Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] Ready? We're ready. So the first appeal of the night is appeal number 2025-011, 1086 OCR LLC, 1086 Old Country Road in Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-108-3-19, shopping center zoning for use of cannabis retail dispensary, applicant requests, variances, and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-283.20, where the proposed site is located, located within 1,000 feet of a school, where no retail or on-site consumption establishment shall be established or located within 1,000 feet, measured from the nearest property lines of each of the affected parcels of any school, library, or daycare facility. Are you Martha? Martha? Yes. Please state your name and address. Yes. Good evening, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is Martha Reichert. I'm a partner at Toomey, Latham, Shea, Kelly, Dubin, and Corderwell. I head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head board knows your fundamental charge is to when granting area variances way whether not the benefits of the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community and here what we have is a property that is on within the commercial corridor three in the shopping center district that seeks to be used as a cannabis dispensary which is a permitted use so this is a conforming use for the zone and what we need is an area variance from the section of the code that requires a thousand feet from a school property here we are located 735 feet and so the request here is for a variance from that thousand foot setback you know in going through sort of the first criteria which is whether or not granting the variance will create an undesirable change in the character of the community or impact neighboring properties this is a commercial use in a commercial zone so i would say that because this is a permitted use there will be no impact to the character of the community or the the zone itself uh you know the comprehensive plan discusses the shopping district as um the shopping center zone as being you know characterized by medium-sized shops that make daily conveniences accessible to to consumers and residents with regard to the second uh criteria whether or not there'll be any sort of impact to the environment um again this is not a property that contains any sensitive environmental features it is conforming in all other respects to the cannabis regulations the property owner and the applicant stark enterprises llc they have a license from the new york state office of cannabis management and the property conforms to all state regulations including those under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under américans under including those which are designed to minimize risks of security, odor. They also address, you know, the New York State regulations address things in terms of how to keep cannabis from being attractive to those who are underage, right? There are restrictions on marketing, branding, packaging, et cetera. So, you know, going back to, again, the requested relief, which is from the 1,000-foot setback for the school, I think that if members of the board have made a physical visit to the site, you'll see that there is literally no visual or physical connection between the school property and the applicant's property. There is a four-lane highway being County Road 58. For the record, we've all visited the location. Thank you. But just to put it on the record, there is a large shopping center. And then the school property itself has multiple fences. Some are six-foot high. The tennis court area has a 10-foot high fence. So there is really. There is really no physical way to get between the school property and to County Road 58. So if you go by how someone would come along to the property from the school, you're looking at a distance of almost 0.7 of a mile. There is no direct visual connection. You cannot see the school from the applicant's property. And no one on the school grounds can see through the large shopping complex to see the dispensary itself. So. So with respect to, you know, again, whether or not the benefit outweighs the detriment to the community, I would say that here there is very little risk of, you know, someone on the school property being enticed to somehow, you know, end up at the cannabis dispensary in terms of what that 1,000-foot setback is meant to accomplish. Well, with respect to the adverse impact on the neighborhood, I didn't grow up in Riverhead and I didn't go to Riverhead High School or Middle School, but apparently it's a well-known fact that the. Students are traveling on foot to visit the shopping centers and have lunch on their breaks and the periods they're off, maybe even before school and after school where there's after school events. So I'd have to disagree because you're going to have students, maybe middle school, high school, walking past a cannabis dispensary to go have lunch or enjoy their period off. I mean, anybody comment on that? It seems to be. It seems to be. It seems to be a regularly traveled path. Sure. For students for a very, very long time. One of our board members, I think, graduated from one of the schools that we're referencing. Barely. Barely. Yeah. No, but I did go to school there and we always used to cut through the back and go across the street to Caruso's. Sure, but could students do that now with the level of fencing that exists between? Yes. Yes. Come on. Everybody's pretty creative in school. I'm sorry, what was that? We've all seen the pathway. There's a pathway that you can go around, but a baseball field. Sure, but that's, I guess, I mean, I think that the point of when you look at the regulations is all you have to do is look at the map that was included in the notice of disapproval, which shows that the property directly to the north, which contains the old TJ Maxx, the fine fair, supermarket, lemon tree. Um. You could have a cannabis dispenser. