements for offsite employee transportation. Um, those prove never to be necessary. Um, the nature of this building is it's a cancer, um, uh, community center. It, it, what it does is it takes blood tests, gives chemotherapy treatments, um, and does a lot of imaging work. And the imaging work, um, requires large, large equipment, which takes up a lot of the square footage. So, uh, ultimately this building never really has needed, um, uh, the amount of parking that it has. Um, so, uh, at Council's requirement, we went to the planning board. Um, we sat here with the planning board within 30 seconds. They completely understood the situation, um, uh, quite clearly that the parking demand, um, isn't there for, for this particular use. Um, they approved the removal, um, of those covenants and restrictions. So, um, those were removed, uh, LIBR 13265, page 959. Um, those were recorded on September 25th, 2024. Um, so those covenants and restrictions no longer apply to the property. So we are here, um, now to seek our parking variance. Um, but what, what that delay between July and now enabled us to do, um, was, uh, uh, go back and actually study the property again. So, we originally had a parking study that's part of the record, um, that Osmond Barry from Nelson and Pope, uh, performed. And, um, the data was from 2023. And the reason why, and I think it's really important that board and council should know this. When the property owner called me and said, um, we want to take some of the vacant space, which isn't helping anybody about 3,100 square feet, and just expand the, the use for the, for the cancer, um, medical services. I said, we're not going to go to the zoning board unless we can prove that we don't need the parking. I'm not going to go. We're not going to go here with a case that, that shouldn't be here. Um, so Osmond went, took the parking counts in 2023, and it proved that, that there was a significant underutilization of the parking lot. Um, we, that was, that was part of the study. And then because I realized that there was a, a, a lapse of time prior to that hearing in July, I went out as did one of my colleagues were certainly not, uh, traffic engineers were not qualified, were just lawyers. Um, but we went and both did spot counts and our spot counts were exactly, um, on par with, with, what Osmond had found in his initial, um, uh, review in 2023. But again, having had the time to go to the planning board, uh, we asked Osmond and Osmond thought it was a good idea to go out and count again. Um, so he did that. So we have a revised parking study, if I may submit that for the record and Osmond certainly here to, uh, to speak to that report. Um, that shows clearly, uh, that not only is the parking underutilized now, but the simple expansion of, of the cancer community care use into an additional 3,100 square feet, um, will have no impact, um, no negative impact on the, uh, on the property and the property itself can, can quite, um, well handle the, uh, the increased parking demand. Um, look, needless to say, uh, having a cancer care community center in the community is important. Um, as a cancer patient, myself, um, having, uh, access to a community facility like this, um, as I have in Comac with, uh, with Sloan Kettering is important, um, to not have to go to hospitals for, for appointments such as this. Um, it's a very simple application. Um, it's, uh, it's 3,100 square feet for that particular use itself. Um, that use tends to be a lower driver of traffic and parking. Um, and, uh, and it's well supported by the data. Um, so, so, so, [transcription gap] so, [transcription gap] so, so, [transcription gap] so, so, [transcription gap] so, [transcription gap] so, [transcription gap] is different from a typical medical office with respect to traffic generation? So it's an interesting question, and to your point, thank you very much, counsel, because I think it's in the report. It was mentioned to us from planning that there was another medical office, a dermatology office, that seems to generate a lot of traffic, or not traffic, excuse me, generate parking in and around that building where people may be parking off-site. So we actually studied that site and put it in this report, and Osman, again, could speak to it better than me. He's the expert. I'm not. But that's a much smaller site in a residential area that has very few parking spaces. This is completely different. But just to answer your specific question, the answer is yes. This particular use is just a less dry. It's not high turnover. If you go in, again, imaging can take 45 minutes, an hour. You can be there if you're doing blood. Again, unfortunately. I have all this experience myself. If you're doing blood tests and imaging, you can be there for some time. So there's not a lot of turnover. So, yes, this use would be somewhat different. So the typical treatment for the patient, rather than a dermatologist, even a dentist, is generally longer in time. Correct. Could be hours. Correct. Okay. But if you'd like, I'd like to have Osman get up and speak a little bit about, just to put on the record, his findings from his report. Good, Osman? Good. So I just want to just mention one thing. Osman has testified here before as an expert. He's been for the zoning board before. He's a professional engineer. He's a professional traffic operations engineer. He's a certified professional transportation planner. And he's also the senior project manager at Nelson & Polk. Welcome. It's been a long time, maybe, since we've seen you last. But please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? Yes, I do. Please state your name and your address. My name is Osman Barry. We're the farm's Nelson & Polk at 70 Maxis Road in Melville, New York. Pull the mic down just a little. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Nelson & Polk was retained to conduct a parking assessment to predict the existing and future parking demand of the medical offices at 896 Old Country Road. And we're here today to talk about the new parking space that will be available in Riverhead, New York. Currently, the facility consists of two medical offices and a total of 3,169 square feet of vacant space. The applicant is proposing to convert the vacant space to a medical office. Based on the town code, the fully occupied medical office facility will require 118 parking spaces. And the plan depicts a total of 77 parking spaces provided. Therefore, we are requesting a parking variance for 41 parking spaces. In support of our request for the parking variance, we collected parking counts at the facility on Tuesday, September 12, 2023. And we went back in 2024, Tuesday, August 20, 2024, Wednesday, August 21, 2024, and Thursday, August 22, 2024. So we collected four days' worth of data from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. in 30-minute intervals. These times were selected by the National Health Service. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. Thank you. amount of the facility is 50 spaces, 65% occupied. That's the maximum number of cars that were parked on the site during the times we were in there. This equates to 27 vacant parking stalls during the peak period. During the worst condition, we have at least 27 parking spaces vacant. Based on the town code, the 3,169 medical office space will require 22 parking spaces based on the code. Therefore, the 29 vacant stalls that we do see during the peak is adequate to meet the parking demand by code for the proposed medical office. Based on our observation and analysis, it is my professional opinion that the 77 spaces provided will be adequate to satisfy the parking demand of the fully occupied medical office facility existing and proposed. I will gladly answer any questions that you may have on this application. Do you guys have any questions? I have a few. Sure.

So, based upon your analysis, did you consider the type of medical use when conducting your traffic study? Yes, we did. And can you give some information regarding that to the board? I can say this kind of facility is an average. When it looks... When it comes to the... When it comes to the parking demand in the medical offices, this type of use is an average... Have an average parking demand as compared to others. Some are less, some are more. And like Bram mentioned, we did do a parking count at the existing dermatology facility at 968 Roanoke Avenue. We did parking count during the same time period we did the parking count at this site. And we did find the following. This site has only nine parking spaces, the one we counted. There was enough parking for the most part, but there's some time periods where we had parking issues because they had two spaces that are handicapped parking spaces. So when you have like three spaces available, people decide to park on the street. But we did also figure out the parking provided on this site based on the requirement by the government. Because this site's headquartered in américans, so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter so you have no headquarter requirement, that site is actually providing one space for 267 square feet, which is way less than the proposed structure that we're talking about. In this structure, it is one space for 226 square feet. So yes, it's a smaller structure, less parking based on the required parking. That's why we have that issue. And also, it is in the residential neighborhood that is not similar to where we have in this old country road. So in addition to this new proposed cancer treatment center, adding an additional 3,169 square feet, there's additional square footage remaining in the building. Isn't that correct? Yeah, I guess so. We got that. Yeah, there's about another 1,500 square feet. Okay. So when you did your traffic calculations, did you calculate any parking spaces if that use was to be used for medical offices, whether or not oncology or otherwise? It's not part of our proposal. Okay. So that is remaining vacant. Okay. So... Okay. So, another question and or issue. In going through your report and your calculations, your calculations did not match the square footages provided in the planning staff report. In other words, for the pro-health care, according to the approvals issued... Okay. ...by the planning board and building department, that square footage is not 69,445 square