Full Transcript
Thank you. [transcription gap] Okay. You want to start the agenda? Sure. So we have some reserve decisions from our last meeting on January 9th, 2025. The first, appeal number 2024-035 for 1201 Ostrander Avenue. Pursuant to General Municipal Law 239, referral of use variances is required to go to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. And the commission has not yet rendered a response to our referral. So the Zoning Board cannot make a decision on the matter. So we will have to adjourn the reserve decision to the February 13th meeting. So in addition, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I had a conversation with counsel for the applicant. And while the public hearing was closed for reserve decision, counsel on behalf of the applicant, had submitted documentation late for Zoning Board of Appeals members' consideration. All those documents were provided to the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration. In light of same, I believe there might be one or two individuals who would like to speak on the application. So with counsel's consent, and opening it up, very limited, if anybody wishes to be heard on this application, they may. Are you an attorney? No, I am not. Good for you. Raise my right hand. Is there a way to tell the truth, all truth, nothing but the truth? So help your God. I do. Please state your name and address. Amanda Grams, Riverhead, Reeves Park, 86 Park Road. First, I want to thank Mary, and thank Mrs. Parente and the rest of the board. You do such an outstanding job keeping Riverhead the way it should be kept, following rules, laws, and policies that you and the other planning boards have put in place. With that said, there was also a commission for the cannabis shops and variances that would be applied to them, and where they would be located. I mean, you invested in that. And that took a long time. It took like a year or two for that committee to come up with their recommendations and their policies to adhere to. The store we have now is the largest in New York State. The largest. I drive by it every day. No less than 15 cars there. It's a lot of use. A lot of use. I'm sorry. I'm standing here because I don't want Riverhead to be the pothead place. That old bank is near homes, residences, children. It's not zoned for it. And if I'm not mistaken, I think the person who's leasing that property is from Mattatuck. And that town shut it down, didn't they? Nobody has any cannabis stores out on the north or south front. Except for the reservations. Excuse me. So please do Riverhead right. Stay with the variances and policies which are in place in order to have a very contained area. We don't need to have shock and awe. And we don't need to also appease somebody because they went out ahead and thought they could lease a property with such accommodations being made to them. So, thank you. Thank you. [transcription gap] Is there anyone else out there? Counsel, would you like to same... Does somebody else want to respond? Very briefly, no need for the oath, I understand. Okay. Andrew Shriver, again, on behalf of the applicant. Just very, very briefly. I... All points understood. I would just ask that the Board, I would refer back to what we discussed in terms of impacts on the neighborhood, and I think the demonstrative that Mr. Senleski prepared showing the sort of straight line of places where the onsite retail is allowed compared to our shop, which is sort of when you look at that line, it stops, and then the line kind of continues after the shop, so that the impact in terms of any impacts on residential would be, again, the same. I don't need to belabor that. That's in our prior submission, and I would just emphasize that with a complete understanding, as we talked about with the process that this Board went through, not this Board, the town went through in passing its regulations, the reason that the special use exception exists in your code is where you have something that may not fit within the zoning rule, but would otherwise be in harmony with the surrounding circumstances. So in that respect, I would just refer back to our submissions. I know we want to keep it short. I want to thank you for the ability to respond. Okay. Thank you. February 13th? Anyone else? Yes. So it's officially closed and will hold reserved decision for February 13th, 2025, pending response from the Planning Commission. So moved. Second. And, Council, please feel free to contact the Planning Office prior to that date to make sure that the County Planning Commission has completed their review. We will, and we appreciate that. Second. [transcription gap] So the next reserve decision is appeal number 2024-037, Fisher Realty Group, 940-946 West Main Street, Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Credit number 600-124-3-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and 600-125-2-5.2, Peconic River Community Zoning, for an interpretation of a determination made by a zoning officer. This was a set for reserve decision. It was heard at our last meeting on January 9th, 2025. Mr. Chairman and the rest of the board, with respect to appeal number 2024-037, the following conclusion and determination is being made. A reading of the existing zoning and review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the current application and property history requires this board to concur with the zoning, zoning officer's determination that the outdoor storage of repossessed vehicles is not accessory to the office of the repossession business. Rather, the office for the repossession business is accessory and subordinate to the storage of the vehicles. The automobile repossession use is not a permitted use within the Peconic River Community Zoning Use District. The board finds that the... The applicant's argument that the prior zoning board decision granting outdoor storage to Blackmon Plumbing Supply is no different than the proposed outdoor storage of repossessed motor vehicles is not supported by the facts, documentation, and testimony. The record for decision 10-22 is clear in that the outdoor storage was limited to specific materials related to the plumbing supply business. The outdoor storage was limited to specific materials related to the plumbing supply business. The outdoor storage was limited to specific materials related to the plumbing supply business. and restricted to a finite area. Accordingly, the appeal must be denied. Based on the foregoing, the board hereby denies the application in its entirety. Based on the foregoing, the board hereby denies the application in its entirety. Yes. Second. Somebody move it? So moved. Second. All right. Mr. Porsche? Aye. Mr. Zawieski? Aye. Mr. De La Hoya? Aye. Mr. Barnes? Aye. And I vote aye. So that's a decision. So that's a decision. Okay. That's it? That's it? Yep. We'll move on to public hearings. The first public hearing tonight is Appeal Number 2024-038, Claude Maselli, 99 Cliff Road East, Wading River, Suffolk County Tax Rep Number 600-27-3-25, Residence B-80 Zoning. This is for as-built conditions to a residence. Applicant requests variances and or relief from Chapter 301-31. This is for as-built conditions to a residence. Applicant requests variances and or relief from Chapter 301-31. This is for as-built conditions to a residence. Applicant requests variances and or leave room under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under under Phillips. I'm here tonight representing Mr. Claude Maselli, owner of 99 Cliff Road East in Wading River. We're here tonight to request a variance from Town Zoning Ordinance Chapter 301-31 to maintain existing impervious surface coverage of 43.4%, where the maximum allowable is 15%. Mr. Maselli purchased the property in March of 2018 and appeared before this Board in January 2019 for a variance approval to maintain an accessory wood deck in the front yard, which was granted at that time. The property at that time was not in compliance with the impervious surface coverage, nor was it in compliance at the time of the town's rezoning in 2004. I reference this only to explain that the property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot per Town Zoning Ordinance for Zone RB80, as are all of the adjoining properties in the area. The minimum lot area for the parcel in RB80 is 80,000 square feet. The subject property... The property is 6,000 square feet. So it's completely undersized for the zoning ordinance. The existing residence itself covers 16% of the lot. So the house as it exists is putting the property over the allowable amount. The undersized lot with the pre-existing residence and RB80 creates a non-self-imposed undue hardship. The subject property does have sufficient permeable surface area for the drainage and no rainwater will be directed onto the neighboring properties. The area is not subject to any !
The property is the exact same size lot as my clients and is only nine houses away on the same side of Cliff. Heather, did you receive the affidavits and posting? Yes, I received all of the affidavits, the proof of mailings, proof of posting, so we're good. And subject matter of the posting? So the mail...the post...it's just the picture of the poster with the date and time, but the mailings reflect the relief requested. The property is not subject to any of the relief requested that was on the denial letter. So for impervious surface coverage, 43.4% for the maximum allowed is 15%. So the application that was submitted did not mention anything regarding the impervious surface. What it talked about was relief for a partial in-ground pool. Then the EAF that was submitted was, again, to the Department of Housing and Planning. The Department of Housing and Planning did not mention any impervious surface and instead talked about an in-ground pool. In addition, the tax map numbers and the description of the property were in error. The plan...survey that was submitted also didn't highlight in detail any of the impervious surface requests. So at this point in time, I'm recommending to the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals that this matter be adjourned until February 27th for you to correct the application, correct the EAF. We can verify the subject matter of the posting and we'll follow up with you whether or not it has to repost. We're not going to require you to do that. We're going to have to do that. We'll have to do that. [transcription gap] increasing the impervious surface.
The members agree to take a vote?
Excuse me. Did you realize that all these mistakes were in this? No, sir, I did not. Okay. Move in a second. Mr. Forsyth? Aye. Mr. Zawieski? Aye. Mr. Fionnuala? Aye. Mr. Barnes? Aye. And I vote aye. So some work to be done here. Understood, sir. And I can follow up with you to show you the specific pages that are referencing the semi-in-ground pool and an in-ground pool. I know what happened. The documents were just copied over from the previous hearing that we attended, and obviously there was oversight on that. And that was for a different parcel? Yes. Okay. The pool has nothing to do with this property, so it was just the impervious surface, as it was noted in the disapproval. Yeah, when we visited the property, we were looking for pools, but there were not. It's only impervious. It's only impervious. And that's, we'll correct you. Nice try, Mr. Phillips. I'm sorry? Nice try. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a good evening. Thank you.