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't have a full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head full head as of right well that's kind of our point you know you said you don't know the pathways that the kids are walking but we do know I and I appreciate what we're trying to point out to you this is located on a pathway that children are gonna pass by regularly and just to correct you your reference to the TJ max that's all one lot which begins right at the route 58 correct but it has it has it fronts on County Road 58 right yeah right so everything on that site would be within the thousand foot setback and would not be permitted under our code well that's that's an interesting point I guess because my understanding is that the building department has issued a permit or is in the process of sending an applicant through site plan review where their property the initial property line is within one of the setbacks but they have told the applet that particular property owner that if they build an addition that meets the you know the 200 foot setback I think that applies there that they could have a dispensary there so I just I would say that the building department has interpreted that slightly differently for a different applicant I believe there's also other concerns too you know it's become a problem in schools kids are using marijuana they're taking gummies they're getting exposed to marijuana they're bringing the marijuana to school there's been a lot of episodes and a lot of problems and even in Riverhead particularly with kids using all types of different marijuana products I am we have articles here that I could cite that reference different schools throughout Long Island but some of them actually reference instances in the River head school district which is more specific to this location so it's an example so let me finish my point it's an ongoing problem that you know it's not really good for the community good for schools we're trying to distance kids from using marijuana while they're in school and passing by it and being exposed to it rather than promoted sure I I understand that I'm a parent myself but what I see they're just like whether we're looking at alcohol or any other substance that is legal but can be abused by minors yeah the articles that I have read have not indicated that those children somehow illegally purchased the cannabis products from a dispensary that broke the law and sold to someone under 21 you know I think that like anything whether you're looking at alcohol etc a lot of those very sad and tragic stories come from the fact that they probably obtained it because they may have grabbed it from their parents or someone older purchased it and gave it to them all of those things are violations of the law in fact they're violations of New York State Penal Code chapter 222 but I think it's a speculative harm here to say that if you grant a variance for a cannabis dispensary to be 735 feet away where a thousand foot setback is required that that will lead to illegal sales to minors you know it is still a crime again under chapter 222 of the New York Penal Code to vape consume use marijuana on school grounds what has changed though is when the New York State Legislature passed the marijuana regulation Taxation Act known as Myrta they repealed the former Penal Code chapter 221 and replaced of a 221 acknowledge 222 pardon me acknowledging that the sale of marijuana by you know between adults over the age of 21 is no longer a crime in New York State provided that it is done legally licensed in quantities that conform with the state law so I understand the concerns that people have with respect to marijuana whether it's illegal marijuana or legally sold marijuana making its way into the hands of people who shouldn't have it which is minors that same concern still exists for alcohol It still exists. I mean, we can look at, in terms of proximity, there's a vape shop, Gotham Vape Shop, right? Which is even closer to the Riverhead High School grounds. Male Speaker 2 That vape shop is not before us. Female Speaker 2 No, I understand the vape shop's not before us, but it is an establishment that is regulated where it cannot sell its products to people who are under the age of 21. And I think... Male Speaker 2 You indicated that, for lack of a better word, the balancing test is the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the community, correct? Female Speaker 2 Correct. Male Speaker 2 Obviously, we know what the benefit to the applicant is. The detriment to the community, obviously, and this is why they have the 1,000-foot barrier, is we're concerned about children exposed to that. You agree? Female Speaker 2 I agree that children being improperly exposed to marijuana is always a concern if they're underage, right? Male Speaker 2 But that's the... The reason they selected that boundary... Male Speaker 2 ...is that the boundary, so to speak, was we don't want kids exposed to it. Female Speaker 2 Sure. Male Speaker 2 All right. Female Speaker 2 That was the stated intent. I think that, and again, I discussed it in my memorandum of law, one of the things that was done when the commercial corridors were enacted in 2024 was it exempted those properties that are within a conforming zoning district and front on County Road 58, in this case, where we're in commercial corridor three, from the requirement to be 1,000 feet from any residential use. And I posit that many residents... Female Speaker 2 Okay. Female Speaker 2 ...have homeowners and children and minors, and yet the Town Board recognized that in order to have certain viable locations within the commercial core centers where the town does want to see these businesses, that again, there was no idea that there would be harm to the homeowners and the children by creating this exemption from residences if you are in one of the... Female Speaker 2 Okay. Female Speaker 2 ...designated commercial corridors. Female Speaker 2 So, Counsel, you used the word speculative. So, question. When the state adopted the drug-free school zones, 1,000 feet from the property lines of schools, is it your opinion that was speculative? Female Speaker 2 Well, it's also my opinion that if you look at the drug... Male Speaker 2 Oh, I asked it. Female Speaker 2 No. Female Speaker 2 Yes, we're not. Female Speaker 2 No, no, no. Wait, wait. Female Speaker 2 But there's a legal explanation of the adoption of the drug-free school zones, but what I can speak to is that it is not a violation of the drug-free school zones because the legal sale of marijuana is not a crime under the drug-free school zones act. The drug-free school zones act prohibits illicit and illegal sales of drugs, right? Female Speaker 2 Is it your opinion