Full Transcript
Thank you. [transcription gap] It is on appeal number 2023-033. The appeal of Kathleen Glass, 120 Louise Court, Riverheads, SCTM number 600-17-1-8.3. Residents A-40, RA-40 zoning. This is a correspondence from Mr. Mark Reichert, R-E-I-C-H-E-R-T, neighbor of the applicant. Apparently they've agreed to try to work things out, and it's been respectfully adjourned until January 9th of next year. And I so move. Second. Mr. Zaweski. Mr. Gazillo. And I vote aye. So that appeal has been adjourned until January 9th. Sorry, I just wanted to make a correction. The correspondence from the neighbor was from Matthew and Deborah Sforza. Okay. The Reichert was for a different appeal. Okay, thank you. Okay. All right. Heather, you want to call them up, please? Sure. So we have appeal number 2024-031, Jason and Jamie Pastrano, 834 Soundshore Road in Jamesport, Suffolk County tax map number 600-8-1-8, Residents A-40 zoning. For single family dwelling, ingram pool, existing hot tub, applicant request variances and or relief from Chapter 219-14, for the for the! for the! [transcription gap] for the! for the! for the! [transcription gap] under 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-UU 295-U 29 Mr. and Mrs. Pastrana, who are the owners of the subject premises. When we were here last time, we were asked to provide, and I believe we did provide, an amended site plan that shows the proposed construction to take place within the regulated area of the bluff. And also we take into account we're mindful of the proximity of the wetlands. With that in mind, we do have with us today Mr. Chuck Hamilton, who was the regional director of Region 2 of Stony Brook DEC, and is here to answer any preliminary questions the board may have, mindful that the matters pertaining to wetlands regulations is something that's more subject to CAC process. The amended site plan is a project that we're working on. The amended site plan, particularly the narrative, I believe explains that it is, from an environmental point of view, and for purposes of meeting the criteria of the town code, we're applying for an area of area relative to the bluff, that the proposed location of the pool at a depth of approximately 3 feet 3 inches, as compared to the depth of the home itself, which is approximately... 9 feet 8 inches or thereabouts. And that the location, how the property is configured, that we believe that the siting of the proposed pool, and then landward of that, the deck, and then landward of that, the actual dwelling itself, is something that satisfies the criteria for this board for purposes of approving the area of areas that we are requesting. We are mindful that we have to go back to, of course, to the planning board, for its very... for its review. Mr. Hamilton has looked at the property. There was an indication, as we know from last meeting, that there might be a wetlands associated, located on this property. It turns out it is. There is a wetlands. We are aware of it. Mr. Hamilton has flagged it already. But this is... And we... And of course, we will deal with it, as we must, before the CAC. But we ask the board, as of now, to... Melissa, other questions or issues, to approve the application, subject to, of course, further approval by the planning board and the CAC, that we request our area of areas be granted. I have our architect, our engineer here as well, to answer any questions the board may have regarding our application. So, Councilor, first I want to make a correction. Excuse me. D. Roy, can you hear this? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Councilor, first I want to make a correction. Go ahead. You started your introduction tonight that the Zoning Board of Appeals requested you amend your application. Instead, in the introduction of your application, on November 14th of 2024, you volunteered to amend your application. And that's what you stated on the record. The Zoning Board hadn't even asked one second or one single question. So, was your offer in your introduction... Oh, I think that's accurate. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you for that. You're absolutely correct. Yes. We volunteered. Important distinction. I recognize that. And, yes, we volunteered. We... The applicant is... Stands ready to comply with all applicable regulations, including environmental ones, as we go forward with this project. But we have amended our application voluntarily to... To present our project in a way that protects the bluff and at the same time takes into account its proximity to the wetlands. Are there any other questions? So, Counsel, you would agree that the proposed pool, it was modified from 48 feet by 20 feet, 40 feet by 20, and the pool was slightly shifted back as was the house, agreed? Yes. That is correct. We stand by that and met its stipend. Yes. Right. But the entirety of the pool remains within the coastal erosion hazard zone. Well, yes, as does the existing structure. The existing house does as well. A portion of the house. A portion and a portion of the pool, following that logic as well, yes. Leroy, did you want to ask any questions before I go on? Yes. Not yet. Not yet. Okay. So, with respect to the pool, in looking at the submissions, what is the depth of the pool? The depth of the pool, approximate to the bluff, I believe it's three feet, three inches. Is that... I'm sorry, Phil, our architect can answer that question directly. With the board's permission, I have our architect, Phil Pasilico. Thank you. I just want to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God. Yes. Please state your name and address. Philip Rosillo, 82 Meadowbrook Road, Syosset, New York. Go right ahead. So, the way that the pool... The pool is one single level, and so the pool starts at the patio level, which is the first floor level. So, the excavation into the ground is only three feet, three inches. So, from the first floor down two feet, and then three feet, three inches. So, three feet, three into the ground. So, for the entire... There's a cross section I provided that kind of shows exactly what I'm referencing. So, I don't... So, with respect to the portion that would be excavated underground, is that three feet for the 25-40 area, or is it something greater? No, exactly that. That's correct. So, we... You know, going back to your point, we slid the pool back. We slid the pool back. We slid the pool back roughly... Well, the entire development, 12 feet, you know, 11 foot 9, more or less. And then we also reduced the size of the pool from 48 and a half to 40. So, a member of the zoning board had asked for consideration of an alternative location for the pool. Did you visit that in any way? Yes, we did. So, there's many pieces to the puzzle here. So, if you look at the site plan, SK2, you can see in the site plan that between the development of the home, patio, and pool, and the accessory structure, there's a small area where the septic tank and dry wells are contained. So, with our last discovery and us trying to be, you know, the best we can be, we've decided to be, you know, as careful with the bluff as possible. The only way, we would either move the septic system to the area of the bluff, which I don't think we want to do, or we move it closer to the street side of the property, which would be closer to this wetland area that we recently discovered. So, that area in between those two structures is kind of the ideal location. It's also a very big, you know, excavation project to do that. You know, we have dry wells, which is good. We have wells, which is basically containing 100% of our water that falls on impervious surfaces. So, we're, that's kind of a piece that was missing from the conversation last time. But the septic system as well, and then future tanks. So, it's a big system that's going right in between those two structures, which we now reduce that space. Male Speaker 2 So, if the CAC were to approve a septic system located to the front portion of the yard, would you be amenable to that? Would you be amenable to redesigning and moving the pool, as one of the zoning Board of Appeals members mentioned, in between the garage and the house? Male Speaker 3 I mean, I would have to review that with the owners. I mean, I think they like the way that it's kind of designed, situated this way. That's something I would have to review with them. I couldn't make that decision. Male Speaker 4 I think, I might suggest you might want to do that. Because members of the Board of Underwaters, they're not going to be able to do that. And members of the Board of Underwhelmed with the location at this time. Male Speaker 5 May I say, is this the question you asked. Is that a matter more pertinent to review by the CAC? Female Speaker 2 Well, I'm. It was a recommendation of the zoning Board that you consider an alternate design and an alternate location. And what you've presented is the same design. Simply. Shrinking the length of the pool by eight feet and moving it back 13 feet. Still, wholly within the coastal erosion hazard zone. So, what the zoning Board had asked last time was for you to consider alternate locations. Since you are required and will be required to go to the Conservation Advisory Council, I'm asking if you would consider that. Male Speaker 6 Well, I mean, I. The question came up regarding the pool location in our last meeting. And I think the gentleman can clarify. But I think the idea was, you know, that the excavation of it and putting, installing a pool there. And, you know, this cross section shows that, you know, going into the ground three feet as opposed to flip-flopping it. And having the excavation of the home be nine foot eight on the bluff side would be way more invasive than the pool. Shrink head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head [transcription gap] with 10 foot ceilings that's significant excavation they're not 10 foot ceilings this is to under 9 foot 8 is to the underside of the footing so it's it's you know it so you have footing slab then open space and then the framing so it the ceiling heights are not 10 feet compared to a house with no basement built on stilts versus a house excavating for a full basement that is a potential very significant impact with respect to the coastal erosion hazard zone I mean I don't disagree the idea is that we're moving the house back as far as we possibly can but if we flip-flop back and we're moving it back and we're moving it back and we're moving it back so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so Even if you came with alternate designs and described why they didn't work or why a different design was preferred, you could have done that, but what you've really presented is a minimal attempt to remove structures requiring excavation within the coastal hazard zone. We did look at it, and I tried to explain earlier that in that area that's situated between the accessory structure and the new building is loaded with our septic system as well as dry wells. I know, but if that septic system is able to be removed or relocated to a different area on the property, that would allow you to accomplish locating the pool in that area. Right. I believe, though, and explain to your question, and it's explained in the narrative as well, the issue is what direction does the septic system move to. First of all, we are improving the septic system. We're putting a state-of-the-art FujiClean system. I'm aware of that. Okay. That's a big deal. We don't want it closer to the bluff, but at the same time, we don't want it closer to the wetlands. The compromise, the way to look at it then, the best alternative is where it's currently proposed. I did not believe, for example, I don't think any of us believe, as the applicant, that a rendition of an alternative site plan that calls for a septic system located someplace else, inconsistent with environmental standards, is something you wanted to look at it. The septic system is not a good idea. It's not a good idea. It's not a good idea. The septic system, we believe, as proposed, is the only alternative that's available. Okay. We have modified our other structures, too, accordingly. So, Councillor, can you direct me to any property in the vicinity of your property wherein a pool, 40 by 20, was located wholly within the bounds of the coastal erosion hazard zone? Well, no. This particular pool would be located much closer to the bluff. I think that's an accurate statement. However, not the entire pool is, I believe, a portion. Yeah. I mean, there are pools that are on the bluff side along the south. Are they within the coastal erosion hazard zone? I think we would have to look at it. That's the significant point. And you haven't presented any evidence that there are any other pools. I mean, I don't think there are any other properties with these improvements similarly situated within the coastal erosion hazard zone. I'll accept them if you want to give them now and give that to the ZBA, but you haven't provided that. If you can't, that's fine, but here's your opportunity. Well, the photographs that we presented shows where the pools are currently located. That is true. No. So, what? I have a question. You're showing me homes with pools, that the pools are closer to the bluff and the house is behind it. That doesn't translate that those pools are within the coastal erosion hazard zone. Obviously, we would need a drawing of that. Right. We can't tell from an aerial photograph. Right. You would need setbacks. Right. Generally, people do. And honestly, I don't mean this. I'm just saying. I'm just saying this facetiously. Generally, when people are seeking the relief, they do their homework and due diligence and they research other properties and they come in with that. Am I right, members of the zoning board? That's correct. Yes. If you would like an opportunity to do that, obviously, take the opportunity. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't 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 [transcription gap] head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head pool so that it is consistent with the setbacks and the pools located, I believe, two lots to the east of that, as one example. The pool on that other lot may be suitable for that lot, but for this property, how it's currently configured, the pool can really ... And given the configuration of the house, the proposed structure of the house relative to what exists now, and we want to have a residential dwelling on our property, the site that the diagram that we have presented, the amended diagram, we believe represents the best alternative that exists for the property. So can I ask the western side of the pool, what's the distance to that 50-foot coastal road? The western corner. 37 feet. The western side of the pool to the bluff line? To the bluff line or to the coast? Yes. Ready? 37 to the bluff. And then ... Well, actually, I'm just going to highlight this here. I'll show you how ... so ...