Okay, next we have appeal number 2025-001, Ginger L. Gordon, trustee, 776 Soundshore Road, Jamesport, Suffolk County tax map number 600-7-3-37, residence A40 zoning for a proposed in-ground pool and pool house. Applicant requests variances and or relief from chapter 301-9A1A, where accessory structures are not permitted to be located in a front yard. You're returning? I'm not. Okay. Please raise your right hand. And do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. I do. Please state your name and address, and will you pull the mic down and I'll give it to you? Sure. Thank you. My name's Megan Carrick. And my address is 206 Lincoln Street, Riverhead, New York, 11901. I have some packets, if you would like to. Bring them up. Please. Basically what you already have, but I don't want everybody to have it in front of them. So I'm here tonight to represent our clients who currently reside at 776 Soundshore Road. And they're looking to build a pool and a pool house on their property. Given that the lot is a waterfront property and the existing house is in close proximity, to the water, we are proposing to place the pool and the pool house in the front yard. To ensure that the project aligns with the character of the neighborhood, we have positioned the pool and the pool house at the closest point to the front property line is 92 feet, which would be to the pool house. Additionally, we have located the pool house to block the view of the pool from the street. We also considered our neighbors in this design. The pool has been positioned adjacent to the east neighbor. Um, so it abuts their garage. So it provides a space for the pool. It provides some privacy there. Um, and these conditions can be seen in the survey and photos that I just gave to you. Um, since the proposed structures are landward of the house, we don't believe that we should have any environmental issues there. So I'm here to answer any questions that you have. Thank you for your time. The pool house. Is that all enclosed? Yes. And what's inside there? It's really just going to be open space. They want space for like a table. And then storage, um, in the wintertime. Bathroom, shower or anything? No. Okay. Thank you. What are the dimensions of the patio? You provide the dimensions of the pool, uh, 16 by 32, but no dimensions of the proposed patio.
Hold on one second. I don't have those on me, but I believe that we went out 12 feet. At the largest part and then around it was five. We're going to need that down the road. Okay. Dimension of the patio. Yeah. I, I know Heather had mentioned before the proposed impervious surface is 19.9%. We're going to need that also. Okay. Anything else? We're going to need that, uh, by the, uh, placed on the survey. Okay. Anybody want to be on it? Thank you. Um. [transcription gap] Anyone out in the audience that would like to speak on this variance? Come right up please.
Are you solemnly sure to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so it'll help me God. I do. Please state your name. My name is Cindy Ellen Bogan and I am 774 Sound Shore Road. So I am the, the property directly to the west of this property. West. Okay. And, um, I did receive notification in the mail that this was happening. We are a summer cottage so we are all boarded up and home and we have not yet met our neighbors so they would not have been able to contact us nor I them. But we received notification Tuesday, two days ago, about this meeting today. And I just received notification that it would be, um, accessory structures to the front yard and that was the variance they were seeking. But I didn't receive any plans. So, um. Would you like? I would love to see them. Please. I will note all of our appeal documents are available online, um, for viewing. Um, so it includes the application and the proposed plans. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so I just really would love it, uh, uh, just a little bit of time to look and see. But my concern mostly is I know that, um, we all have tiny properties and everybody wants to make the most of them. And um, I respect that. I, I, everybody's entitled to do what, what's allowed. But I think there's a lot of people who are, um, there's a lot of people who are entitled to do what's within, um, I know this will set a precedent a bit. I don't know that a lot of other people are, have done the front yard on the street. I understand why they do want to do. And that's not a problem for me. What I worry about is we sit below them. As the slope of the property goes, as it goes down, we are down. And so the water runoff from the road crosses their property and goes into a gully between our properties. We share a bulkhead. And there is a gully underneath there. is a gully underneath my stair. Their stairs to the beach are right next to my stairs. And so anything anyone does to their property directly affects the neighbor. So my concern is runoff. I think that she said that the property, that this would be on the east. Thank you. So it will be on the east side, abutting the? Yeah. It's going to be 10 feet from this property line. Okay. How close is it to where they park the cars? Over here. Is the cars? This is where they park their cars here. Okay. The pool house will be here and then this will be here. And this will all stay the same? That will all stay exactly the same. And the grade doesn't change? The grade does not have to change. Okay. Does that satisfy you, ma'am? It does satisfy me. My question is, though, I have had neighbors that have had things turned down for, I also was concerned about the pool house. As long as the pool house does not, it's just like an eating area. It's really just an eating area since it's in front of the house and not in the space. That's fine. So you're satisfied? I am satisfied. I think that's everything. As long as it doesn't change the grade and as long as it doesn't affect us with runoff or anything like that, that would be, it's really nothing, it's really your decision whether it's in the front or not. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Anyone in the audience that wants to speak on this variance? All right. Who's got it? All right. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, with respect to appeal number 2025-001, I move that the appeal of Ginger L. Gordon, Trustee 776 Soundshore Road, Jamesport, SCTM number 600-7-3-37, pardon me, Residence A-40, R-80-40 zoning, for variance and or relief from Chapter 301-9A, Residence A-40, R-80-40 zoning, subdivision 1, subdivision A, where accessory structures are not permitted, be permitted to be located in a front yard, be granted subject to the following. Number one, submission of dimensions of the patio and cumulative impervious surface coverage for the parcel by a licensed engineer that meets the impervious coverage required for R-80-40. And two, use of pool house shall be limited to seasonal use consistent with months when the pool house is not available. When the pool is open, and as such shall not be improved with a positive heating supply, and shall not be used as habitable space, such as living accommodation, sleeping, et cetera, and shall be limited in use as accessory to the pool and single family dwelling. And finally, three, no property change in grade, and this will obviously be in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments there to, if any, as filed with the building inspector. Second. Okay. Move and second. Mr. Porsche. Aye. Mr. Wesske. Aye. Mr. Matillo. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye. So you're very intelligent. Great. Great. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.
Okay. Next, we have appeal number 2025-002, Orlando Lopez Azama, 1022 Parkway Street in Riverhead, Suffolk County. Tax bill number 600-123-1-4, residents A40 zoning, applicant requests, variances, and or relief from chapter 301-11, where proposed front yard setback is 19.2 feet, and the minimum required is 50 feet, and where side yard setback is 1.5 feet, and the minimum required is 25 feet. Okay. Ann Marie, do I have to swear in again for this case? Okay. Thank you. [transcription gap] Are you telling me to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? So help me God. I do. Please state your name and address. My name is Megan Carrick, and the address is 206 Lincoln Street, Riverhead, New York, 11901. In addition, I have packets for you guys to look at, too. Go right ahead. All right. So I am here on behalf of Orlando, who wants to enclose his existing front porch to create some additional living space for him and his family. Our proposal involves utilizing the existing foundation and the existing roof. that is over the front porch. So we're just going to frame in new walls to aim to expand the living room and the kitchen to give them some more usable space because it's kind of tiny in there right now. So while this design does require setback relief, we don't believe it's self-imposed as this is how the house is configured currently and we're not looking to expand the footprint whatsoever. And we don't think it will have any adverse effects to the neighborhood because we're not really changing too, too much, just adding some walls around that front porch. So I can answer any questions that you might have on this. Here's the pictures of Heather. Heather, do you have the pictures of the property? Yes, so I... We have some questions on some of the structures on the property. Sure. Yeah, so it looks like they added an additional shed behind the garage and there's some sort of pergola structure that's in the driveway. Okay. I wasn't aware of the shed. I know that there... There is a temporary pergola structure in the driveway that if you want it to be removed, we can remove it. It's like a Costco build-up thing. Okay. And that doesn't look right. Okay.