that when the state adopted a 500-foot rule, that was speculative? Male Speaker 2 Yes. Female Speaker 2 Yes. Male Speaker 2 Yes. The state adopted that rule after holding hearings, right? Promulgating rules and having them adopted. Didn't the town also have hearings, public forums, numerous times, and gave the entire community an opportunity to be heard, followed by open work sessions and a public hearing? It's my understanding that all of those things occurred. Okay. Okay. Similar to your defense of the state being not speculative, correct? Well, I think that you're conflating two different things as being speculative. What I said for the zoning board, and you are, of course, aware that a zoning board can't consider the speculative harm that might result from a violation, right, in the future if it grants the relief. And what I'm saying here is that this dispensary has a license. It's from New York State. New York State regulates very stringently how they operate. I don't know if any of the members of the board have been to any of the ones that have opened within the town of Riverhead, but you cannot just waltz in and peruse the store. You have to show ID just to get into the store. It is a very strictly and highly regulated and controlled industry. There are no live samples within the selling floor. Everything is controlled. And so the opportunity for a minor and someone who is underage to enter into that store and purchase marijuana is very slim, but also for a cannabis dispensary that violates the law, they run the risk of losing their license from the state, right? Can I just interrupt you? Sure. By your analysis, if it's so difficult for a child to go in and purchase marijuana, why not put it next to the school? But you say it's a bit. That they can't get it anywhere. Sure. I mean, I think that if you look again at the minimum of, or just the state standards, they look at marijuana in terms of, is the dispensary on the same street as the school? No, no, no. My question is, you basically told me it's bulletproof. That the kids can't go in there and get it. So why not put it right next to the school? Why not put it in the school cafeteria? If it's so hard for them to get. That's why the thousand foot is there. Sure. Well, I would say. That you're not supposed to sell, you know, controlled substances within school grounds. But before we get too far astray from the point that I would like to make is more along the lines of the state's regulation of cannabis is very, it's born out of the SLA laws, right? There are a lot of parallels. And I think that the state used it as guidance. But it definitely did craft these laws very differently because cannabis is a different industry. Right? They're interested in controlling how it rolls out, the economic development, the equity of it all. And it's for the same, very same reason that you don't see a liquor store right next to a school. As a society, we think that right adjacent to a school, we probably shouldn't have these same uses. And this is where zoning comes into play. And I see the point that you're making is that, again, we have zoning. We have minimum standards from the state. The state says that there shall be no. cannabis dispensary or cannabis establishment on the same street as a school within 500 feet of that school. And to your point, you stated that's the minimum standard, correct? That's the minimum standard for the state to set. Correct. You would agree that the town of Riverhead has a right to adopt zoning laws? I agree that under the town law, the town of Riverhead has the right to adopt zoning laws. I agree that the town of Riverhead has the right to supersede certain laws pursuant to its municipal home rule laws, provided that proper procedures are enacted. But all of that is subject to whether or not there has been preemption by the state. And especially in the case here, which I have presented with respect to a self-created hardship, is the fact that the New York State cannabis law, Section 131, is very clear that municipalities are preempted except for certain place, time, and manner regulations. And when the state promulgated its regulations, it has a very clear enumerated list. And varying the distances from schools, varying the distances between dispensaries does not appear on that list. Would you agree with that? No, I would not. You would not agree that it doesn't appear on the list? No, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with your interpretation of the law at all. And New York State has issued numerous guidance documents that you could find online, specifically expressing that the town has a right to adopt local zoning and the location of such licenses. So I respectfully disagree with you. I understand that we're not going to resolve that. I would like to resolve this... of these different documents issued by New York State and the Cannabis Control Board and they date back even to 2021 before the Cannabis Control Board even adopted regulations I think that there are also plenty of guidance documents that make it clear that the state has an overarching interest in controlling interspacial interspacing requirements the school requirements and all the things that it has set forth Henry we're not going to resolve this here tonight correct it's not elite and and and as I've sure zoning Board of Appeals but as I've put into my papers I have submitted this aspect because it is a live question whether or not the state has preempted Riverhead from varying these specific distances but I have submitted it with respect to the final criteria which is whether or not this is a self-imposed hardship because even if it is a self-created hard hardship again under Town Law 267 that is not a dispositive factor this is a balancing test this isn't like air like a use variance where I have to you know prove each element of the standards this is for the board to look as a board of equity whether or not relief is merited here in this case I'm sorry just go ahead no you go you know while we're on the same page so I'll head over to you so head over head head head I mean, are you agreeing or basically just admitting that this is at least partially a self-created hardship for your applicant? No, it's a criteria that I have to discuss. I do not believe it is a self-created hardship because of the potential that Riverhead's 1,000-foot