I mean you could...
That's the eastern side. I'm sorry. I'm going to put it up on the screen. I'm referring to the two circles that I just showed you. Yeah, that's 15 foot 3 inches.
Do you have this photo? It was part of the first submission. Yes, it was part of the first submission. Yeah, so this is our site here. And these are two houses to the west. You can see this lot here and you can see where that bluff line falls. I mean without looking at a survey or a drawing, I mean you could pretty much say that that pool is within Coastal Preservation. But you can't. You have to research the records. I'm saying... Because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line on all the lots up in that area, you'll see that it's not a straight line. It impacts each parcel differently. I think you can see the problem we have is you either have to move the bluff or the pool. You're not moving the bluff. I mean definitely I think that's a good exercise. You know, see where that is situated and you know, if there's precedent, then there's precedent. That might be a very easy solution if we just do that study and... Yeah. I mean I think we... Yeah, we can do that. I mean we could see where that falls and you know, we're trying to do everything we can to kind of minimize the impact and... I know, but... Exactly. Minimizing the impact is taking the excavation out of the Coastal Erosion Zone. Right. But you accomplished that. That excavation is going to occur even if it was not a... You wanted to move the house backwards, results in excavation even if the pool was not in play at all it seems. The impacts are actually better by moving the house forward. Yeah. So, we're going to move the house further away, which is what we proposed to do. And we're having a deck, not a patio. And then the house itself... All this is being located further away. Mindful of course. Yes, the pool is located within the coastal... Within the regulated area of the zone. That's true. I don't want to go in circles with you. The previous house had no basement. It was unsteady. It was on stilts. Right. Now you're proposing a house excavating. Full basement. Now you're proposing pool excavation. I mean, I think the zoning board of appeals at your last appearance on November 14th had very directed questions. Issues they described. Right. And I think the city council has a very good understanding of the !
The same thing. to the lot are would propose a minimal environmental impact our engineers here as well and in a position to state that the proposed construction the moving of the house land word of its current location the siding of the pool elevated the way Phil just mentioned now would be the best best way to develop the property with minimal adverse impact on the bluffer also paying being respectful of the fact that it also has to be that we are adjacent to wooden proximity of a wetland as well so that that's where the balancing comes in and I think that the balancing our site plan achieves the proper balancing you don't think it's a self-created hardship do I think it's a self-created hardship in this in the sense that the the ! well to the extent that there's that you are having a pool but it's consistent with other properties that have a pool already and mindful of the of the way in which we are proposing to locate it the pool and how we intend to construct the pool with no mick you know with with with shovels as it were I I don't believe would pose an adverse adverse adverse environmental impact on either the bluff or the wetlands when your clients purchase the property they knew the configuration of the property they knew that there was a coastal erosion hazard zone on their property tied to the area of the bluff and yet they're proposing significant improvements within that area well they're proposing an improvement I would there's no question about that the question is in terms of significance given what current so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so purposes of making sure that we comply with wetlands criteria as well. So to sum it up, would you like an opportunity to do additional research relative to this application? You could say no or you could say yes. It's up to you. I think it would be a good exercise to see where the neighboring pools fall in this so that could help the conversation. I also think you had mentioned that the existing houses are on stilts. There is a footing there. So the footing is down three and a half feet, four feet. So that's equivalent to, so if we had to pull that out, we're going down three and a half, four feet, right? So it would be the same excavation in essence. I think to your question, by the way, I think the Board, yes, I think the Board should know that to satisfy itself that a proper hard look has been taken with respect to impacts associated with the construction. I believe that, however, that the, as affirmed by a look at the photograph, by the way, and confirmed by the kind of research that you are suggesting, that the proposed site plan as is represents a minimal adverse impact on the bluff and at the same time being respectful of the fact that on the landward side is a wetland. That we should take into account as well. And we have reduced our structures accordingly as indicated by the amended site plan. So I'm not sure what you're, what you'd like to do at this point. Well, you had suggested, you said, your question was yes or no for purposes of doing additional research. Well, I, I, if you're satisfied and you would like the Zoning Board of the City to clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, [transcription gap] clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear up, clear Of course, that the Board, in exercising its proper authority and concern as a ZBA, has a question. You're posing that question on behalf of the Board. I think that question has to be answered. The answer to that question should factor into the Board's ultimate determination. That question, therefore, in terms of the Board making its determination, really should be dependent upon the research because that question will remain unanswered, it seems to me, on this record until such time. Well, if you fail to present it, the record reflects you did not present it. Well, correct. I'm aware of that. I've been around the block on this before many times. I understand your point. I think the Board should have this information. Again, I do believe that when that information is presented, the Board will find and will of course, if the Board has additional questions at that time, we'll raise it or answer them. The Board will find that the site plan as is. It represents the least intrusive impact on the bluff and ultimately the wetlands itself. Both will be satisfied. Councillor Boucher. Councillor Boucher again, I'm going to ask. The Zoning Board will give you an opportunity if you want. Yes. And give an adjournment. Otherwise, we're fine if you want to close the application tonight. It's up to you. I understand, but you understand my point as well that I just as soon have the Board be comfortable in the way that it is. I do have a clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear that time I believe that the board will find, respectfully the board will find, that the site plan as proposed has minimal impacts, not only on the property itself, but relative to the other properties as well, given what currently exists in the other properties. And I understand that piece of information you don't have, and that's why you're asking, should the research be done? So is that a yes? The answer is yes. Okay. How long is it going to take you? I think we can get that information. We have to, well, to get this information, we now have to look at the files of the associated properties. Right. It's not that difficult. No, it's not. No, no, no. But to foil things doesn't take, you know, that takes more than two. I'm going to recommend that your architect and perhaps surveyor, file your application with the CAC and have the conversation regarding locating or relocating the septic, because there are some encroachments that the CAC will consider if it's beneficial to a property and not necessarily impactful on a wetland. There are other improvements that are significant, significant on a wetland. And you really should avail yourself of this opportunity to do that. It's four to four weeks. So. Yeah, absolutely. We're ready to file with the CAC. Right. We're just, we're waiting for. And you can contact Heather, and she will get you streamlined through the application process to the CAC as soon as possible. They meet once a month. So they just had their monthly meeting. Right. Yesterday. Give them the application. Yes. So the next meeting would be, I think, the second week in January. Greg likes to have the applications in a week prior, if possible. How much time will you need? We have the application kind of ready. We're just waiting to see what happens tonight. We were kind of running them parallel, so to speak. And also, we're mindful of the time. Yeah, mindful of the time. Let me just suggest the following. You said the second week they'll meet? Yes. Yeah, I believe it's the second Wednesday every month. All right. So the meeting, our next meeting, if that would be January 23rd, is that good for you? Yeah. That's the second meeting. We have a January 9th meeting, and then we have a January 23rd meeting. Yeah, I mean, but at night, I don't think that it will be in place. How about adjourn to January 23rd, with the Board's permission? Sounds good to me. So moved. Second. All right. Shut up. Who moved and seconded? Aye. Aye. Mr. Weske? Aye. Mr. Zillow? Aye. Mr. Burns? Aye. And I vote aye. Does anybody else vote? If I may, I would like to ideally, as you say, one, Heather, to get this information one week ahead of time. But I would like, Rosemary, if I may talk to you ahead of time. If you have any questions, I want to make sure at the next meeting that any additional questions you may have, obviously, you are certainly free to ask the questions you like, but we want to meet, in the past, in a position to answer those questions, hopefully to answer them to your satisfaction at our meeting on the 23rd. Mr. Borvino, I assure you, we want to move this case, though. I know you do. Thank you. I do. Thank you. [transcription gap]