I truthfully didn't venture all the way into the rear backyard to see the shed, so... Okay. Did that cover all the buildings? Yeah, so those were the two anomalies, you know, between the survey and existing conditions. We just want to make sure that everything has the proper permits. Sounds good. And if the shed is under 144 square feet and meets the requirements as far as setbacks are concerned for a free shed, a permit might not be required, but it's hard to tell from the aerials and it's not on the survey. We would be happy to look into that and make sure that we get that legalized. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to talk on this variance? Come right up. Okay. Good evening. Are you there? I'm just recording. My name is Peter Guardino. Kathy Gaydon. So I solemnly swear to tell the truth. So I solemnly swear to tell the truth. But the truths are helping God. Please state your name and address, both of you. Peter Guardino, 1028 Parkway Street. This is my spouse, Kathy Gaydon. Okay. Could you pull up there? Yeah. All right. [transcription gap] The Press head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head You're on lot 7 then, right? Excuse me? You're on lot 7 on the west side? I don't know exactly what lot we're on. Okay. Gotcha. You're on the same side as the garage? No. No. The other side. The other side. Same side as the house. Okay. The same side as the house. Okay. All right, sir. Go right ahead. My first question is, according to this verbiage here, it's saying that the front yard setback is 19.2 feet and the minimum required is 50. Is that correct? That's the current zoning, yes. Current zoning? Mm-hmm. The house has to be 50 feet from the street? Yes. So for new construction, that's the requirement. Okay. And the side yard setback on my side of the property is 1.5 feet and the minimum is 25. I understand that. Sorry. My concern is... Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. [transcription gap] Sorry. Sorry. [transcription gap] Sorry. [transcription gap] Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. There's a shed in the back which used to be a garage and then another shed was put in there behind it. The driveway in front of the existing garage slash shed has been made into a patio so that we can have this structure which the young lady here brought to everyone's attention. This pergola, metal and canvas pergola. There doesn't seem to be enough property to be doing any more expansion. My concern is that the current house is 1.5 feet from the property line. Well, it's a porch. Excuse me. [transcription gap] Excuse me. Excuse me. It's the porch that's the 1.5. Right. And the house. Very close. How close is your home to their property line? I'm not sure. Maybe 25 feet. Isn't there vegetation between the two of you? We'd have a line of, what do you call them? Privet. Privet hedges. They're about, what, 6, 8 feet? Yeah. They're about 3 feet. This is the house my grandfather built in 1996. I'm just concerned that the house keeps getting closer and closer to the property line. The existing patio, I don't know. That's your job to figure out what the current, how deep it is, if it'll hold a foundation, if it needs a foundation. My concern is that it's going to have to be added to with a foundation that's going to be in line with the existing home, which is going to make it even closer than 1.5 feet to the property line. Just to be certain, Megan, I understood. I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're going, you're planning on using right now the foundation that's supporting, the porch? Correct. We inspected the foundation of the porch. You want to let her? You've got to come to the mic. Yeah, it has to come up to the mic. Yes, we plan on using the current foundation of the porch. We inspected it, and it is structurally sound to be used for this addition. So in essence, if there's no excavation going on, nothing else, you're basically just enclosing the porch as it is right now. We are enclosing it exactly as is. So the footprint's not changing. It will not be any closer to the property line than what the property line is. The porch is down. Correct. Okay.
Okay. Anything else? I said all I have to say. Thank you very much. Clear? Are you comfortable with that? You're not building it further out? Well, I don't know. If they're going to enclose the current porch, are they going to put another porch out? No. How are they enclosing it? What are they building? Maybe. You want to speak? You have to go on the road. Yeah. I mean, that'll have to be done within the proper constraints of the town code. Okay. The building department. She can address that. Any other questions? No. No. One shot? No. Okay.
Megan, can you just say how it's going to be enclosed? Yes. So we will be building two-by-six walls in between the existing foundation wall. We're going to fur the floor up on top of the existing slab, put flooring on that, but then put two-by-six construction up into the existing roof structure. There's already headers and stuff there. We don't have to mess with any of that and then enclose it with. We're proposing three windows in the front, moving the front door just forward from where it is to line up to the edge of that patio. And residing it to match the rest of the existing house. Is that clear? Okay. Any other questions here? Anyone else in the audience? What do you guys want to do here? Read it. Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to appeal number 2025-002, I move that the appeal of Orlando Lopez Azama on 1022 Parkway Street, Riverhead, Suffolk County, tax map number 600-123-1-4, which is in residence A40 zoning. Prevarance is enter relief from chapter 301-11, where proposed front yard setback is 19.2 feet. And the minimum required is 50 foot, where the side yard setback is 1.5 foot. And the minimum required is 25 foot be granted, subject to the following. Applicant shall make application to the building department for building permits, inspections, and obtain the requisite. Certificates of occupancy for structures. Gazebo shed constructed without permits within six months. And if applicant fails to receive the building department approvals and or certificates of occupancies within six months of the date of this decision, the gazebo and shed shall be removed. Additionally, and the vegetative buffer on the west side shall remain. Be granted in accordance with the applicant's. Applications and sketches with the amendments there too, if any, as filed with the building inspector. Second. Move and second. Mr. Porsche. Aye. Mr. Zawieski. Aye. Mr. Goodell. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye. So your variance has been granted and good luck. Thank you all. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Good night. Okay. Next, we have appeal 2024-031. So, the appeal is that the building inspector, Mr. Zawieski, shall be granted a grant of $1,000. And the grant is due to the ! Mr. Zawieski. Yes. Mr. Zawieski. Yes. Mr. Zawieski. Yes. Mr. Zawieski. Next, we have appeal 2024-031, Jason and Jamie Pastrano, 834 Soundshore Road in Jamesport, Suffolk County Tax Number 600-8-1-8, Residence A40 Zoning. For single family dwelling, in-ground pool, and existing hot tub, applicant request variances and or relief from Chapter 219-14 , where proposed single family dwelling, in-ground pool, and hot tub are not specifically allowed development. Under 219-14 , all development in bluff area is prohibited, unless specifically allowed by 219-14 . This was adjourned from December 12th of 2024, and the applicants had, well, their representative has provided me with something for the board.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community
You don't have to be sworn in. Please state your name and address. Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Anton Borovina. My offices are located in Locust Valley, New York. On behalf of the applicant, we have heretofore submitted, I believe we already have, the proposed site plan that also includes potential alternative locations relative to the proposed pool, the patio, and the house. I have with me to better explain why our current proposed site plan is the best practicable alternative allowing the project to go forward in a manner that is compatible with the environment and consistent with the characteristics of the neighborhood and also compatible with the conditions associated with this property. Phillip Rosello is here, who will with the permission of the board, come to the podium and address the board with respect to our proposed site and also to discuss why alternative locations are frankly impracticable for reasons that will be mentioned in his presentation.
Have you been sworn in? No. Okay. I just only swear to tell the truth. The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. I hope you're gone. I do. Please state your name and address. Phillip Rosello, 82 Meadowbrook Road, Syosset, New York. What's your name again, sir? Phillip Rosello. Please spell it. R-O-S-S-I-L-L-O. Thank you. Okay. So I ask that you kind of turn to option one site plan, which is what was presented in the most recent presentation in the site plan. And I can walk you through that. I can walk you through the specific site conditions that we encountered in trying to kind of site the home as well as the pool, patio, and some of the utilities. On the southern side of the lot, which is the landward side of the lot, there's an existing structure to remain. And further landward is an area that was recently designated as wetlands. And you'll see that there's these arching lines on the drawing that are not in the area. And you'll see that there's these arching lines on the drawing that are not in the area. that state 100-foot setback from that wetland, as well as 150-foot from that wetland. And there are these red objects that are floating in that space. And those are our, that's our septic system, as well as our dry wells. And those utilities can only be situated in that shaded gray area. It cannot get closer to the wetland, or it cannot go to the seaward side of the property, as it would be in the coastal erosion setback. So I'm going to go ahead and go back. But that being said, as we move further north, the house is situated. And so we come to the rub here. And the rub is the pool and patio. We've been here before, and we've done our best to try to squeeze everything and move as far away from the bluff and coastal erosion hazard line as possible. And we believe that this approach gets us as far as possible. And we've basically taken, taken the pool and situated at 27 and a half feet from the sea hotline at its tightest point and 29 point 29 four inches at its widest you can see down at the bottom there's some keynotes there the total incursion into that the 50 foot setback is a thousand ninety eight square feet the pool making up 800 square feet of it and the patio at 298 we felt that this was the best approach and as you can see further in the deck there is precedent in lot 862 Soundshore Road where the pool is 37 and a half feet from the sea hotline and you can see that in the back towards the back where there's an aerial photograph is four houses down from our lot the next page kind of gives you an idea of the the disturbance to the to the existing footprint the home sits on pier footings with and then pilings from there and in the excavation or the removal of the existing home is where the pool would sit so this diagram cuts a cross-section through the existing structure and the footings and shows that the pool would sit within the disturbance of the demolition of the existing home so this is clear so this is clear so this is clear so this is clear so this is clear [transcription gap] of this but for now what you could see in option two is what we did is we rotated the pool reduce the size of it and reduce the size of the patio and put the pool in the side yard there although this you know this is a less of an impact or less of an incursion into the 50 foot setback it kind of presents other challenges where the pool is situated in the side yard closer to the neighbor and you know you can see we did a Sun study so that the pool kind of sits in shadow majority of the day you know reducing the size of their patio considerably again this this excavation is contained within the excavation well the portion of the pool is contained within the excavation of the existing home and then we come to option three which is the most aggressive option to get completely out of the 50 foot setback and the pool is again situated on the side yard reduced in size and we've also reduced the the patio and this pool will majority of this pool I think 88% of the pool would be in shadow from the home the majority of the day you know you could see that there's a Sun study as you kind of move through it and you can you can see that the pool is in shadow and the patio is in shadow and the head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head I'd like to highlight 862 Soundshore Road. And you can see there's some key points there. And as of a ruling on February 11, 2015, the pool was situated on the waterfront side. Obviously the pool is keeping with the nature of these other pools. And the setback from the sea hotline is 37 and a half feet. The documents, the pages that proceed are the surveys for these lots that were foiled. This exercise was kind of born from our last meeting to say, hey, have you looked at alternative options and where could we, you know, move the pool to? And we tried everything. But being that, you know, the wetland was kind of recently determined, so that kind of there's setbacks off the wetland. We cannot penetrate that 100 foot zone. [transcription gap] And so we're trying to get that setback off of the freshwater wetland on the front of the property. So that puts our septic system between 100 and 150 feet. And the only space for that is really between the two structures. And so our siting zone has really become limited between the freshwater wetland setback and the sea hotline setback. So you can see there's really a small area there for us to cram all this in. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If you have any questions. So the three properties that you analyzed and included in this booklet, you would agree that not one single one of those properties required a 219 permit. In other words, none of the proposed pools, houses, improvements were located within the coastal erosion hazard zone. Not 860. The pool is within, it's 37 feet off of the sea hotline. Heather, I know you did extensive research on these three properties. So in my FOIL response to FOIL request 2024-2633, in which I provided the documents for Suffolk County Tax Note number 600, 8-1-11, I mean 8-1-12, which is 862 Soundshore Road. I used that as a reference. I said, you know, this has been processed by the planning department. There were no Chapter 219 or ZBA documents on file for this property. There was a CAC approval, certificates and surveys, which I sent you. So I know that you had referenced a decision, ZBA approved February 11, 2015. So that ZB number, it says it's handwritten there. That's actually the permit number. I apologize for confusion, but that's what the building department uses to issue permits. Yeah. And the received stamp that's on there is actually by the health department. This is their final health department survey. And I can't speak as to who was reviewing this at the time. I didn't work for the town, but they show a 50-foot setback from the top of the bluff. So I'm assuming that whichever zoning officer or inspector who was reviewing it took that 50-foot setback as the coastal erosion hazard area. And that's why they weren't required to go to the zoning board. Again, I can't really make that statement. Again, I can't really make assumptions because I wasn't here, but this did not require relief from the zoning board and its authority as the coastal erosion hazard board review. It was just given a building permit and corresponding certificate of occupancy. I mean, this property and our property are almost identical in the fact that the top of the bluff and the coastal erosion line are not in line. They're not aligned. There's a 20-plus foot separation between the bluff. So I mean, we are situated 51-foot 9 inches from the top of the bluff, but 27-6 from the coastal erosion. And their situation is very similar. So I mean, I'm not following how it would get approved. I mean, is it in that setback, do we not have to get it approved? I can't speak to that because I wasn't working for the town. The zoning board was different. The building inspectors were different. But it appears that they were not. Thank you. [transcription gap] from the top of the bluff what is different about your property is the top of the bluff recedes a little bit where the stairs are so I mean I would leave it to the board and council to determine you know is the landward most line where the top of the bluff where it inflects and starts to recede is that where we're taking the setback from I well I did take a setback from that point as well as further down so that's the 27 6 and the 29 4 is is the where it gets wider but that you know our tightest point is 27 6 so I wasn't aware that there would be the ability to get an approval without getting a chapter 2 19 so typically if you're with if you're outside of the 50-foot jurisdiction so 856 Soundshore Road and 818 Soundshore Road they didn't need 219 or corresponding TV right now they didn't need to be in the area of the !
so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so and 27.6 from the Seaha line. It's almost identical, the situation. So if we don't need a Chapter 219, if we're beyond 50 feet from the bluff, then, yeah, we don't probably need to be here.
Do you follow what I'm saying? I follow what you're saying. All I can tell you is you have a survey. It indicates the coastal erosion hazard zone. It's marked out at 50 feet and broken out 25 and 25. You are proposing development still within that coastal erosion hazard zone. You heard another application here tonight. They put their pool in the front yard. We don't have that option. That's why I did all this. But you are showing us other options. Is it the position of the applicant tonight that despite the fact that you presented option one, which was your original option, option two and option three, your position is option one is the only desirable option? I mean, it is the most desirable option for the client. And I think it presents a lot of potential. I think it presents the best as far as impact to the neighborhood. I think it conforms with the nature of the community. I think there's precedent. I'm not understanding the difference between our lot and 862. I hear what you're saying, but it seems like there's something being disconnected where we're having to conform to that. We're in that 50-foot setback off the coastal erosion just like they are. We are 10-foot more than they are, but we're both penetrating that 50-foot setback off of the coastal erosion line. So I'm in. Is that the only application you're relying upon to essentially argue you're entitled to the same relief? We foiled, I think. Like 30 properties? Yeah, close to that. But this is a very small, you know, we're looking at, I don't think we did that many. I think we. It was more than 20. Okay. I know because I pulled the file. I think we, yeah, I think we did like seven on each side. No, I appreciate the fact that you did your due diligence. But to that point, if you've located only one property, and if there was an error in the review of that property, certainly not by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but by prior planning staff, we would never take the position, well, let's just continue the application. Because I didn't have clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear And we pushed everything back and we, you had asked that we go and look at adjoining properties and we looked at the adjoining properties and we've, this is what we discovered. So I would have, I made the assumption that they got a permit to do that and I don't know how, it happened in 2015, this is not a long time ago. So I can't imagine that something other than. It would have required Zoning Board of Appeals approval. Heather, can you confirm there were no Zoning Board of Appeals relief? There was no decision, no application. Like I said, the ZB39505, that's indicative of a permit number. So I did search the records and I didn't find any Zoning Board documents for this particular property. Can I also point out to you, in the different submission of plans, you've had a cottage with two bedrooms. Now in this plan, an office. Um. You should really be careful with the town code. This is an RA80. You may have a accessory use for a office only within the dwelling. So it's important when you mark things on plans that you actually really review the code so you know what you're putting forth on the plan, whether it's consistent with zoning. So that was just a naming error on our side. We picked that up after the first submission. This was a CO as an office and we've been consistent in our recent submissions as to what that structure is. Yeah. Just take a look at section, chapter 301, section 8. Okay. Thank you. [transcription gap] If I can just... Yeah. The CO for that accessory structure was for a garage and a workshop with a bathroom. So I'm not sure what's there now, but it's certificate of occupancy... There is a garage there. Yeah. So... Yeah. ...it was certificate of occupancy number 26416, data July 15, 2016, for a one-story, one car, detached garage with bathroom and workshop. So that's what's permitted. There is a bathroom in there. Yes. So that's what's permitted to be in there. Okay.
I'm not sure how we move forward. What do you suggest we do? Well, if I may, as I understand the discussion, the papers that were submitted in connection with Lot 862 was apparently not submitted to the ZBA. It was our understanding that it was, but it was not. But that all said, what physically exists at 862 shows a pool located seaward. So from a matter of physical impact, not only with respect to the characteristics of the neighborhood, all pools being located on the seaward side of the dwellings, but from an environmental or potential impact on the bluff, it seems to me that the application that we now have for option number one is the best practicable alternative. Option number two, as was previously stated, would have... Issues associated with being closer to the lot line on the west side of the property. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. East side of the property. And would, frankly, not be consistent with the neighborhood. And, frankly, also with respect to its functionality, given how it's located, it would be shaded by the home. Option number three is not practicable at all because it would necessarily require encroachment. So we're really confronted with options number one and number two. And from what I'm hearing is that our submission of the permit associated with 862 apparently was not the subject of a ZBA formal approval. Okay. But that said, we submit that the same considerations of the criteria associated with the issuance of a variance, apply here, and that is to have the pool located in front of the proposed residence. And as was indicated before, all of us, rightfully so, are interested in potential impacts on the bluff. We are going to be moving the existing... I'm sorry. Actually, demolishing the existing house with the pilings, okay, which go far deeper than the existing house. Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. fully within, comfortably within the envelope of the disturbance. So there would not be an adverse environmental impact associated with the construction of the pool relative to its distance from the actually regulated area of the hazard line. And that alone, whether or not 862 was the subject of ZBA approval, in my view, is beside the point. In my view, it's form over substance here by saying that 862 was not the subject of a ZBA application or permit, and therefore it follows that what we're proposing to do for our property is somehow incompatible with environmental regulations or criteria or incompatible. Or incompatible with the characteristics of the neighborhood or the physical conditions of this property. So I don't believe, I submit, that the apparent not obtaining the permit with respect to 862 should be the deciding factor, but rather what physically exists for 862, what we're proposing to do for our property, and that our property will not have, given that we are, moving the house with the pilings for the land board, will not have any adverse impact on the line. And that therefore we satisfy the appropriate criteria under the code for the issuance of a 219 permit. Could I ask you a question? You just said that option 3 encroaches upon the wetland. I'm trying to see where that is. No. Option 3 doesn't. That's what he said. I'm sorry. I want to make sure. You said you couldn't do it because it was encroaching on the wetland. No. [transcription gap] Yeah, that just missed. But it has nothing to do with it. So I want to understand the reason for option 3, why it can't be done. Well, option 3 kind of, well, two things. One, the pool is rotated and put into the side yard. I understand that. Right. So that is not typical in context with the nature of the community. It's reduced in size, and it reduces the size of the patio as well as put the pool in, shadow. Yep. But it's a pool. 88% of the day. I'm sorry. I didn't hear. Oh, I was saying. But you're still getting a pool. There's no pool there now. Right. So it's maybe not the ideal pool. But if. I guess my question is. So I can understand where we're going with this. If it was option 3 and a likelihood of moving forward. Or. Only option 1. So. [transcription gap] So. [transcription gap] I mean, if we're going to get denied, like you said, you know, they do want a pool. I feel it's, you know, part of the, you know, I guess the, you know, in context with homes on the water here, it's a big feature and a big part of their family. So, you know, if that's the only choice, that's the only choice, right? Okay. I think we have some understanding now. Council, I don't know where we go from there, but. Well, you know, you have to give the zoning board direction right now. If you're holding steadfast with option one, they'll make a determination either tonight or reserve decision. If you're offering them an alternative design, I'm sure the zoning board would give you an opportunity. To resubmit new plans. But it's really on the applicant, and you really have to make a decision tonight. Well. I mean, I would want to speak to, you know, the owners and get their, you know, feedback on it. I mean, it's a hard decision to make right now. I mean, it doesn't seem like, you know, option one is on the table. So, I don't know. We can adjourn. I mean, if we're going with option three, are we still part of it? You might need an area variance for side yard setback relief. I'd have to double check that. For in option three? In option three. But you wouldn't be required to be before this board for relief from 219. Maybe I defer to council on that. Ann Marie? Yeah. Correct? Correct. Obviously, you're well aware that the significance of the coastal erosion hazard zone and the requirements of 219 are strict. So, as council to the zoning board and speaking for the members, it's your responsibility. It's your decision. If you tell the zoning board tonight it's option one, then so be it. You know, but we're not, it's not going to be continuously adjourned to rehear and rehear identical arguments. Well, yeah. I mean, we made adjustments. No, I appreciate the due diligence that you did. I know that you did. We also moved it considerably. Okay. Right.