setback has actually been preempted. We've come here seeking relief because I think that if you look at the circumstances on the ground, the way the lot is situated, the distance from the school, the actual distance from if you're walking along the street rather than cutting through illegally through someone else's private property, which is what you're indicating. I mean, we're talking about paths that are not legal for these high schoolers to be using if they're cutting through, right? Well, it's a much more simple question than that. When they bought this property, your client, right, they knew that there was a 1,000-foot setback. That's in place with the town of Riverhead, correct? A year and a half ago. When they purchased the property, they also knew that- Wait, I just want an answer to that question. Is that a yes? Did they know that? What, that Riverhead's regulations were in place? Yes, they also knew that they were being- Wait, wait, wait. Wait, let me finish. When they bought the property. When they bought the property, they knew that the town was in the process of revising its regulations because they had been, as it turned out, between all the different setbacks and everything else, that it had left the town. They knew that it had left virtually very few properties that were eligible to be used within the various zoning districts where it's permitted. Just want to get the timeline straight. They bought this property, in my notes, say February of 24. Is that accurate? I believe they closed in January of 24. The deed is- They signed a contract to buy it in February? No, no, because- No, before that. Before that. Before that. And you bought the property- Wait a minute. If you're going to speak, you've got to go- Yeah, you're not sworn in. You're not sworn in. You're not sworn in. But they bought the property with this purpose? This was the intended purpose of the purchase? Yes. It was in one of the permitted zones. Okay. So what's the date that Riverhead enacted the 1,000-foot rule? They enacted it in 2022. I think it was November. That's correct. That's correct. So it was- So under the zoning in 2022, would you agree that this would not have been a permissible site to locate cannabis retail? It would have been. It would have been a permissible site where you could seek variance relief to locate a cannabis site. It's not illegal. This is not a use variance. This is a permitted use pursuant to the town board. Yeah, but that's not the question we're asking you. No, you're asking me. We're asking you is when- No, please don't interrupt. Sure. We're asking you is when your client bought the property with the purpose of making this a cannabis dispensary. My records say February, you say June, but it doesn't even matter. It's 2024. But in 2022- But in 2022, there was a thousand foot rule in place that you knew about, correct? Correct. And does that seek anyone else that's here tonight from seeking a variance? No, but it leads into the argument that this is a partially self-created problem because you knew that you were going to have to get a variance from the thousand foot setback. True or not true? We knew that we could apply for one. We also knew that- That's a true and not true answer. Just is it true or not true? I didn't know what she's asking. I didn't know she's asking. [transcription gap] from that 1,000-foot setback. Correct? Only if it hadn't changed. And so, yes. May I please respond in more than just a simple yes or no? Because I don't feel like this is a cross-examination. I'm here to present the case for my audience. No, it's just a simple yes or no. Okay, go ahead. So at that time, right, in late 2023 and early 2024, the town board and the Cannabis Committee went back to look at how to make cannabis more viable for more properties. And that was the impetus for the creation of the commercial corridors. Right? Which, if you are in one of the commercial corridors, you are now automatically exempted from meeting the 1,000-foot setback from a residential property or use. There was a lot of talk between committee members and potentially of some of the other setbacks being relaxed, potentially going back to just match, so to speak, what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what's clear about what for the preemption so I think that you have to put this in its context I mean I understand that we all love the you know the black and white cleanliness of a yes or no answer but again we you're a board of equity so what you deal with is in the gray areas and I think that the context of what happened in that time period when my clients purchased the property and what was being discussed by the town board is relevant here because as you've heard time and time again a cannabis applicant must have a known property that they can prove they've secured through lease or purchase in order to go through the licensure process so counselor using your words yes your client speculated and took a risk true you ! like any business venture when you purchase a property okay and isn't it true that your exhibit E was a notice to the town of Riverhead dated December 18th of 2023 the town responded two days later exhibit F December 20th of 2023 advising your client so she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's clear she's not a site that conformed to our zoning code. To one aspect of the zoning code, which is a dimensional regulation for which they had the option to seek area variance relief. But they, in fact... But we can also talk about how that first letter incorrectly stated that the property was less than 500 feet from the school property, when, in fact, it is 735 feet from the nearest school property. Okay, but it's still... Sure, and New York State issued the license nevertheless. That's the state's issue, not the town's issue. Well, I understand that, but I think that goes back to the idea that the state has occupied the field when it comes to these specific distances. Did you ever appeal or contact the state back in December of 2023 when the town issued their response? There's no requirement to appeal under the cannabis law the response from a municipality pursuant to the notice to a municipality. So basically the applicant did nothing? No, they completed their application process and got a license. Other than proceeding to purchase the property. And got a license.