Are we ready for the next appeal? Sorry. Go ahead. Next, we have appeal number 2024-032, Jeff Vega, 189 Park Road in Riverhead, Suffolk County tax map number 600-13-1-19, residents A40 zoning, for a proposed two-story addition and deck, applicant requests, variances, and or relief from chapter 301-11, where proposed side yard setback is 6.36 feet. The minimum required is 25 feet. Where proposed combined side yard setback is 32.66 feet. Minimum required is 55 feet. And where proposed impervious surface coverage is 31.4%, and the maximum allowed is 15%. Are you returning? I am not. OK. Did you sound me sweet? Tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I did. I hope you got it. State your name and address, please. My name is Jake Kohler of Todd O'Connell Architects, 1200 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppaug, New York, 1178. Thank you. And I'm the head of the ! I'm the head of the
The impervious coverage is being increased from 26.6 to 31.4, and as well as the aggregate side yard is called into question. The description of this public notice is a little misleading as far as the setbacks are concerned, as the property has a letter of pre-existing use of June 15, 1989, which grandfathers this residence or this property into, which is the previous residency zoning. So where it states that our minimum side yard required is 25, in that residency it is actually only 10 feet. So instead of a, you know, approximately 20 foot relief, we're only seeking about 3.5 or so feet on that side. As well as the maximum allowed impervious coverage is stated as 15% per the res. C. It's 13.5. So that's a little bit of a relief. Thank you. I'll head over to you next, We're asking for a 1.4% relief in that impervious coverage. And also due to that new residency, or the grandfathered residency rather, the side yard aggregate doesn't even come into play. The minimum side yard aggregate is 25 feet. We're at 32.66. So we had proposed this addition on this side of the dwelling to construct a kitchen, breakfast nook, as well as a master suite second floor, as the new second floor. We took into consideration the entire property and where the best location to make this addition was. If you can see by our site plan and the survey at eProperty.com, we have a lot of information on that. The property does slope pretty significantly from one end to the other. But just between the one end of the house to the other is about four to five feet, depending on the area, in terms of the change of grade. So putting an addition on the south side of the property where we would have less of an impact on the setbacks would end up resulting in serious concrete work and reinforcement to hold back that earth. And that would affect the overall. design. So the north side of the property was chosen as location based on that fact. And as I mentioned before, the setbacks that were the relief that we're looking for is, I feel like, minimal compared to the grandfather zoning. I was not able to find areas specifically that have this same setback or less. And the property or specifically in the area, I did see many houses in that area that looked to be around the same setbacks that we are proposing. But I don't have concrete evidence as far as having foiled those property surveys. That being said, we did foil this property. And obviously it came back as there was no record of any previous surveys or any house plans or anything. That's why we didn't go forward and foil any other properties within that area. So as I mentioned, we are pursuing a 3.64 foot side yard relief on the north side yard and a 1.4 percent relief on the impervious coverage. Can you describe the properties in the neighborhood? Are they of the same typical size? Um. You know, in other words. With respect to acreage. I mean, this is located in Reeves Park, correct? Yes. So, more or less, the properties are not perfect. Squares are rectangular. It's hard to determine the actual size. But no properties in the area look to be the minimum 40,000 square feet. Nothing looks close to that. They all look around the same size as well as the dwelling size themselves looks close to what we are proposing. We have no clear clear clear truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do, sir. Please state your name and address. Yes, Stephen Scarfo, 183 Park Road, Riverhead, New York, 11901. And do you abut this property? Yes, I do. Where? I abut him on the south side of his property line. Okay. Go ahead. I just wanted a moment to, some time to review the proposed survey and also the proposed additions being a bordering neighbor. I haven't had a chance to look at any of those items. I wanted to see the size of the addition and how close the addition will be coming to my property line. It won't be at all. You're on the south side, you said? Yes. His addition is on the north side. This is the addition. Nothing's been touched on this side here. This is the second story. Okay. And then this is the last story. You can tell them they can come up together and look at the larger version. And this is the existing garage? Yes. Nothing on the south side? Okay. Okay. No, I've noticed, I've looked at this and it really doesn't affect my property. It's on the opposite side. Correct. So you say you have no objection? This is a two-story addition? This portion here, yeah. This box here is two-story. At this time, no, I don't believe I have any objections to it. Okay. Thank you for coming up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else out there that wants to speak? Heather, did we receive any correspondence? So we did receive correspondence and opposition from the neighbors to the north and they were actually on Zoom. So if Mark and Sue Reichert, if you would like to speak, I can unmute you and you should be able to speak on the matter. You just have to unmute yourself. Okay. [transcription gap] 51 McKinley Street, West Hempstead, New York. And do you abut this house or the property? Yes, on the north side. North side, okay. Go ahead. My objection is that the construction is, it's a very, very tall construction. That, it's practically, it's six feet from my property line. As far as I know, there's no legal construction there now that is that close. I just think it's oversized that I have to look at when I'm out there. What else can I say? There is no, I looked at the application and there was a statement that there's a screen of trees between the houses on the property line. There is no such screen of trees. There's some bushes and some maple saplings. But I would never, ever consider that a screen. Sir, in your letter, you proposed or made a suggestion that it would be fitting to have an eight-foot privacy hedge there. Is that your suggestion? I think that that would constitute a screen, a tree screen. If you didn't agree, if you agreed to do that, would that be acceptable to you? I think it would. I think it would. What do you say? I'll have to confirm with the client. I can't make a decision for them. But it's definitely something they'd be open to if they can get the size and the shape of the building that they're looking for. So is that a yes over there? That would be appreciated. I would have to confirm with the client. Do you want to do a conditional on that? Do you want to do a conditional on that? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Mr. Barnes, do you have any comments? Well, I think that he needs to talk to his client before we vote on it.
Did you hear me? Yes, we did. Well, we can move this. Do you want to take a break, and we'll take the next application, and you can call your client and come back in? Or are you looking for an adjournment? If that's a condition of the approval, and the clients decide not to approve that, then we would have to revise the design and possibly come back to the board. That's correct. If that is a condition of the approval, then that would influence the client's decision to pursue that route. So I think that's the route. They would. Do you want to approve that with a condition? I can't in my position make that decision for them. I just...
I can do this.
No one else? Are we ready to go here? I can do this. Relax. Relax. Let's do it. All right, Mr. Chairman. Respectfully, I move that the appeal number 2024-031, the appeal of Jason and Jamie Pastrano... Oh, I'm sorry. Of... Jeff Vega, B-E-G-A, 189 Park Road, Ribbon. Time out. I can do this. Residence SCTM number 600-13-189. Residence 8-40, RA40 zoning. Prevailing handle relief from Chapter 301-11. We're proposed side yard setback is 6.36 feet. Minimum required is 25 feet. We're proposed combined side yard setback is 32.66 feet. Minimum required is 55 feet. And we're proposed impervious surface coverage is 31.4%. And the maximum allowed is 15 cents. Be grateful. Granted subject to the installation of a privacy hedge, eight foot in height. Minimum at the time of installation, evergreen plantings must be shown on revised surveys. And this is in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments there to, if any, as filed with the building inspector. Second. That privacy screen is on the north side of the property, correct? That's right. Perfect. Okay. Second. Second. Portia. Aye. Mr. Zawieski. Aye. Gazzilla. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye. So the variance has been granted with that condition and hope everything works out. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Heather, you'll... Okay. Next we have appeal number 2024-033, Prisco's Calverton Acres, 3674 Middle Country Road in Calverton, Suffolk County Tax Note number 600-99-2-12, rural corridor zoning for a proposed minor subdivision. Applicant requests variances and or relief from Chapter 301-65A for proposed lot width for Lot 1 is 99.53 feet and the minimum required is 2. 200 feet. Where proposed impervious surface coverage for Lot 1 is 33.4%, maximum allowed is 25%, and where proposed lot width for Lot 2 is 181.71 feet and the minimum required is 200 feet. Welcome, Mr. Cuddy. Good evening. Charles Cuddy for the applicant. I'd like to, if I may, just hand up the tax map.