I mean, I think we would, I think we would want the board to consider option two, which is in between option three, option one and option three. There is some incursion into the 50-foot setback.
I mean, so, you know, if I get this correct, I'm going to have to move it. I'm going to have to move it. [transcription gap] We're not in front of the ZBA if we go for option three. Correct. Unless you need relief for a side yard setback, which it's a different section of code. Yeah. And area variance relief has a reduced standard than the 219.
Okay. Okay. So, how do we, do we ask you to vote? On option two? Or do we present? Well, you can inform the ZBA tonight that you're withdrawing option one and requesting an adjournment to represent a different plan. If that's what you want to do. Or by the way, stick with option two as it is. But we want to talk to the client. Yeah. I mean, I think, yeah, we would want to reserve. I think the best move, we're considering option number two. But I think the best practical. On our side, frankly, is to discuss it. To discuss this with the client. And report back to the board.
You're going to discuss with the client whether we're going to do two or three, you folks? Well, we feel that, as we stated earlier, that option number two is, is an alternative that does not pose environmental impacts associated with the bluff. And takes into account, as compared to option number three, is, takes into account the proper use of a pool relative to the property, which is, and characteristics of the neighborhood as well. So, that's why we're inclined to go with option number two. But we do have to discuss this with the client. Could they discuss with the client and then correspond with us? We can set a date for a reserved decision, or do you want to adjourn it? Yeah. No. So, if you're not withdrawing option one, then we'll mark it for reserved decision for 2-13. We can do 2-13 or 2-25. And then we'll mark it for 2-27, or the next upcoming zoning board meetings. And may I say, Mr. Mayor? With the caveat, if the zoning board of appeals agrees, reserved decision 2-13, unless council advises us within seven days of withdrawal of option one and the resubmission of a different plan. So, that's a no. We'll have to do full head-to head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head Where is the side yard issue for this? So you're showing a 10-foot, 6-inch side yard setback? That's the pool. That's the pool. Yeah, so we have accessory structure setbacks for every residential zoning use district, and we have requirements from property lines and also from any other structure. I just have to double-check the zoning on this because I don't know it off the top of my head. Yeah, I think we checked the pool. The pool and the house are different setbacks? Correct. Okay. Yeah, we checked that. Okay. Yeah, I'll check it. Obviously, I'd want to discuss with the chief building inspector because he would be reviewing the survey just because, you know. And if it's needed, we'll have to make that a proper application. Correct, because it's a different section of the code. It's actually in Chapter 301. It deals directly with the residential zoning use district. But you might not need it. So I'd have to double-check. We'll go back first. We'll go back. If I may, with respect to the reserve decision, we would like to, as I understand it, we will have the opportunity to state in writing the withdrawal of option number one and the consideration of another option, which, for the sake of argument right now, is option number two, or some variation thereof. I would consider both those options, two and three. I'm sorry, sir? I would consider both your options. Yes. Two and three. Oh, well, all right, all right. Well, we have two and three or a blend of two and three, I think. Yeah, and, counsel, you should know that we looked over all three options, and the board liked option three as opposed to option one and two. Well, I certainly get that impression listening to the questions posed by counsel as well. But I do believe that there are reasons why option two satisfies the criteria. And as compared to option number three is the best practicable alternative under the criteria the board considers regarding the issuance of a 219 permit. But we will get back to you regarding two or three or a blend of two and three. So before you leave, the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to take a vote on reserve decision for February 13 with the caveat that if counsel, I'm sorry, if counsel contacts planning within seven days to submit an amended plan, then the reserve decision will be held at bay pending review of the new plan. So moved. Second. All right. Moved and seconded. Mr. Portia. Aye. Mr. Weske. Aye. Mr. Zilla. Aye. And Mr. Barnes. Mr. Barnes. Oh, he's muted. He's muted. Aye. There we go. And I vote aye. Aye. So. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck. Stay warm. Okay. Lastly, we have appeal number 2024-034, Fisher Realty Group, 940-946 West Main Street, Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Map Number 600-124-024. Okay. [transcription gap] Okay. [transcription gap] Okay.
Okay.