Did your client make any efforts to buy a building, you know, in the corridor that was more than 1,000 feet away from the school? No, there weren't any options available for purchase or lease at that time. All right, this is one thing I think we agree upon. On page seven of your papers, you indicate that the intent of the committee was to keep consumption areas far from our schools and young people. Correct? Correct. That's what was stated. All right, and you said this board deals in gray areas. They said 1,000 feet. They didn't say 1,000 feet more or less. They said 1,000 feet. Is that correct? That was the committee's recommendation. So the law is 1,000 feet. The regulation requires 1,000 feet. Sure. That's not a gray area. No. I'm saying what the board weighs when they engage in the balancing test. All right, secondarily, on page 11, you say that the area of variance sought is not substantial. It's 26%. Sure. You don't think that's substantial? 26%? Well, I think that I also then have the case law that I've cited there. So the answer is you don't believe it's substantial? No, in this context and in this particular instance, I don't. What would you believe would be substantial? I think it would be substantial if it was adjacent to the school property. So if you were in the shopping complex to the south attempting to get a variance, that might be different. Again, how would you even be able to perceive that variance relief had been granted if you were in the shopping complex to the south attempting to get a variance? I would have no clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear And when an applicant comes here to seek variance relief, this board engages in that equitable balancing test, just like any other applicant that's here tonight is seeking a variance from the strict appliance application of one of the dimensional regulations or other aspects of the zoning code. I know that this is perhaps colored by the fact that it's a cannabis use, but it is a commercial use. It is a conforming use for its own. And so it deserves to be examined as a permitted use that needs a dimensional regulation variance.

I would say that when the committee promulgated or recommended the thousand foot separation distance from schools, I haven't seen anything in terms of science or data that backed it up. It was chosen as a distance. I don't know how arbitrary it was, or what exactly was the data that backs it up, but that's what made it into the law. And so we are here seeking... Well, if you had participated in the committee, you would have learned that the committee discussed the existing regulations regarding drug-free school zones,

no smoking school zones, federal Clean Air Act. So, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [transcription gap] You would, if you had participated, you would have been aware what they considered. I understand that. And we've also addressed that under the drug-free school zone and all those things, the legal sale of cannabis in a licensed dispensary does not violate that because it is not against the law for adults to purchase a cannabis product at a licensed dispensary. So I understand. have been something that was not discussed was also the changes to the penal law to coincide with drug-free school zones and all those different aspects does the board have any other questions I am joined by the applicants who are the property owner and the licensee so I think we've established it was a speculative purpose with the understanding that you thought you could go forward and and request a zoning variance no it's not speculative that I could go forward and apply for a zoning variance and I didn't say that was speculative I said was a speculative purpose purchase with the understanding that you could go forward and then ask for a zoning variance for the cannabis you knew at the beginning that it wasn't it wasn't allowed we knew that Riverhead had a regulation we knew that we had an option to apply for a variance we also knew that you know we substantially meet you know it's it's very very far distance from the school it's 735 feet with a tremendous amount of development and activity in between the school property and the applicants property so it so I just want to make sure it was speculative you didn't know like anyone who purchases a property and wants to develop it and seeks a variance perfect I mean if you want to say that that's speculative than sure I think it is so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so Male Speaker 2 That's perfect. That's all I wanted to hear. Female Speaker 1 Right? This isn't a special exception use. This is a permitted use. Male Speaker 2 Perfect. The property is vacant right now? Female Speaker 1 It's not currently being used, correct. Male Speaker 2 Okay. It's not leased by anybody or anything like that? Female Speaker 1 No, my applicants, my clients own it.