Thank you. [transcription gap] The reason for that is I've pointed out in yellow where this site is, but I wanted you to be aware that in that area, there are two points of concern. One is that there are lots that are very similar to this. In fact, there are lots smaller than this. At the far end of that area on the east side. The second is that most of the land surrounding this property is development rights sold land. So nothing's going to happen to that area of any significance. This is a two lot, full two acre area in the RLC district. So it can be divided, and the proposal is to divide it into two lots. Most of you probably are aware that the first lot is the wine country deli. And the second lot is right now being used as a nursery site. I would put, I'm going to also hand up, although I just have a copy of it, of the CO that shows that both of the uses at this site have been in existence prior to the zoning. And so what's really being done is we don't have much of an alternative is to try and get variances for both the lot number one and lot number two as to width. And also as to the impervious surface. The impervious surface really is, whether it's unfortunate or not, is the parking area for the deli, which has been macadamed over a period of time. So we're asking the board to do that. We're asking the board to grant us the width of both lots one and two and permit the impervious surface to remain because it's the parking area. I think that it doesn't have any effect on the environment. It certainly doesn't affect the neighborhood. There really is no alternative because the lot is what it is. And that lot has been in existence for many more than 50 years. So we're asking the board to grant us the width of both lots one and two and permit the impervious surface to remain because it's the parking area. And also as to the impervious surface. The park is much more expensive. It's much more expensive. And we can't really change the size of the lot. We need the variances to go forward. So I would ask the board to approve it as it's presented. Anyone here that wants to speak on this? Anybody on Zoom, Heather? No one on Zoom with their hand raised. Mr. Barnes. I have no problem with it. Thank you. If I may. Who's got it? I do. Mr. Chairman, would the Board please rise. I have no problem with it. Thank you. If I may. Who's got it? I do. Mr. Chairman. Would the Board please rise. I have no problem with it. Thank you. If I may. Who's got it? I have no problem with it. Thank you. If I may. Who's got it? I have no problem with it. Thank you. If I may. Who's got it? I have no problem with it. Thank you. If I may. So Mr. Cuddy, with respect to lot one, that's already improved, correct? Yes. And the use of that property is? Is the deli basically a catering and deli building. Yes. Okay. So if a condition was placed on lot one that for lot one they would need, this is the first thing. They would seek no further variances than the variances that currently exist. In other words, by creating lot one, right, you know, I'm looking at it. Is this preexisting? Yes. Okay. And also, I didn't fully answer your question, I think. It also has a mobile home on the back of it. Right. And that's been there as noted in the CO. 1981. Right. So if a condition was placed on the property for this land division that as to lot one, the applicant would agree they're not going to seek any additional, in other words, they're not going to look to build out the property anymore, such that they would be coming back to the zoning board for additional side, front, rear, and impervious surface. Other than what already exists on lot one. Would you have an objection to that? I would not, but I don't know what my client would say. Okay. And as to lot two, can lot two conform to the dimensional requirements? Well, right now we're asking for it with variance on it. So we don't conform. But, I mean, in the future, if we're building a lot of land, we're going to have to have a lot of variances. Okay. So, I'm going to ask you, if you're going to be able to do that, what would you say? Well, I would say that, you know, if you're going to be able to do that, you're going to have to have a lot of variances. Okay. And then, you know, if you're going to be able to do that, you're going to have to have a lot of variances. So, I would say that, you know, if you're going to be able to do that, you're going to have a lot of variances. Okay. And as to lot two, can lot two conform to the dimensional requirements? Well, right now we're asking for it with variance on it. So, we don't conform. But, I mean, in the future, if we're building on that lot, would we conform? Right. Well, currently, you don't show, you show lot two as vacant. Yes. Right. So, if we improve that lot, you're saying would we conform? I think that we would have to conform, probably. Right. So, if there were conform. But there are conditions that read that way. And I'll say it to you this way. When subdivisions come in, and they divide properties, and they create less than standard lots, it's a cyclical back to the ZBA, back to the ZBA, and constant relief when the original intent behind the, typically, behind the first grant of relief was to grant you the relief you needed and only that which you needed at the time and not to quote keep coming back and debating whether it was self-created or if it was an impact on the neighborhood and instead putting in requirements that it would comply with the dimensional regulations or wouldn't further exacerbate and come back to the zoning board for additional relief and i'm asking if you would be amenable to those conditions i i would i just wanted to check with my client so he'd understand that and unfortunately he's not here he wasn't able to come okay but yes i understand exactly what you're saying and i agree uh so members of the zoning board uh if nobody has any questions could we simply uh put it on for the january i'd rather go forward well i don't think mr cuddy's prepared to go forward i'm saying without that condition i'd be prepared to go forward with it okay
mr barnes any input
no not at the moment
i i can understand a future board having some reluctance but again it's i think as it's presented right now there isn't any problem i would hope there's no problem well because you're not presenting any development on that too but but but i understand what you've said who's got do we have to do this hmm i think so i think i think this one is right right now and then it's already uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh [transcription gap] uh so so we gotta move cases you do what you wanna do
If I may, I would point out one thing to the board. That while I don't think it's the intention for somebody to come in and ask for further variance, it could happen that they would be building something that would be permitted and they would need a variance. Exactly. And that is a problem. I mean, I understand precisely what the attorney was telling me, and I don't disagree with her, but I can envision that it could happen that somebody is building something that's permitted and actually need a variance to do that. So it could be a hard thing to just say, yes, it's okay. I agree. Okay, Mr. Chairman, with respect to Appeal No. 2024-033, I move that the appeal of Prisco-Calverton Acres at 3674 Middle Country Road, Calverton, Suffolk County Tax Map 600-99-2-12 and Rural Car. Thank you. Be granted in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments thereto, if any, as filed with the building inspector. Second. Portia. Aye. Mr. Wesske. Aye. Gazzillo. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye. So your variances are granted. Good luck. Thank you. Mr. Cuddy. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. And lastly. We have Appeal No. 2024-034, Fisher Realty Group 940-946 West Main Street, Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 600-124-3-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And also Suffolk County Tax Map No. 600-125-2-5.2, Peconic River Community Zoning for proposed commercial buildings and site alterations. Applicant requests variances and or relief from Chapter 301-162A, where proposed floor area ratio is 77.5%, 200,100 square feet. And the maximum permitted is 60%, 154,920 square feet. Chapter 301-162A, where proposed impervious surface coverage is 59.26%, 153,018 square feet. and the maximum permitted is 40%, 108,280 square feet. And Chapter 301-162B, where proposed landscaped area is 40.75%, 105,167 square feet, and the minimum required is 50%, 129,100 square feet. Your appearance? I am. Good evening. Your appearance? My name is Richard Eisenberg. I'm of counsel to the law firm Meyer Swazi in Garden City. My firm represents the applicant. Just name and address, please. Yes. Firm name is Meyer Swazi. We are at 990 Stewart Avenue, Garden City, 11530. And I am of counsel to the firm. We represent the applicant. If I may, just to let the board know, I have three gentlemen with me this evening for our presentations. Mr. Frank Fisher. To your left is the principal of the applicant. Mr. Ray Dickoff is the project manager for Fisher Realty in its development efforts. And we have Marty Senluski on the Zoom, who is the project architect. Marty, still there? Yep. Very good. I don't know. I want to see him on Zoom. Yeah, he's on Zoom. He's on Zoom. Okay. Okay. With the board's permission, we'd like to proceed as follows. I'm going to ask Ray Dickoff to very, very briefly describe the scope of the proposed project. Then I'm going to ask the project architect to speak to the three specific variance requests which are on the agenda. And then we will, of course, be able to answer any additional and further questions as they pertain to the application. With your permission, I'd like Ray Dickoff to step up with some documentary materials for you. Okay. And we do have additional spare copies. We believe you have these materials, but for your reference. And, Counselor, I apologize. I didn't get your last name. Richard Eisenberg, EIS. Thank you. E-N-B-R. Thank you. Wow. Thank you.
If I may, the first graphic. Thank you. [transcription gap] is the aerial of existing conditions. I'll ask Mr. Dickoff to describe it.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Hold on, I'm sorry. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? Yes, I do. Please state your name and address. My name is Ray Dickoff. I'm from Aquabug, and I'm here with the Fisher Realty Group. Very good. Go ahead. Would it be possible for me to stand by the picture? Yeah, if you could just make sure you project into the microphone, that's fine. You can probably sit down, right, Heather? Yeah, that's fine. Sit down.
This is an area. This is a. Oh, don't move the mic. Oh, sorry. Just speak into the microphone. Okay. Our proposal is a redevelopment of the old Blackman Plumbing Supply property. It consists of six parcels, which is the building right now, which was Blackman, and the image building next to it is part of this property. So, Mr. Dickoff, if you don't mind. Okay. Probably, like, if you use the pencil. Okay. And you can point to where the building is. This building here is the existing, is the old Blackman Plumbing Supply warehouse. The building next to it is the imaging center. The property runs from this six, these six houses here on Cottage Lane. Then it's these lots running all the way down. Five point, just under six acres, 5.9 acres. This property. This property. In your package, you'll see that I provided letters in lieu where this property was fully developed prior to going back in 1965. The wooded area here is not, it was houses that were knocked down in 2011. So, this property was fully developed at one time. The area is, if you look at Rainer Avenue here, we go to, this is a, this is a business. It's the McElroy's, I believe is the name of it. The music store. Then you have the Maple Tree Deli and the catering business. Then you have the Rapid Recovery and the Collision. Then you have these groups of multifamily housing. I did speak with the owner of all these houses on Cottage Lane. It's owned by one gentleman who was very happy to hear that we were redeveloping next to him. Because, you know, it's a big house. It's a big house. [transcription gap] It's a blighted area and we do have the homeless situation in there. To the west of the property, the subject property, this, this woods here is Insight Plan now. That's owned by the Riverhead Market and they're proposing to do a supermarket or a small market area in that wooded area. And just to note for the record, our proposal is that there'd be a full demolition of everything existing on the property at the current time. We'll head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head So this angle. Anything else on the area? Do you have any questions on the area? Is that an actual area, so let's say today, or is it, how old is that area? No, this is, it's not today, but it's this year. Can you tell me when from this year? I'll have a date on the file. No, this is when he lived. I got this from Nathan Corbin, surveyor. He printed this, but no, that's the day he printed it. Is it your best recollection that this was taken in 2024? Yes. And does it represent current conditions to the extent you are familiar with them? Well, we currently have, there's more tenants being occupied in the building right now while we're going through our site plan process. But it's definitely a photograph of this year. So just to be sure, the only structure that's actually on there is the old Blackman structure and associated warehouse? And the building next to it is a separate building. So that's what would be demolished? That would be demolished. Okay. And then, I'm sorry, any other questions on the area? Next we'd like to show you the plan. Briefly describe the area. Do you have any questions? No. Do you have any questions? No. Do you have any questions? No. Do you have any questions? No. it so we can get into the variance request. On the site plan we have the shaded area is all going to be replanted as per the DEC's requirements. So that goes up the east side and around the back of the building all the way down along the railroad tracks to the western edge of the property. Our proposal is on the west side the first building is going to be a self storage building which is going to be a buffer against the back of those houses. Yes it would. And then again the west building would be the self storage. Can I ask a few questions before you move on to the west building? Sure. So the building you described as self storage, how many stores is that building? I don't know. I don't know. But it's a building. It's three stories. Three stories plus proposed basement area for storage. And are all of the three stories proposed for self storage? Yes. And approximately how many self storage units would be within that? We have a designer on that front. Is that like seven hundred seventeen? Seven hundred seventeen. Seven hundred seventeen. And the proposed storage in the basement, what type of storage? Strictly for vehicle storage. Vehicle storage. This building is designed with a ramp for vehicle access to the cellar. The proposal would be exclusively for vehicle storage, obviously subject to state code and fire marshal requirements. We believe that, I think it's an 11-foot ceiling, and we understand from our discussions with the applicant, Mr. Fisher, that there's a substantial need, especially for seasonal residents and other transients, to safely store vehicles, and that would be the exclusive use. It would not be similar to the standard public storage structure. This would simply be underground storage for vehicles, access to the area. Okay.