feet. It's 7,147 square feet. With respect to Peconic Bay Center Northwell Medical Office, you have it listed as 7,327 square feet, when in fact the approval was for 7,740 square feet. Okay. So, all those calculations and the number of cars that you recite appear to be off. Even accepting your arguments as true, those numbers are off. So, let me... I can explain why. We worked with the planning department very closely to calculate areas of the building that were actually being used. I don't know why they were calculated the way they were previously, but we specifically worked with the planning department and had them approve the way we were calculating the usable square footage here for these parking counts. Okay. For that reason. Right. And zoning board and council for zoning board are simply going off the written staff report that was provided to us. Right. From the previous approval. No. This is a recent staff report issued by the planning board and provided to all members of the zoning board of appeals. Okay. So, yeah. Again, don't... Can't answer that question, but can specifically... Just to give you your assurance, when we sat with the planning department in making our application, we said, these are our floor plans. These are the areas that are actually used for the medical offices. I'm not talking about a hallway or other places that are not... To be not actually in use. And we reached a good agreement with the planning department as to how to calculate the square footage. And that's why the plans were filed as they were. Okay. Question for council. I watched the planning board proceedings. Okay. Did you make an offer of mitigation to the planning board? Yes. Okay. So, the planning board. Yeah. That was... Yes. And I'm happy you brought that up again. That is... And I think that that's as a way to allay any concerns regarding the parking here and medical as you've raised, council. We certainly said that as a condition, we would accept as a condition of approval to come back to this board if the medical use changed so that we could have another discussion, bring back Osmond, provide more data. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And so, so that if it does become a pediatrician's office, for example, which may have higher turnover, that we would come back and seek a further approval from this board. And did that offer of mitigation include the 2019 planning board approval for the Peconic Bay Medical Center medical office, 7,740 square feet. And the proposal here for 3,000. Okay. Okay. So, is that an offer for 3,169? Yes. I think... I think the concept being as follows. Right. The building is being used for cancer care. The expansion space is going to be used for cancer care. If the building were to convert to a different use. Now, it's an interesting point as to how much. Right. If someone's going to take 1,500 square feet and turn that into a different medical use, would we have to come back? I think maybe there's a threshold... Okay. Okay. I think there's a certain threshold that we could agree to. But the concept... The ownership is certainly willing to be flexible and work with the board on some reasonable condition regarding the conversion, if that is of a concern to the board members, to any other medical use. Are you authorized on behalf of Peconic... Is Peconic Bay going to operate the additional 3,169 square feet? Yes. [transcription gap] So, are you authorized on behalf of Peconic Medical to make that offer of mitigation? I'm authorized on behalf of the property owner, which would be the appropriate... Okay. Okay. So, I'm sure you understand. It's significant if you made the offer of mitigation to the planning board. Why? Because the planning board of appeals can't condition your use. But what the zoning board can do is accept the offer of mitigation that you've already outlined to the planning board. They can accept it and utilize it for their determination. Certainly. Sure. Again, we're just trying to do the right thing by everybody when it comes to what they may be concerned about. That is certainly something that we were willing to offer the planning board and offer here as well. So, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is your offer of mitigation, if the cancer uses change to a different use, be it another medical use, you would offer that and self-impose that you would go back before the planning board and or go back to the zoning board for relief? In other words, the change of medical use would trigger you going back to the planning board and or seeking whatever relief may be required? Yes. Okay. Again, I would just ask for just a reasonable consideration for how much it would change. Okay. Thank you. [transcription gap] could just focus that on the 3,000 square feet, I would say if 3,000 square feet are higher. So that we could just focus on, you know, the space now that's being, because we have the data that shows that as without the 3,000 square feet, we have plenty of parking. We show that with 3,000 square feet of additional cancer care use, we have the ability to have enough parking capacity. So if we even use the 3,000 square foot number, I think that that's