Okay. where proposed floor area ratio is 77.5 percent or 200 100 square feet and maximum permitted is 60 percent or 154 920 square feet chapter 301 uh 162a where proposed impervious surface coverage is 59.26 percent 153 18 square feet and the maximum permitted is 40 108 280 square feet and chapter 301-162b where proposed landscaped area is 40.75 percent 105 167 square feet and the minimum required is 50 percent 129 100 square feet this was adjourned from december 12 2024. welcome good evening members of the board council and staff my name is richard eisenberg i'm of counsel to the myers-wazee law firm 990 stewart avenue garden city new york um we had requested the opportunity to review our application and resume the hearing after our meeting before you on december 12th as a result of the various comments and questions from the board and council we have in fact elected to modify our application and i'd like the opportunity first to distribute the new proposed site plan briefly discuss it and then turn over um uh testimony to our uh project architect i'm here tonight with mr ray dickhoff who is the project manager and mr with and with mr chanluski who is the project architect mr frank fisher who is the principal of the applicant is also present and of course would be available to answer any questions that the board or council might have uh might i step up with uh marty and uh just briefly introduce the changes thank you
thank you
oh they got yeah they have it right up on the screen
you will recall that um we have put in an application for the need for the landscaped areas requirement the impervious surface requirement the far requirement
as a result of questions and comments raised in december um we have been able to revisit the parking requirements for the non-nuisance use that is our proposed building number two and um we have been able to determine that we can substantially reduce the parking while maintaining parking as a matter of right and at the same time free up a substantial amount of value which will allow us i believe to comply with the landscape area provision also as a matter of right let's just show the highlighted portions you can see it the key change the key change to our modifications is shown in the green area for building number two where there's a substantial reduction in the required parking uh still still in compliance with code for the non-nuisance use and a recapture of space which we would like to see in the future and we would like to see it in the future and we would propose to utilize to satisfy the landscape uh area uh requirements uh we believe it meets both the 50 and 40 percent uh requirements and as a result if the uh board uh is satisfied that uh our revised proposal in fact does that we would ask for a finding that uh there's no longer a need for any variance under the landscaped area requirements and that that portion of our application would be deemed moot uh the remaining two requirements for which we're asking uh variances are the impervious surface and the um far requirement uh i'm going to defer in a moment to marty and uh what i can say however is uh the revised proposal represents a very material reduction in the requested uh variances for uh both those uh code sections and in addition we have brought with us today some research we have done uh particularly with regard to the um uh impervious uh is it the impervious surface or the the impervious surface requirement where we have been able to identify a number of uh prior decisions by the board uh which are in line with or in fact more generous than what we are requesting uh for that zoning requirement there are no other material changes to speak of we have added an additional inter-parcel connector on the outside of the property adjoining building one and building two which we believe is an important uh plus and uh no material changes to the um look or aesthetics of uh the uh two proposed properties from from uh street level uh finally just one comment and i'm sure marty will be able to discuss this in more detail the um far issue is reliant exclusively on our request for subsurface parking you may recall that at the december meeting we indicated that we do believe there is a substantial call for subsurface vehicle parking we have as everyone knows a lot of seasonal summer residents who come from all over the country from the north fork and the south and they would have an opportunity to store their vehicles for the appropriate fee during the winter months travel out here pick pick up their vehicles and utilize them and also frankly we believe there will be a market for transients coming in as riverhead continues its extraordinarily positive development particularly with regard to young professional people coming in as new staffers at the pbmc expansion we think there are going to also be people who will have a vehicle who may who may find that they don't need it and for more than occasional use so we believe that's also a market and based on those factors we would we have continued to request that we have subsurface storage parking for vehicle storage only detailed to the revised numbers so without further ado with the commission of the board and council i'd like to turn this over to our project architect who will give you the calculations on the revised requests for impervious surface and far so without further ado with the commission of the board and council would like to turn this over to our project architect who will give you the calculations on the revised requests for impervious surface and far and also alert us to the research we have done on recent approvals thank you am i still sworn in i believe so yeah yeah so can i stay here or no stay right there mics are alive so uh i'd like to thank the board for uh the input that we had at the previous meeting it proved to be very helpful um after the previous meeting i i went back and i really had a lot to do with what was said about the landscaping and the entrance into riverhead and what i did uh ann marie is i went back and i reread the code and i realized you know the code section that we were requesting a waiver on on the landscaping the 50 percent uh
is subsection b subsection a is the dimensional chart which as you had mentioned in an earlier appeal that's a lesser standard uh subsection b was the issue about the landscape requirement so realistically that that additional subsection goes beyond a strictly eight-dimensional waiver or a request it's actually got legislative intent for uh legislative intent for achieving a certain goal aesthetical along that corridor entering riverhead and so we realized that and um went back to my client we sat down and this sketch that i have here is an extremely interesting sketch because this is actually my brain work there's a lot of brain damage here after the last meeting i sat down and if you look on here there are little calculations and there's areas where i got yellow where i'm moving buildings and i got all kinds of things i'm doing with different colors and calculations to work this through my brain okay what we did is as a result of this hard work the heavy lift we came up with the plan that was just previously up here and i'll put both copies up and this particular plan which is here i don't need the full topic just the bottom one this particular plan is the result of all that hard work uh we were able to achieve 50 on the landscaping as a matter of fact now the landscaping will be over 50 it'll be 50.07 was 40.75 so we've really done the hard work originally there were each building had a vehicular access on both sides we eliminated that so now there's two on the outside and one vehicular access in the center but so that eliminates a lot of paving which was very good and also still with the cross access allows for fire department access and the event of emergency response etc so as mr. Eisenberg had said as a result of this effort that request for the variance is no longer required we've eliminated that request completely as it goes back to the impervious surface appeal the colors up here the green are areas that were previously pervious impervious that in a pervious and as we adjusted the plan you can also see some areas that were previously landscapes became part areas it was a balancing part of that hard work that we did so similarly our impervious surface appeal just walk me through that I'm not following that so or are you getting that effect on the green I'm not following yes so actually if you look at the top one here you see that the red line here yes this is the previous plan that we had submitted to you you see the building and the parking is all around the building okay that red line on the new plan is here back in the lawn area so basically what was parking back here all this green is now landscape there it's not green space we've completely reduced the amount of impervious surface so that we've gained 50% of the landscape there so just be sure visually depicted if you look at everything in green less what's in orange that's all that increase that's all that increase in landscaping that is correct that's all that increase in landscaping that is correct so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so number now the impervious number is now 49.03 previously we were requesting a very nice point to six what's that previous the impervious you're requesting was 59.26 so we have reduced the requested appeal by over 50% so what we were here last time asking for we have pulled that back by more than fifty percent one of the ways with that reasons that we were able to do that also was there were some other housekeeping issues that were completed by the town in the one of the recent code revisions that was a Henry the the revision where there are revisions as a result of the industrial yeah so there was a whole bunch of them one of them was to also read clarify the definition of what the wholesale business non-nuisance was that is permitted here basically what that said was that they redefined it so the new code okay and this was adopted on November 7th of 24 so the new code basically says that any industry which is not determined to be detrimental to the environment in which is located by reason of the emission of smoke noise odor dust dirt gas glare etc and which trap and traffic which will will be used in the future and also the new code was to also say that any business which does not include any open storage yard or outdoor processing materials any business general and all emphasize this here generally consisting of storage of large quantities of goods so it clarified that that the building number two is not an industrial building where people have or they're in their processing you know that was I think something and we that they want to clarify right so that changed the parking we were using the one to three hundred in the parking schedule to use for that so we use the one to three hundred it says in the code if it's not defined in the parking schedule use one to three hundred so we had that which pushed up our parking load now with it being a building that's exactly what the town wants with you know the front area being display in office and the back in storage it now uses the storage parking so that which is which is one to five one per five thousand one for a thousand for the first five thousand and then it goes higher than that afterwards so so that allowed some of the parking areas that were on the plan to also reduce in addition to moving the driveways around so it was a pretty hard lift it was a lot of work and it was really directly in result to the interaction we had with the board at the last meeting the now as in terms of the impervious surface requirement going back again I just want to bring up the point that at the March 21st of 24 playing board meeting which was a work session meeting that is the meeting that previously we had the application we had previous pavers as part of the parking area at the meeting of 321 24 in order for that to be incorporated into a site plan the Planning Board has to authorize it they have to look at it say yes we agree they agreed to it at that meeting they said yes we looked at this parcel we agree you can do that so after that was agreed to by the Planning Board at that meeting subsequent to that on local law 15 204 was adopted August 26 2024 to revise that plan we then received on 9 24 9 4 24 an email from Greg Bergman that states please also be advised that your site plan must be amended to reflect the newly adopted code change regarding pervious payment pavement for the purposes of zoning compliance pervious pavers are now considered impervious that code change with regard to the current plan we're showing you is the reason that we would need a variance if that code change hadn't happened with the ruling we had previously gotten from the Planning Board we would not be exceeding the pervious service right so that was strictly caused from when we started the application it was accepted to do one way the code change during the review and we now are subject to a much stricter requirement with regard to the impervious service so technically you know I know that you were before the planning board I watch a lot of their meetings straw polls are not approvals You know, it's just, that wasn't an approval. And quite honestly, the impervious surface provisions, even prior to the amendment, weren't designed for large-scale wholesale, Costco's, the things like that. I mean, you know, I'm sure you're aware there was a large-scale medical office in Aquebog that was proposing to increase the FAR because they would be able to, quote, create impervious parking. And the code was never designed for that. Otherwise, we'd have our shopping centers all large gravel lots. But anyway, just a clarification. When you say they approved, it wasn't a vote to approve. There was a poll, you're correct. A straw poll. However, that poll was required by planning to move forward with the application. That's part of the requirements of the code also. The approving board would have to say, okay, we can keep going. They can do this. So, and that's what happened that night. I did leave one thing up here. We are simply saying that for purposes of determining whether or not this board would exercise its authority. It's discretion that we went through that process and there was a code change in the midst of the process. We are not trying to suggest that a straw poll becomes a formal completed vote. We are suggesting that we have been going through the process, trying to respond. Marty will show us in just a moment the, I think, material deduction in our request on this item. And we did that. We didn't do anything wrong. We didn't do anything wrong. to the code clarification or code change that's all we're saying but we are saying that that's a valid reason for the board to exercise its discretion in our favor if it means that it and also it i agree exactly with what you're saying and on the other side of the coin it didn't prohibit it that's why the code was amended to clarify it um what we just gave you is uh also the night we were here on the 20 on december there were two other appeals that included impervious surface uh what we did is we went back in 2024 and it turns out that there were 11 appeals for additional impervious surface the average uh additional impervious surface appeals uh average 94.81 percent of additional impervious surface our appeal which has been reduced in half is now an appeal for an additional 22.57 percent of impervious surface so you know originally we were up to almost 50 percent of additional now we're down to 22.57 we've reduced it and during the year of 2020 there are 11 appeals for an additional impervious surface with an average request of 94.81 percent um just question so what's next so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so requested additional percentages for whatever the reason but maybe but it was request it's just a clarification of 11 right yeah appeals during 2024 there were 11 that had an average of 94.1 percent requested no I I appreciate that you did the work but it would have a much stronger impact I'm sure council would agree if they were commercially zoned properties if they didn't involve pre-existing non-conforming small lots one can always desire more definitive data any question on any of these hearings I don't disagree the point you're making is that our now substantially reduced request is on the very modest side of these approvals that they do include commercial as well as residential applications and just to speak to the one important point you made council this building is a hundred proposed building is 150 by 140 feet it's not a shopping center or big box in any regard so we believe that the change down to the 22 percent of of of [transcription gap] of [transcription gap] ! so so