Classic cars. Mr. Fisher reminds me that from amongst the several possibilities are classic car enthusiasts, seasonal residents who may have a spare car, or new residents to the area. Certainly the town has embraced substantial expansion of multifamily. Those are going to be a lot of new residents. They may have a spare car that they don't want to immediately get rid of in coming from out of town. We certainly are expecting additional residents from various areas, and we are mindful of the fact, among other things, of the very substantial expansion of BBMC, which has just, I believe, opened up their expansion a couple of months ago, and we assume that that's going to continue to attract new residents, and a lot of them will have their cars. Okay. We believe that they will have a spare vehicle that we believe will allow us to properly sell the rental spaces exclusively for vehicles in the basement area of building 1. The only thing I'll comment is, to my knowledge, the town of Riverhead has not expanded multifamily homes, but with respect to a proposed use such as this, and there being in this, there's a necessity for it. I have no comment. I'm not trying to be negative when I make that statement. I was not speaking to any code or other changes. Okay. I was simply speaking to the reality on the ground of substantial increases, I think a very positive thing all around, and that involves persons moving from outside the area, inclusive of people who will need public storage, and as Mr. Fishman said, efficient use of vehicle storage. We will get to the more general need and this board's recent approval of a public storage facility earlier this year, later in the presentation. How many vehicles are stored on the ground? Do we know, is our architect on? Marty? Marty, do we have an approximation of the capacity for the basement vehicle storage in the storage building? Yes. Yes, I'll give that to you right now. Let me just check one quick thing.
It would be approximately 60 to 80, depending on whether they're stacked or they leave aisles. Also, some people, who have classic cars or something like that, that wanted their own storage area for multiple cars, not single garages, may want to include that, a small enclosed area for a group of cars. So, it depends on the layout, but I would estimate 60 to 80. Thank you. With your permission, I'll ask Mr. Deacoff to continue the description of what we're calling building number two. All right. The second building is going to be a building for, it's going to be designed with eight spaces, where it would be, we would market then contractors, or it's going to be broken up into smaller shop spaces for your contractors. And we have a big need for that. We currently have spaces that are rented. We constantly everyday get phone calls for it. And again, with the amount of building and what's going on from here out to the east end, especially here in Riverhead, that contractors need a place to go and have a little storage area, a place to have their shop, a place where they can bring in customers to take a look at what they're producing and what they're selling. And I think it's a great fit. I think it's a great fit for the area. Building number two also proposes a basement storage area that would not be a public storage usage that would expressly be tied to the tenancies as we lease out the building. In other words, we would either provide on a mandatory basis or an optional basis a certain amount of basement storage exclusively for the use of the tenants as they come into building number two. And that's three stories including a basement? No, no, that's one story. It's 34 foot high. It has a mezzanine where the office would go for the business. Right. [transcription gap] be an accessory used to that tenant that was on the main right to sell so explain to me when you say the storage would be accessory to give me an example well we have a tile guy we have a cabinet guy he's gonna put together a kitchen that's gonna go out for install instead of his in his small showroom area he builds the cabin to he assembles the cabinets he puts him down in the storage area until they're ready to ship and be installed because there are a lot of delays in construction and timing with the other trades and again is also you know that the supply the supply in construction was really chained up to encode it's still not a hundred percent so a lot of the art tradesmen are ordering things six months in advance seven months so they're gonna need a place to take delivery so they have ready access we also believe that there is an important use going forward to support expanding e-commerce so many people these days have home-based businesses but once they get past the very beginning of the business they need some clean storage space they may need record storage and they need a couple of desk spaces for office type use and I believe that in addition to the trades that there will be strong this flex space which technically is in the non nuisance space under the master plan and we believe that in addition to the trades that kind of operation will help us fill this building that's why we want to be able to offer the basement storage space exclusively related to the leasing to active tenants can't you just one question I want to make sure you I think you said eight eight spaces yes right so that's eight spaces basically a twenty six seven hundred twenty six thousand seven hundred of the first first floor and the mezzanine just trying to yeah okay okay so about three thousand square foot per right and then the way that the building is designed well really constructed is it would stand at some ten of our two spaces you wouldn't have to have that separation wall so that's all in the structure of it but we believe that small spaces we've been that's what we had currently have that's what the need calls for a daily basis for every day with your permission unless there are additional questions on the proposed project generally I'd like to turn the floor over to the project architects so we can speak specifically to the tree variances on the agenda and before Marty does that just want to show you a rendering of the design key we have a copy it's and it's also upside down the principal building this is the storage building and in the packet you have there's a also a concept rendering of building number two showing the entries for the multiple tenancies that's a separate document in the package we distributed these are the design cues for the larger building building number one just one quick question with respect many self storage multi story units end up with a tremendous amount peripheral lighting on the outside basically see outside from the outside you're driving past are those what I'm looking at it appears to be white is that basically solid structure or would this intent be to glass that glass I just wanted to talk to during Martin Seleski will answer that question
Marty can you start by confirming that the white spaces on the exterior design are not glass but rather simply a white collar white colored exterior elements that is correct that is correct the I'm not the architect for that building on the architect the other building we do have a specialist in the design of storage facilities they're in the building and we're going to be working on that as well so if you have any questions about that please feel free to reach out to us and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have any questions about that as well so thank you very much and I'll see you next time. engineering their efficiency their layout that is designing that building but those are solid panels based on the layout of the interior there are interior corridors elevators for people to take carts bring them up go to the different levels and store their wares those areas there are storage areas to the outside of the building so it is opaque I don't know if the chair wants to swear me in I have not been sworn in yet where are you? is that Sue? I don't know I don't see him can you raise your right hand we'll take it that you're there please raise your right hand I do solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth so I'll help you God I do please state your name and address Martin Sedlowski 215 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead New York thank you Marty with the board's permission would you go through the three variances please sure before we move on could I ask you a question? and I'm going to direct you to portions of your application on page four of the application under nature of relief sought you describe it or the applicant describes it as a mixed industrial building was that an error? to the extent that the proper reference is non-nucleic acid. I don't think it's a good reference. [transcription gap] I think it's a good reference. I think it's a good reference. But there's a good reference for building number two that was an error. there's not a mixed industrial building as we would normally refer to such a structure. well the clarification is required because under the Peconic River Community Zoning District industrial is prohibited. Understood. So I'm asking that was an error? we're acknowledging the error. I didn't offer the application, but clearly we're asking to consider that amended and to consider building number two as non-nucleus uses flex space only.
Next, on page five, under area variance considerations number two, again, it refers to industrial uses. Again, we're requesting that that be deemed a correction. Okay. We are again looking for these variances in the context of non-nucleus set of uses. Okay. I only wanted to address it before we moved on because Mr. Dickoff was going through the proposed potential uses of the property. So I wanted to make it very clear that you're not intending to use it for industrial, which is prohibited, and instead the uses he was describing were purportedly in compliance with the zoning district. That's our presentation. Okay.
Sorry, Marty, I think they're ready for your question. Marty, we're ready for you if you'll proceed. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to address the three items separately, the first one being FAR and the second two we'll address jointly because they are big. Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. Okay. Okay. ! Okay. stories of the buildings above grade comply with the FAR if you are to consider the building from the ground up. Okay. The cellar areas is not a basement. It's defined as a cellar under town code. The cellar areas below grade are the only areas that get us into the increase of the FAR. There are many buildings in town that are designed where the basement is not included as part of the FAR. But when we had the meeting with planning, the discussion was to utilize it for auto storage, and they said, well, then include it in the number, which brings us to the variance. But again, if the variance weren't granted and the cellars were not constructed, which are totally out of sight and totally below ground, it would have virtually zero effect on the development of the site in terms of visual development.