something that's, I think, even more than reasonable. Well, the issue becomes, you would agree, in the 2019 approval, it provided for a off-site parking agreement with transportation and a covenant reciting that. True? That is correct. Okay. And that was never done by the applicant? Correct. It was never needed. So the planning board gave you the ability to extinguish that and come before this board? Correct. So the issue regarding the parking related to the 2019 proposal for the oncology office, 7,740 square feet, is really very applicable to this board still, because it wasn't addressed in 2019 and it was left open. And the reason, and I think you acknowledged in the beginning, that you went back to the planning board and the planning board allowed you to rescind that, was allowing you to come back before this board, because the zoning board of appeals could not have had any authority to modify covenants and restrictions imposed by the planning board. Correct. That's exactly what we were talking about. So, I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. Correct. That's exactly what we were talking about. So, I think that's a very important point. Right. So, I think diluting the offer of mitigation to not include the 2019 square footage is really not much of an offer of mitigation. I mean, again, none of the zoning board of members of the zoning board of appeals, nor myself, were part of the planning board application. So, perhaps, Right. So, I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. adjourned and that matter ironed out with planning and of course I would be willing to sit and participate. So the zoning board would have a clear direction regarding what your offer of mitigation is to allow them to consider that mitigation in this proceeding. I'll make it easier. My offer to have a reasonable amount of square footage to convert, not necessary. So your offer, your offering mitigation. That's what it was five minutes ago. Your offer of mitigation to the planning board and now recited to the zoning board, your offer, correct? Is that in the event. That the existing Peconic Bay Cancer Center, 7,740 square feet and the proposed addition, 3,169, if proposed also for an expansion of and related to oncology and cancer treatment. If either use changes. And changes. And changes to even a different medical use other than the oncology cancer treatment, you would agree that it would require resubmission to planning board and potentially zoning board of appeals. Yes. And that with that mitigation measure, the zoning board could appropriate condition a parking variance related to the use. And that's the relief you're requesting. Yes. We've closed it tonight. Can we vote on it tonight? Yeah. You got it. So what are we doing here? Yeah. Call up the resolution. Yeah. Do you have it? It's not written up. Okay. Okay. It's an adventure. Right. It's okay. I left it blank. Oh. Here it is. And for the record, there's no one on Zoom. And there's no one on the- It was zooming, right? Anyone want to speak? There's no one who's a lawyer in the area, so let's keep going. May I read it, Mr. Chairman? Absolutely. Okay. Appeal number one, the appeal number two, the resolution. Okay. [transcription gap] File number 2024-016, the appeal of CAV896, LLC, 896, Old Country Road, River head, New York, Suffolk County, ToxMath, number 600-108-3-24, business center, B.C. Zoning, for variance and or leave from Chapter 301, 94B1, where, in full clear, under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under where site has 77 parking spaces provided, spaces required by square foot of occupancy is 118, be approved subject to the offer of mitigation by the applicant to be accepted by the Planning Board wherein a change in the oncology cancer treatment uses for the medical office approved subject to site plan in 2019 and the proposed expansion of the oncology cancer treatment 3169 square feet be limited to that type of medical use and that any change of medical use would require applicant to you seek site plan approval and or relief as appropriate based upon quote such other medical uses or such other different uses be it retail or anything else. So moved. Second. Second. Mr. Porchetta. Aye. Excuse me. Get out of here. Mr. Porchetta. Aye. Mr. Zawieski. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye so you are granted and good luck and just do the right thing so we don't see you again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you council. Thank you. Thank you. We have minutes. We have minutes don't we? Minutes. Yes we're just breathing right now. Good night. Have a good night. Have a good night. Good night. Good night. Give us the date of the minutes. September 26th of 2024. Motion given for approval. Motion given for approval. Any other motion to approve those minutes? Aye. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And next meeting date is October 24th of 2024. We have no new appeals though. Okay. So. We'll decide when we do that. Maybe we'll have a barbecue or something. Can I have a motion for adjournment? So. Made. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you everyone. All right.

Thank you. Thank you.