so so so so buildings individually building one is the building as Richard had said previously we had presented information at the last appeal that the need has been identified for vehicle storage one of the important things to keep in mind here is for these types of facilities they are now not the storage buildings we just pull up in as a garage door you go into the buildings there are elevators there are hallways all of these things that people that utilize the storage facility get a cart they go in they go up to their unit wherever it is so you couldn't utilize the first floor of the building for parking because functionally kills the building you've got to have people go into the first floor circulate throughout the building for the storage use the only place to put the automobiles is in a lower storage facility like this no on a basement floor that doesn't affect the functionality of the storage building above so that has been established in terms of the market and the way to achieve it is to do that basement area also one thing that's very important with regard to building one is that the additional far request is totally below grade so the additional far is underground and it's not visible at all as to building to only approximately 10,000 square feet of building twos basement is in excess of permitted if they are we have our building we have a total allowable that they are of 149 I means 154920 above grade we have 144 750 and the the building footprints below greater 54 600 of that area that's below grade 10,000 of it is actually would be allowable if they are if it was above grade you know it's it's as of right so some of our as of right FAR is also in the basement of building two so it's not only all additional area in basement two it does include some of our permitted that they are in the basement of building two again both buildings are completely below grade and that's why we feel that the appeal for the additional FAR since we there is certainly need for the space is really in concert with the legislative intent for the visual impact in that corridor coming into Riverhead that's what the whole landscaping 50% item is in the code you know they want it to be more landscaped and more open. How do we build that? [transcription gap] How do we build that? Having the building the additional FAR completely below grade has absolutely no adverse or additional impact on them on the property if the basements weren't there the FAR above grade is the same FAR above grade and it doesn't change visually one one bit the planning report that we have dated March 6 24 specifically states that these types of uses are very low impact there the storage type uses are quote self storage is a low intensity use in terms of traffic generation and use so it's a very low impact use that's from Mr. Bergman's planning memo on the project also in one of the previous appeals that was before this board and that was previously last that was previously last that was previously last that was previously last here here here it's here it's 2023 009 it's 2023 009 it's 2023 009 that was for the storage location on the main road in Aqaba that storage facility the findings of this board were that the variance sort would not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and that the requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical environment conditions of the neighborhood so it's a very low impact use that's from Mr. Bergman's planning memo on the project also in one of the previous appeals that was previously last here's a clear example so this is just so clear that hearing referred to the fact that it's a very low impact use especially you know the traffic they are going from the merge 5825 to 105 that use was allowed here because it's such a low impact and that's a very tough track just for relativity that appeal increased the far and actually this is storage building to storage building increase the FAR by 149 point three percent over what is permitted and we are requesting twenty point six six percent over what is permitted so there's certainly a precedent there I'm sure that this is good myself would be happy to answer any questions so right to the board just clarification here original request on the FAR was seventy seven point five percent maximum permitted is sixty percent correct I listened to everything you said but I didn't get the hard numbers what's the relief regarding FAR now the FAR what happens at all we only went down from seventy seven point five to seventy seven point two that hasn't changed much but there are the change on that was actually if you notice so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so in order to create the green area which we like you had to eliminate a lot of it looks like you had to eliminate a lot of parking space i think in building two you had 700 and somewhat parking spaces didn't you storage i don't know what building two was building two that's not the surface are you talking about this the you're talking about this the surface parking the parking required for the yeah the surface parking on building two how many parking spaces do we do we have do we have now with the new plan how many did we lose uh the total required parking is 51 cars that's how many we have that's for both parcels uh parcel one building one requires a uh total of 18.52 cars so we rounded that up and we're going to go to the next one and we're going to go to the next one and we're going to go to the next one and we're going to go to the next one and we're going to go to 19 cars for building one building two includes the first floor office area toward the front of the building is 21 cars the mezzanine office area at 150 is 26 cars and the warehouse areas uh included an additional uh five 8.5 cars brought us to 50.3 cars required total um so with that so with that uh we have provided that amount of parking for both buildings how much was for the warehouse you mean building one storage or the warehousing of building two building two has two levels above ground and then one below ground no but that's building one that's still that's the big storage building the one on the right that's built that that requires uh 19 cars total which is very consistent with the storage uh property because storage properties are you i mean i've used them you go there once every couple of weeks maybe you pull in you go to your unit you grab something you leave the other building would have a similar small amount of parking if it was strictly the storage which has been defined now by that code revision that clarified that it was storage the heavy parking for the building two is the front area which is the office and the and the retail areas so you have to calculate them separately
what's the height of building one uh they they're both at the uh permitted height so both buildings are are 34 feet the the the i want to say the antique car storage but however you want to call you know originally we talked about antique cars car storage in the basement i don't remember how many spaces are there for that well it depends on the uh who's going to rent it if they want to have you know an area for their own cars because you really you wouldn't lay it out like a parking lot because what happens there is people part full in tandem so there may be like 12 cars parked where you know you'd have to move six of them to get the one out of the back but that's you know they only get them on occasion the way that they you know some people have 12 cars that they keep under there so i think that leads into another question is this more of like is it operated like a parking garage like you drive down there and somebody goes and gets your car or is it like i got a whatever 57 corvette and i'm renting a spot and putting it in here is that right it's really it's really more for the people that you know people have a 500 000 limit and they have a place out on june road they're not going to leave it you know under a beach house in june road which has break breakaway flood walls they're going to get it yeah when they're not here they're going to want to have some place to keep it that's the type of storage you're looking at here so as richard had said if somebody does have a car uh and they they find that they don't need it except for you know occasions taking your trip or whatever instead of having it in the driveway they may so there's 80 somewhat individual spots that could potentially be rented uh yes correct i don't know how exactly the business model would work out uh in terms of how they work it per you know per client or you know per se and if you come to get your car you're going to have to pay for it and you're going to have to pay for it and you're going to have to head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head that you used to get there, you're going to put it in the spot where you take your storage? I wouldn't think so. I mean, you know, every time I actually had one of my cars in storage up on Flanners Road, so when I went to get it, I had to have somebody drop me off, you know, and I took the car and left. Well, we do want to emphasize, this is vehicle storage. It is not intended to be any kind of public parking facility at all. At all, right. In other words, you can't go there with your car and just say, hey, listen, I'm going to take a walk to Kangaroo Outlet and leave my car here. No. This will be at a pricing scheme appropriate to the use for the uses we described for vehicle storage. It's not going to be for any kind of public parking. So is that the my space? In essence, I say I want 5,000 square foot for whatever I've got. Is it then cordoned off? I'm just trying to understand. I don't know that it really matters here at the end of the day, but is it one large paved area that's underneath the building, or I come in and I say, I've got a lot of space in there, and I'm in a Lamborghini, or I've got something that's worth a million dollars. I want this amount of space where I can park it in. Is there a roll-up door inside there, so you have to do more construction inside of it based off of the lease? These uses have some flexibility. It's possible that there would be collectors who might have multiple vehicles. They might want to see if we could get consistent with code a kind of security fencing. It's not a good idea to have a car parked inside the area. There might be others who simply want the car parked and don't care whether it takes time to have it retrieved. You want to retain the flexibility because until we start marketing this usage, we can't precisely be sure whether or not the typical customer would want to store one car or eight cars. This is not a situation where you're going to be stacking cars like on lifts and things like that? No. I can't imagine that the heights or the structural would allow for anything like that. Do we know how many parking spots we lost around Building 2? Roughly. With the revised application? Yeah, sure. The previous application, the total parking provided was 104 cars. On the current application, the parking provided is 51. It was reduced. It was reduced in about half. I do want to emphasize that we are trying to put up a building which will be marketed to primarily tradespeople. And with a 140-foot depth, we are going to be a very suitable use for someone who wants to put a showroom in the first 40 or 50 feet and then a storage area in the rear, whether it's tile or carpet or plumbing, or lighting. And for those tenants, effectively the majority of the building or a little bit more than half of the building, it's going to be warehousing. We believe the reduction in the surface parking does not pose any kind of issue. And once again, we believe that with the recalculations, we have met that issue as a matter of fact. And that is also very consistent if you look at the plan, the revised plan. The... So, Marty, if I could... Can I interrupt you for one minute? Justin, can you make sure that Leroy is on? He is. He's listening. He's just muted. That's consistent with the double-loaded row of parking in the front because that's where people are going to come in that, you know, they're going to look at a prefab fireplace unit and they have displays and they want to place an order. So, the office upstairs, they place the order and then they have these prefab units, you know, stored in the back and I'll deliver it, you know, next Tuesday or whatever. So, it's very consistent that that's really the... more of the public parking area. And then around the back for the storage employees, etc., you would have the back parking area. Are the footprints of each building, like the square footage, the footprints, have they been modified from version one to version two at all? Only the storage building, the building one, very, very little, only because of the recon... I'm sorry, building two, very little because of the reconfiguration of the entrance to the lower level for the parking. I'm glad you mentioned that, though, because there is one other thing. And I think it's really important. The way that this has been reviewed by the building official, they agree with our square footages. The ramp area in building one is not included as FAR footage because it's a drive area. You know, it's basically just a driving ramp. We had shown it that way. We noted on the application that that's not considered FAR because it's not, you know, it's sort of a strange area. And it was... When they looked at it, they, you know, concurred with that because it was very clear the way it was on the application. Just as a footnote that... So Andreas made that determination, not Greg? Yeah, I mean, it's 3,520 additional square feet. So if it was approved this way and then all of a sudden the official said, oh, we should have counted that as FAR, we would be, you know, we would actually have a 3,520 square foot shortage. I actually made a note of that to Clara. I made a note of that to Clara. [transcription gap] So that the action by this board would take that into account.