The area that's down below, the storage areas, in terms of the parking, only require 10 spaces of the total amount of parking on the site is for those cellar areas. So even if you eliminated them, you would only eliminate 10 parking spaces on the site. So again, the development itself in terms of development would not substantially change. When you refer to the town zoning code and they talk, they define what a cellar is, they define what a cellar is, and they define what a basement is. Also, I know the town's going to do some work on the definition of floor areas. I know there's a difference between floor area and FAR, but still there is a question about whether the cellar or basement is included as part of that. Under the definition, I know for sure, because it's in the code, that a cellar is not considered a story of a building. That's under the definitions code that it's any portion of a building between the surface of any floor area other than a cellar floor. So as far as the FAR is concerned, the development, as it exists with the exception of the cellar for the additional storage and very low impact use, is really not much of a change between that and not having a cellar at all. The development on site would be almost exactly the same. So, Mr. Senlewski? Are you challenging Greg Bergman's determination regarding the FAR? No, not at all. Not at all. I'm just saying that the FAR for that cellar area, the cellar areas below grade are the only areas that affect the FAR as far as requiring the variance. Okay. But just to be clear, you're not challenging his determination? No, no, not at all. Not at all. And actually, the FAR numbers that appear in your application actually appear in the site plan that was submitted to the zoning board of appeals in the calculation table. True? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. The cellars are part of the FAR. My only point is that if the cellars were eliminated and the FAR was not granted, you would still see the same exact project in terms of its mass, its height, its volume, and its size. Okay. And it's parking with the exception of 10 parking spaces. So, that's what I'm referring to. Also, on a previous application that the zoning board had acted on last year, application 2023-009, that was for the storage area in Aquebog on the main road. And there, there was increase in building coverage, not the FAR. They were under the FAR, but they included building coverage to an extent where that was added to, and that was visual above grade, where it actually does change the massing of the building. So, this application has less of an impact in terms of the development, in terms of its developed state at the end of the day compared to previous applications. Okay. So, that's what I'm referring to. Okay. So, that's what I'm referring to. I didn't have a clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear zoning determination 2023-009 and for the record the uh minutes of approval for the 6-1 main road storage facility are dated june 28 2023
so as to the impervious surface and um landscaping appeal uh the two appeals really are somewhat directly related to each other um more impervious surface less landscaping so it's sort of a yin and yang so to speak uh this application this site plan application we we initially had a pre-submission conference and then we made an application on august 8th of 23. um if you refer to greg's report his initial plan uh evaluation and report of the planning department which is dated june 23 2023-009 and the application is dated june 23 2023-009 and the application is dated march 6th of 24. um one of the requirements was that the board the planning board had to make a determination whether or not the use of permeable uh pervious pavers would be permitted because the code allows pervious pavers or allowed pervious pavers to be utilized if it was accepted by the planning board um at the planning board meeting held on march 21st of 24 the planning board did uh by a poll of the board uh approved the use of the um drainable pavers as pervious surface reducing our impervious area uh subsequent to that on 8624 town board resolution 2024-704 the use of the drainage pavers as pervious surface was approved by the planning board in the !
pervious surface under the code um after that on uh september 4th of 24 we received an email from greg that although our application was pending although the planning board had already authorized the use of the pervious pavers that we were going to have to amend the site plan to comply with the new zoning so that happened after our application was already pending and the planning board had to some extent uh already authorized the use of those pervious pavers um interestingly enough a couple of things that have come up since then is that this is getting confusing to us impervious surface pervious surface and we notice that there's there seems to be a number of appeals where this comes up to this board as a matter of fact two of the appeals previous to us tonight both included impervious surface fields uh we understood that there are other appeals with impervious surface i have other applications that we're working on now that we're going to have to come for impervious surface uh reviews because we can no longer use the pavers as pervious surface in looking at that um just as an aside i'm uh member of the town's business advisory committee the committee took a look at this the question came up is why are so many projects having an issue and what we did is we did a quick analysis and we figured out what the average size of a parking space is it's 376 square feet depending on the ratio of single loaded versus double loaded parking you know now there's the aisle parking on two sides versus an aisle parking one side we did a layout we said okay if you calculate it you know between the two a very general parking uh a lot of about 100 cars it came out to around 376 square feet per car we said okay then we looked at the footage of the different uses that are committed in the different zones where this this issue continues to come up and if for example if you look at a retail just use that in an example retail requires 200 square uh um 200 square feet of retail requires one car so for every 200 feet of retail you need 376 square feet of additional land impervious surface in order to park that for that amount of square footage so when you applied that ratio when we looked at the different zoning codes and the permitted uses in the zoning codes on the dimensional chart what we found was that there are certain zones that have a disparity between permitted building area lot coverage and impervious surface and in fact it's impossible for example for an office building especially a medical office if you're allowed 30 lot coverage it's literally impossible to get that lot coverage on the project and and provide parking for the property um with that what happened is is we had uh councilman kern is our uh liaison we had a meeting recently with uh dawn thomas um greg uh and andreas from the building department and we presented that to them that we had found that there are a number of zones that have a very big disparity between the building area and the impervious area they've taken it under advisement i think they're going to have another discussion at a future meeting and i believe this may end up going to depend on the future of the code revision committee to look at the inherent disparity amongst certain zones within the town of riverhead on the zoning chart when you look at the impervious surface so that's it's just something that's in the works it doesn't apply to this application obviously um but it's just interesting that when you look at the footage here and you look at the allowable footprint we don't even match the allowable footprint um but with the footprint and then the far there's no way that the that you could provide the parking for the development based on the zoning schedule. With that said, again, going back to Greg's initial review, as well as the application that I referred to earlier for the other storage facility that was approved, one of the things that has been established is that these uses, especially the storage uses, are very low impact in terms of traffic. Which is true. If you've ever, I've rented a space in a storage space, I'd go there maybe, you know, once every month or twice a month to get something or pick something up. I'd pull in, pull up to the unit, go inside, get my stuff, put it in the car and leave. Very, very low impact use, which is the case here. It's a very low impact use. And therefore, based on that, I think Mr. Eisenberg may elaborate a little bit more on any other zoning issues or concerns as to how to do that. I'll head over to you next, the requirements for seeking the variance as far as what the needs are and what's causing them. We're hoping to move forward with gaining approval on the application. Richard, if you have anything to add, and then if there are any questions, additional questions the Board has, that would be, we'd be here to answer them. Male Speaker 1 Marty, would you speak for a couple of minutes to the variance request for the landscape buffer? Female Speaker So before we get to that, can I just ask two questions? Male Speaker Yes, please. Female Speaker So I listened to your presentation on impervious. Are you asserting that you have some type of vesting in earlier zoning regarding impervious surface? Male Speaker We could, but we would much prefer to resolve these matters. Female Speaker No, I'm asking you now. I'm not asking if you could. Are you asserting that now? Male Speaker That we're grandfathered by prior action. Female Speaker That you vested in site plan process such that you're entitled to zoning. I'm trying to decipher is that what Mr. Sinluski is asserting? Male Speaker I do not hear Mr. Sinluski taking that position. Male Speaker Okay, so I'll. Male Speaker Subject to Mr. Fisher, the principal speaking contrary, I don't think we are taking that position. Female Speaker Okay. Male Speaker I would much rather get to where we need to get to substantively than to have to rely on a vesting argument. Female Speaker Correct. Male Speaker Definitely in that the zoning has been adopted by local law. We are not grandfathered in because our site plan is not approved. The only thing I was saying is that our application was in part,
very greatly increased by the change of zoning. And that was a very important point. And I think that's why I was saying that we should have made a change in zoning after our application was in and after the planning board had at that time prior to the change in zone said we could use the impervious favors. That's all that's all I was referring to. Male Speaker In essence, we're asking the board to take into account in the possible exercise of its discretion where we are in the process. That is not the same as saying that we are vested on this point. Female Speaker Okay. So. Male Speaker. Male Speaker I just want to clear up so I'll just and you're recommending that the town board make code amendments relate to this issue that your present presently representing the applicant on is impervious surface true is another words you sit on a town committee you're you just described that you're recommending that the town consider amending its code with respect to impervious surface the committee is recommending it not me the the Riverhead business advisory no comment and you're appearing here with an applicant on an impervious surface issue you're you just described that you're recommending that the town consider amending its code with respect to impervious surface the committee is okay good just for the record and for the record is it is our position that the project architects role on advisory committee does not disqualify him I'm appearing as a witness in any related application right I think we've made the disclosure we think the disclosure was very pertinent Marty and I and Ray discussed that earlier we certainly want transparency here but we respect the disclosure we think that the town is not disqualified from assisting us in this application merely by the fact that he is a member of an advisory committee
I believe counselor asked mr. Sinlewski to address the fund yes I'm sorry Marty if you would I believe the last open item is the landscape buffer and the next head head head head
parking as opposed to the storage building and in requiring more parking and more impervious surface that directly reduces the amount of landscaped area proportionally. So that's why the two are directly related to each other. We believe that the bulk of the landscape buffer which is shown on the proposed site plan gives more than adequate screening and distance for the abutting residences and then of course the northern boundary is up against the train tracks and Marty if you would briefly describe what we expect will be required to do by way of replantings in the area between the rear of the proposed building and the Long Island Railroad track. Yes, yes. As a matter of fact, that's actually a benefit to the project because in our preliminary discussions with the DEC we will be required, if you notice the shaded area, although the shaded area doesn't represent all of the landscaping, the shaded area is a minimum area that the DEC is going to require us to revegetate and include native species to the river so that will then eventually become a habitat. So it's actually going to be a preserved space that will then become a habitat within proximity to the river. Thank you, Marty. So just a question on that. Is there any landscaping softscape that's on the western side of the property where it abuts the river real estate associates? We don't show that on the plan. Oh, we don't. We didn't show the land. We don't show the landscaping plan. We would still be required to go forward with the additional site plan review, landscaping plans. We still are going to require the approval from DEC as far as what they want us to put into the landscaped area. So all of that would be part of site plan, but certainly it is a landscaped area. As Ray had said, there's the plan for additional commercial development possibly in the future, but we did leave a buffer that is just a little bit further out. We're going to leave it just about 10 feet even though it's not required in a commercial zone. We still wanted to leave a 10-foot buffer area that could be planted with evergreens or something along those lines to buffer the area next door. We assume that whatever is finally approved for the adjacent westerly parcel, we will have, as Marty describes, more than sufficient space to meet any screening and related requirements. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Council, do you or the Board have any other specific... Oh, I have a lot, but I want to let the Board. Please. There's a lot of numbers here to digest. I mean, just looking at those three items that you mentioned, proposed floor area ratio, you said... You guys are proposing 200,000 square feet. Permitted is 154,000, which is 45,000 more than is allowed. And looking at the proposed impervious surface coverage, the maxima that you guys are proposing is 153,000 square feet. Permitted is 108,000. That's another 45,000 square feet beyond what's allowed. That's a 15% increase. [transcription gap] That's a 15% uptick in the application. That's a huge number. Yes. I mean, that's all I... So, to the Chairman's point, in your application, under area variance considerations number two, you indicate that the variance sought is not substantial. So, to the Chairman's point, do you have any comments? No. I just... [transcription gap] I just... [transcription gap] residential that the board could in its discretion grant each of these three variances without violating any of the statutory requirements we believe it's a good solid project it meets a need as Marty mentioned certainly the storage area is low impact nominal effect on traffic and very nominal water and wastewater requirements the multi-use building of non nuisance building slightly more traffic generator but also very clean uses with what we believe is a genuine need which would be a successful project for us and in that context we're asking the board to seriously consider the relief it's a good solid project we don't
we're not pretending that the mathematics of the variances requested are nominal we do hope you look at that additional footage though it's whether it be a large number or not that it's below grade and I think that should have some weight to it that it's not visible from the street as you drive by the project size will be the project size with or without a base I think that does should that be seen as too much no because they'll be a full basement of plus or minus 20,000 under building number two and they'll be a basement cellar forgive me basement basement is a defined terminal code and the seller over 36,000 square feet per hour proposed site plan that's rebuilding number one so more than 50,000 square feet the cellar storage and so we have no clear clear clear clear
our minds. So in that context, in that context, if one X is out or excludes the below grade cellar construction, we believe this is a lot closer to as of right all around. Also, one additional point I might add is that one of the things that you do not see on our site plan is you do not see outdoor storage, which is permitted. Um, we could provide for suitably screened outdoor storage, which is a permitted use as of right under this zoning code under this zone. And we've chosen to take that outdoor storage and not go with outdoor storage. We basically have cellar areas below grade out of view that are going to be utilized primarily for the storage, especially in conjunction with the mixed use building, as opposed to other applications. I've come before this board, including the Lincoln Street warehouses that have that were actually a use variance that has screened storage. It doesn't have a basement. All their storage is in fences behind the building along the railroad tracks in screened areas. So in lieu of having screened areas, outdoor storage on site, visible above grade, which were permitted, we're putting that in a cellar area that is out of view. So the purpose and intent of the Pecan River Community Zoning District includes to conserve the legislative ecological resources. And it is located within New York State DEC Wild Scenic Recreational Rivers Community Rivers designated area. Correct. It's our understanding that the plan meets the DEC requirements. But that we're looking for the variance at the county code level. Right. But the purpose and intent of the code is to conserve, protect the ecological resources in the area. And it provides for, in order to foster conservation. Okay. [transcription gap] All commercial site plans shall have open space designated in such a manner as to have a minimum of 50% open space areas planted with native species or left undisturbed. It is our understanding that by the time we receive the requirements for the replantings of the currently vacant space, that the ecological resources will be
of the total site will be increased, not decreased, because of the requirements we're anticipating for the area between the rear of the development and the railroad right away. I just want to emphasize, and not to speak out of turn, Mr. Fisher knows that's not a small amount of money. So the plan is mindful of the fact of what we would expect to be required to do and the cost involved in doing that with the result that we believe, again, not speaking as any kind of expert, we believe from an overview point of view, we would be increasing, not decreasing, the ecology of the site. So under area variance considerations number five, you recite two, FAR was added. Well, FAR was added. FAR was added in 2011. So it's certainly not a new amendment to the code with respect to the FAR. So I'm curious why that was written, that that in somehow the statement FAR was added, therefore it was not a self-created hardship, when it was added back in 2011, prior to the current applicant's ownership of the property even. I think we defer to the project architect to see if he's got a response for you on that specific point, why we made that reference. Basically, the point was that with the existing development that's on site, which is going to then essentially be replaced by the new development, those requirements didn't apply to the development that existed previously. It's realistically, in looking back at that part of the application, I don't really think it has a bearing on this case one way or the other. I think this case has to stand on its own. Well, that's why I'm asking you the question. How does it relate to this application, the statement that FAR was added when, FAR was added in 2011? I'm not sure how that supports, but there's a lot of evidence there of the assertion that the difficulty is not self-created. The, you know, it actually, it does not relate to it in terms of the verbiage of the town code. However, there are other portions of the town code, and you saw one earlier tonight, that there are areas in the town code where the zoning has changed considerably, but they still have to be fixed. they still go back to some of the older zoning codes in the residential zones, et cetera, because of the configurations of the site, et cetera. So, in that respect, I'm just saying that the code did not, when they revised the code, they did not take into account all of the, I think they didn't take into account all the areas. They could have done a better job. But that's neither here nor there. This application needs to stand on its own. Female Speaker Okay, but I'm talking about a code amendment in 2011. I'm not talking about an update to the master plan now, which I think you're referring to. I'm talking about it existed since 2011 to the present. Male Speaker You can just strike that from the application. That would be fine. Thank you. Female Speaker Well, is there something else that you would like to add in the application with respect to whether it was or wasn't a self-created hardship? Male Speaker Well, we think any ambiguity in the process of the application is an issue. And I think that's something that we've been working on with the prior versions of code 301-D, speaking to the definition of cellar. As Marty mentioned, any ambiguity in that is an issue we have to overcome. Again, our position is that if one reads the plain meaning of 301-3, the cellar space, which we're discussing in each of the two buildings, should be deleted from the FAR. That's not our doing that the town has elected to interpret it otherwise. Again, we have said, you're not claiming we are grandfathered on that. We are asking for the Board to consider using its discretion in our favor because of the changes that have been made in that definition.
Female Speaker So, if the buildings were reduced in size, stands to reason required parking would be reduced, then landscape could be increased. Fair? Male Speaker That's correct. Female Speaker So, is there any consideration to reducing the size of the buildings such that it could either reduce the size of the buildings, or minimize impervious surface, and or reducing the relief rather for impervious surface, and or reducing the relief for impervious surface and meeting the 50% of the open space natural area. Male Speaker If we could have some guidance from the Board as to its sense of the matter. Female Speaker Yes. Male Speaker To clear up what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about clear about what's clear about clear about clear about clear about clear about clear clear about clear clear Male Speaker clear [transcription gap] Male Speaker clear [transcription gap] Male Speaker clear Male Speaker clear [transcription gap] move the process forward and not be faced with an outright denial on one or all three of the requests. Sorry, may I just make a note? This is a Type 1 Seeker action. I believe the Planning Board is going to be lead agency or already has been designated lead agency, so the Zoning Board of Appeals can't make any kind of determination until the environmental review has been completed. I don't know the exact status. Marty, do we have an exact status of the Seeker review? No, it's just being, it's under review now. It's being reviewed and it's been referred to this Board for the variance. We always feel that it would be good to get variances out of the way first because that will then change, subsequently change the scope of the review. If this Board takes action on this and were to approve it, then it would be a review of the site plan. If there is a discussion as being referred to and there were a subsequent version of a plan that reduced some type of impact that was amenable to this Board, then that would dictate the review of that site plan. It's my impression from reviewing the last set of the minutes before the Planning Board, that the Planning Board has not yet submitted a plan. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. Thank you. that we come here, submit our application on a dual track with the further work on the CEQA, and then come back to calendar to the planning board. So we do not believe we're here too early, and we don't believe that from the point of view of the planning board. No, I don't think Heather was saying that. Yeah, I wasn't inferring that. I was just making the note that the board can't make a decision yet, but they can certainly hear you, and we're glad that you're making your case now. No, we understand that reluctance. We're trying to understand what, if anything, would be the guidance we could receive from the board. Obviously, it's advisory. It's not a judgment on the project, which would allow us to see if there are any possible revisions which would get us closer to the variances that would satisfy the board, and still comply with the client's end game in terms of the finished project. Could this project, with its proposed uses, move forward and be redesigned without the requirement for any variances? It would be a very substantial change. Yes, it would, but... Well, let me say this. As we all know, particularly in an environment of tremendous increases in construction costs, if one has a project which involves two structures, and it's broken up and phased so that the second building is a contingency several years out, that changes the whole economics of the project. So, while the easiest answer would be, we'll come back in 60 days with a revised site plan for the storage building only, that has tremendous consequences to the proposed economics of the project, and to the project itself. So, we're going to have to wait and see what kind of rents we could get, how many years out it would be before we would receive any rents. So, the short answer is, it's very tough. Whether or not, with our excellent architect's help and the flexibility of the client, we could come back in a relatively brief time with an adjustment to the envelope, particularly of building two, which would permit us to come back with a request for much more, significantly more modest variance requests than we would need a brief adjournment of the hearing to determine. So, in your description just now, you described it like a bifurcated process that really wouldn't be sustainable, like moving forward with one building versus the next. I wasn't suggesting that. I'm saying, overall, could the site be developed for the proposed uses described that meet the dimensional regulations and the provisions of the code? Obviously, you're talking about reducing square footage of one or both buildings. And what I'm saying is, if we had a sense, again, informal, of the maximum allowable relief we might get, we would work backwards from that and work with our project architect and with the client to see if we could resize, most likely, building number two to get it to the point where our construction costs and our expected return would be satisfactory with a slightly reduced footprint. Excuse me, with a reduced footprint which would be small enough so that whatever variances we would need would be within the realm of possibility before the board. We're talking about cutting back on building number two, if that is what it would take to get the permission for the two-building development. Now, again, Mr. Fisher and I haven't discussed this last item. You may say, no, I could figure out a way to do building number one. But for the record, we are saying this is a two-building development. As we have taken a few minutes to describe, and you've been very patient, we think it meets two distinct but important needs. My understanding is you'd like to get permission for the two-building development. And what we're talking about as a practical matter is likely cutting back the final envelope size of building number two in order to come back with variance requests which would be acceptable to the board.