That's our submission. If there are any other questions, we'd be happy to respond. And we do thank you for your patience. Thank you. [transcription gap] And actually, thank you for the first meeting, the comments, because it really... When I went back and looked at it, it really is a... The legislative intent and the code that how they want these properties developed and in rereading it, realized, said, you know what? I mean, frankly, if I told my client, I said, if I was on a zoning board and that special provision was in there, that's legislative intent that goes beyond just dimension for the landscaping, I wouldn't authorize a variant. So I told them, I said, we're going to change it because I'm not going to go in for it for you because I wouldn't get a few if I was on a board. So we did the hard work in order to... In response to the dialogue that we had at this first meeting. And we do appreciate that.
So, just a couple comments and questions.
Before the Zoning Board of Appeals wrapped up, in the prior meeting, I believe it was the chairman and possibly one other member of the board had asked you if you would consider, quote, scaling down the building size. Comment, so question, you know, that doesn't really appear to have changed. Comment, obviously, you did an excellent job with the landscaping. And really, it's evident you took a hard look at the impervious surface. So I just leave that question lingering because that was one of the final comments, words, or direction given from members. I think in giving it the hard look and you know, I think it's important that we do this as long as we have as the developer, ourselves as planners. I think we achieved what the board is looking for without having to reduce the FAR. We were really able to achieve that. The FAR, if it weren't there, it's so low impact, it wouldn't change the building at all. Matter of fact, if there was one thing that would happen if the FAR wasn't permitted in the basement, you know, additional FAR, we have 10,000 feet of FAR in a basement. We'd probably take the ramp area and make it more built-in. We'd probably have more building volume above grade because we would have, you know, it would be as a right. So the same exact footprint, same exact floor plan, everything would be the same except for the fact that there would actually be more building volume above grade because we'd be entitled to it. So, you know, with that being the case, we were able to achieve, I think, what the board desired and what my client desires through that heavy lift that we did. I think it's mutually beneficial to both parties here. So this building is still going to be a 200,000 square foot building. Is that the way you understand this? Taking into account the cellar space. Yes, correct. There is the total building area for both buildings is 199,350 square feet, 144,780 square feet. So that's the total of the building. So we have 150 square feet of which is above grade and 54,600 which is below grade. So we have 144,750 above grade. We're permitted above grade FAR of 154,920 square feet. So we're 10,000 square feet less above grade than the permitted FAR. So we could actually add, you know, that additional footage above grade. But that's, you know, then it starts getting back to not being, not being in the spirit of that legislative intent of how this area presented itself when we enter into Riverhead. We really took that to heart based on the comments and, you know, the expertise as far as looking at the code that Ann Marie had expressed to us about, you know, I realized it. I went back, I reread it. I said, well, this is not just, it was funny, one of the early comments she mentioned about dimensional things versus things that have more importance. And after the last meeting when I reread the code a couple of times, I said that 50% number, you know, that's not the number of the area of the area that we're looking at. That's legislative intent. That's for the beautification of entering the town. And that was really what we did the heavy lift on. And we were able to achieve that and still maintain the footage that, you know, for the benefit of my client and development of the property. So just give me the number again for the square footage above grade 144. 144750. [transcription gap] assuming assuming that does assuming that does not have to include the 3520 square feet which is that ramp and building one that's that I didn't have that as part of the they are just as an understanding of the above ground still is available as of right even if buildings requires us to include that correct right but it just bumps up the floor area exactly a little bit it's a little housekeeping thing when I write can have it and I said you know what I better bring that up because so far when we reviewed it with staff the planning staff they looked at it they got together that's the ramp you know but then I thought about a lot but it's within the building you know envelope so is it far and I never asked the question of them they never said it wasn't but I being very thorough with the application I said I've got make sure we mention that because I right now us and the planning department have assumed that that's not building footage so maybe we can get a clarification on that and it is we would keep the application the way it was as a matter of fact I think the original application because we went down slightly I think I mean the original application was it was a little bit more but I just did just want to have that in there as a point of reference for clarification one last question is the basement condition space for the car parking is a condition space that is correct condition I mean these are building two will have storage associated with the you know the businesses there so they're gonna you know want them enough condition space it's very good because it's not outdoor storage you know at this location so that's a very good thing and of course for the for the automobile storage especially the type of clientele that's expected there are they only conditions so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so in these buildings? No, no. No, this is storage. We're not requesting any kind of shop approval for that work and we will have license agreements which are properly and precisely drafted with our customers. I can say that because I'll wind up doing that work. But we know that what we would want to do is have license agreements precisely worded so that people know they are storing operating vehicles and that there are a number of activities which one might informally think one might be able to do, which we are going to tell them, no thanks, you can't do that. This is for storage and only storage. It's not a public garage and there will not be any repair or maintenance work allowed in the sub-circuit area. And that's also reflective in the big building code because that's a different object. You get into the repair and that's a whole different ballgame. And that's not what this room is supposed to do. How many units are in the above ground storage? Uh, maybe not that many. Roughly, roughly. 700. 700? It sounds like a lot but a lot of people rent like a 5x5 with a roll up, you know, where they just have files and things that they want. It sounds like a lot but it's about 700. Some are 10x10, 10x20, some are 8x5, different sizes. And how many units are rented out? I don't remember in Building 2. Two. Two. Units in Building 2 is five. So 150 feet. I'm sorry. Six. Six. Six 25 foot wide units. Just to be specific. Five is the concept plan. It's conceivable that when we are actively marketing, someone might need what we refer to as a double space for the purpose of having more storefront. I don't want to make it sound as if five is the precise set in stone number. But the concept plan for building two is that we need more storage. So, I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go. And I'll go ahead and go. [transcription gap] I'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 [transcription gap] picture up there good does he have snow he's reading but when I go to
stay
so because of the and if it isn't yeah
ok ok that's John and you so I think he's only boards recommendation is going to be your I'm going to get it I'm going to take these plans back I want an updated statement staff report from planning I want to make sure your numbers are good I'm really not focusing on that 3520 what I'm focusing on is the parking and the other dimensions because I don't want you to keep coming back and going in circles and circles if I can actually out give you this is actually a current copy I can deliver additional copies to the planning office I can make additional copies I'm using just responses meetings I here right to get to what so I mean I know you've been waiting but you know with this application so we're going to want to update its staff report from Greg just to kind of confirm everything you presented parking calculations are correct so what do you think so what do you think so what do you think so what do you think so what do you think so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so that the staff report requires or ask for any additional information from us, will we have an opportunity to submit that in writing? Oh, absolutely. Very good. Yeah, the goal is, you know, I'd like the staff report in a week to 10 days if I could. So if anything is not matching the plan, it could be addressed. All right. Thank you. Before we adjourn, is there, I don't know if anyone from the audience, members of the public wanted to speak. I don't have anyone on Zoom, but. I think they're all with the same team. Right? Just wanted to make sure.
Okay. All right. So 227. Do we have anything else? I'll make a motion to adjourn. It's the 27th. Of February? Yep. Second. All right. Keep your patience this evening. Good night. [transcription gap] Move the second. And Mr. Portia. Aye. Mrs. Oeske. Aye. Mr. Zillow. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye. You all have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you. We have minutes. We have minutes for. It should be, let me just say, January 9th. We have minutes. Somebody move it? So moved for approval. Second. All in favor? Aye. [transcription gap] All right. Motion to adjourn. Make a motion we adjourn until February 13th. Second. [transcription gap] Second. All in favor? Aye. We're adjourned. Adjourned. Have a good day.
Thank you.