And can you speak to whether there are similar buildings in size and scope within the... I'm not talking miles away. Within the proximity of this development and within the same zone as the one in the area of the building. Well, as we know, there's a multiplicity of uses from the library west on 25. All kinds of uses. My understanding, and Marty can correct me if I'm wrong, we're, as of right, under the height requirements. We have a parapet in the design which is also allowable. We're still under the maximum requirements. If you were to ask specifically, is there a three-story non-residential building within a half mile east or a half mile west, I can't at this moment. Ray may have one in mind. But we are not looking for any relief from a maximum... We don't need any relief from that height requirements. What we think very strongly is these designs will upgrade, not detract from the basic character of the immediate area. So this... Which includes everything from my favorite restaurant to some really old commercial uses. Agreed. And... To the restaurant. One family homes and everything in between. So we are not trying to insert a cheap, low-level project. Mr. Fisher is very proud of what he accomplishes. I think he made that clear in a prior hearing here or a planning board. Rather, the reverse is true. So we see that the plan would be to upgrade the usage of the immediate area. Not to try to slide in something that only meets the minimum. Also, on building two, it is not in the same zone. But it's in the same area which is down on Cromer. And it's under the same DEC restrictions. We do have pretty much the exact design of building two. We have nine big space... Flex spaces for contractors with a drive-down basement and a drive-down ramp that's been approved. Now again, it's not in the PRC. Correct. But it is... Falls under the same restrictions of the DEC. And what zone does that fall within? It's... I believe the change... It's industrial A, but it's changing to light industrial. I'm assuming you're referring... Right. 48 Cromer. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So I know Mr. Sinluski knows the history of this property. And he actually supports the changes that were reported back in 2010 at a hearing before the New York State DEC. The change for this property to go from industrial B to its present existing zoning. So the uses and the impacts are quite different along the... Designated wild scenic recreational rivers, community rivers versus... I'm sorry, Heather. What did you say? Industrial C zone? It was industrial A on the west side of the... Industrial A zone. That's exactly why we presented what we presented. These uses are very low impact. Both uses are low impact. Both of them meet the zoning. And again, the relief we're asking for below grade on the FAR. It's all below grade. It's not a visible... It's not something that's going to be used to make a difference to the area of the area. But there's a lot of space you see as you drive down the road which was a concern for what you're trying to create that corridor the town has a zoning of 50% of this vegetation which is 20% more than what the DC is and again you refer to the DC as the riverfront we more than meet that we're almost to 40% yes we're not at 50 but we're almost to 40 so I don't see that as a large variance that we're asking for well you just stated that you meet town code you don't that's why you're coming in for relief maybe I misspoke or maybe you didn't understand what I said I said the uses the uses that we are proposing meet the town code correct that's why I needed the clarification that you did not intend nor you were you asking for you !
[transcription gap] no I am I'm disagreeing with it because from Raynor Ave. down it's full commercial property like I said earlier the music store then a deli catering hall then rapid recovery then no short Auto collision and the residential is not single-family houses there's six houses owned by one person one LLC only six multifamily rental houses that is that is not a residential neighborhood that's a business that's a that's a business and i don't see that as a residential neighborhood at all across the street you have the market of course you have uh that nursery you have behind us is totally developed out with riverhead building supply the whole area is commercial there's not any residential in this whole strip so it's your position if i'm trying to understand it if the house is a rental home that's not residential no that's not what i said and i don't think what i said was it's not a residential neighborhood when one person owns six houses and six multi-family houses and again we did everything we could to buffer that strip of houses that's as you see by our site plan with respect council and ray we're not asking either here or before the planning board for any changes of use we believe building number two meets a need we believe we will fill it we're just talking about whether or not uh the uh percentages of the requested variances uh would need to have any modification before they are approved we are not asking to introduce any usage which would be contrary to what is uh in the immediate area and with respect to my good friend mr dickle uh from a physical point of view the abutters are residents on a residential block yes that is a commercial endeavor where you have a single owner owning uh six or eight or ten residences which are themselves multi-family the point we are making is the bulk of the landscape so we 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 usage, we are not trying to wriggle away from the non-nuisance categories. On the contrary, we think that we can abide by the non-nuisance categories and fill every one of these spaces. That's what we're asking for support for. Ann Marie? Yep. We've heard enough this evening. If anybody disagrees with me, we'd like you folks to take a look at what you're submitting and see what kind of modifications you're going to do to maybe make it a little bit smaller. Is that any direction for you? It doesn't mean you have to do everything, but at least show what you can do, because we're not going to get anywhere with this tonight talk and all this way. Okay? Marty, about how much time would we need to request continued open hearing adjournment to allow you to revisit with us and see if there are modifications that Mr. Fisher could accept that would allow us to come back in for a more modest set of requests? Our first meeting will be December 9th, excuse me, January 9th, because we don't have a meeting with Christmas and all that. So the same applicant has an application on related to this property on the 9th. I'm sorry? Not that I'm personally aware of. I'm sorry, the same applicant? Yes. Heather? If the application was submitted, it would be calendared for January 9th. I have yet to submit the legal notices and set the agenda, but the next available date is January 9th. That is for- Interpretation of the- Correct. Yes. So we wouldn't want to be on the same night. We would go- So the next available date is January 23rd. Yes. Frankly, with the holidays, I'm going to speak on behalf of our project architect. I don't think we could meet, revise, and submit administratively. In time, to be back on the calendar on this matter on January 9th. If, with Mr. Fisher's permission, we would be asking to go on the January 23rd calendar with the understanding- No, it's not. It's the 29th. Excuse me, 20- Is it the 29th? No, it's the 23rd. 23rd. I think it was the 23rd. With the understanding of the regular guidelines for submissions to staff a week ahead of time. It seems like you guys have a lot of knowledge. Everyone that spoke tonight from there. You've got to figure something out. I think it's a good idea. [transcription gap] But it seems like you've got to figure something out. This is a big project. Can I just ask one last question of the councilor? Because I had this question with Greg, and I didn't agree with him, but we didn't want to address it. We just figured we would ask for the third variance. But under the item for the landscape area, the requirement, what the code says, and I'll read it verbatim. It says, In order to foster conservation of scenic values- all commercial site plans shall have open space designated in such a manner as to have a minimum of 50% of open space areas planted with native species or left undisturbed. When we had first read that, I interpreted that as being of your landscaped areas, 50% of the landscaped areas had to have natural vegetation. I didn't read it as 50% of the site requires natural vegetation because of the verbiage of the way the code's written. It says 50% of open space areas planted with a native species or left undisturbed. So, what it's saying, the way I read it, was that it's not 50% of the site. It's whatever the landscaped area is, 50% of that landscaped area is supposed to be undisturbed or native species. Can you clarify that? No, I'm going to decline to. Greg Bergman is the zoning officer. Okay. It's his duties and responsibilities to make those zoning determinations. Okay. So, if we were to add that as a request for a clarification by the zoning board, would we have to amend the application? Because the zoning board is also in a position where it provides interpretations where you have an applicant who doesn't agree with the way that the code is being interpreted. I'm aware of that. After all, you have an application that will be on the January 9th agenda. So, I'm aware that the zoning board... I just didn't know. So, all right. So, we'll proceed the way we are. I just read it differently than Greg did. I think we have the answer on that point. No, and it's not worth it. At this point, we're requesting that the... Forgive me. I'm sorry. Go ahead. It's not worth it at this point. We'll proceed with the revision. Okay. Check it. January 23rd. We'll see you folks again. Have a good evening. Thank you. Bring your best game. Right. We're getting... Always. Have a great holiday. You as well. And have a healthy... Happy New Year. Likewise. Happy holidays. You as well. Good night, Leroy. Thank you for your time tonight. Leroy, now wait. You're welcome. Leroy. Don't sign them off yet. No, you guys can... Go ahead. We have minutes if you're interested. No, we got more work to do. Okay. I'm just stretching my legs. Good. You guys have a good night. Thanks again. Get it done. We'll see you in the New Year. Hopefully. God willing. Yes. What is your favorite restaurant? Tweeds? No. No. The country... Kitchen. Oh, yeah. Farm country. I love the food there. I thought you were talking about me. Who knew it would be... No. Who knew it would be on that unusual block? I can get my oil changed and go have lunch at the same time. I'm going to take a picture. I'm going to get this over with. Yeah, I'm trying. I'm trying. Have a good one, folks. Thank you, folks. Thank you for your time. Take care. Bye. So I think you're going to do the minutes. Wait a minute. Otto has something. Who's this? Leroy. Can you hear us? We can't hear you. You're muted.
What's his name? Thank you. There we go. Leroy, can you hear us? His jacket. Yes, sir. We've been awfully quiet tonight. We're looking for a little help. I'm fine. Are you agreeing with everything that's happened? Yes, it was a good way to go about getting it reduced. Okay. We have to make a motion. Yes, we're adjourned. Somebody make a motion to adjourn. Do we want to adopt the minutes from November 14th? So moved. Thank you. Second. All in favor? Aye. We can adjourn this proceeding to January 20th. Yes, we did it already. We did that already. We can close. Motion adjourned. Motion made to adjourn. Motion. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Aye. I need to talk. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.