Male Speaker 2 Are your clients in partnership fee simple? Female Speaker 2 They are fee simple owners. It is an LLC. Male Speaker 2 Okay. So they're leasing. They're leasing their own property? Female Speaker 2 Well, as tenants, I suppose. But yes. Right? Like, again, like many businesses do. Male Speaker 2 Do. Male Speaker 2 One of the things in the back of my mind is, what kind of effect does it have in the community? And a big thing is that there are people that go to 7-Eleven and hang out in that place. And I've been in a parking lot right across the street. And I noticed when I came into town last week that there's another dispensary just right off the expressway. And people were actually smoking the pot right in the parking lot. Female Speaker 2 Well, that's a violation of the law. Male Speaker 2 And it was a party. Female Speaker 2 Right? Male Speaker 2 It was a party. Female Speaker 2 Again, this is not happening on this property. Male Speaker 2 We're just talking about impacts to the neighborhood and the community. Female Speaker 2 Sure. Are you talking about the one that's further? Male Speaker 2 It's on Cromer and 58. Female Speaker 2 Sure. Male Speaker 3 Applebee's, which is right across the street. Female Speaker 2 I understand that. That is an enforcement issue. That is not right. Male Speaker 2 I understand. Female Speaker 2 I mean, the same way that if you see someone sitting outside of a liquor store and they're drunk and drinking. Male Speaker 2 That's an adverse impact. Female Speaker 2 Well, that's an adverse impact, but that's an enforcement issue. That is not because of the zoning variance because that property didn't need any variances. It didn't even need site plan. It was permitted as of right. And so, if people are consuming marijuana illegally in the parking lot there, then that is an enforcement issue. The police are there to deal with that. Reports can be made to the licensing agency. The same with any liquor store or restaurant that is violating the terms of the license they have from New York State. Male Speaker 2 I think the point is, though, that these are the kind of problems that these places bring. You know, whether or not it's an enforcement issue is not really the point we're trying to make. Female Speaker 2 That doesn't change the fact that these are permitted uses for the zone in which they're located. Male Speaker 2 But if you disperse cannabis, it leads to people smoking cannabis in the parking lot. And then you combine that with the fact that this place that you're proposing is located right along a footpath where students travel to go eat lunch on their breaks from school. So, that's like a bad combination. It's not good for the community. Female Speaker 2 I fail to see how that's different from any other cannabis dispensary that isn't a conforming location. Male Speaker 2 You fail to see how people smoking, this most likely leads to people smoking cannabis in a parking lot outside this dispensary. It happens. Female Speaker 2 And that, again, is not part of the zoning code. That is the penal code. That's a criminal act. Male Speaker 2 Right. Female Speaker 2 And the Riverhead Town Police can cite someone for that. And those kind of violations are supposed to be reported to OCM immediately under all the state regulations. I think that, again, you're talking about a harm and a crime that has not happened at this particular property. Male Speaker 2 But our point is it's likely to happen. Male Speaker 3 Is there a law that I don't know about? You can smoke marijuana outside the store? Female Speaker 2 No, you can't. Male Speaker 3 There's a prohibition in that? Female Speaker 2 Yes, absolutely. Male Speaker 3 How far away do you have to be from the store? Female Speaker 2 My understanding is that you are not allowed to smoke marijuana in public. You have to do it within the confines of your own private property or in a regulated establishment. Male Speaker 2 Okay. I didn't know. Female Speaker 2 Yeah, no, I mean, there's a whole penal code for it. But the consumption of marijuana is supposed to be, again, just like alcohol. I can't walk out of a liquor store and crack open a bottle of wine and drink it in the parking lot. And people who do that often get picked up for violating the law, open consumption, right? Female Speaker 2 Yeah, I think that's the same thing for marijuana. So I understand. Male Speaker 2 Can you smoke marijuana in your private automobile? Female Speaker 2 I'm sorry, did you ask if I smoke marijuana in my private automobile? Male Speaker 2 No, no, no. Can you? Male Speaker 2 They're out. Male Speaker 2 Can you? Under the law, smoke marijuana in your private automobile. Female Speaker 2 I suppose if it's your residence and you're not driving it. I mean, where is it parked? You can't sit in a parking lot and smoke marijuana, just like you can't sit in a parking lot outside a liquor store and drink. Male Speaker 2 Or anywhere. Female Speaker 2 Yeah. Male Speaker 2 Yeah. Male Speaker 2 You're not allowed to have an open container. Female Speaker 2 Exactly. And the same rules apply. Male Speaker 2 So you're probably not allowed to smoke. Male Speaker 2 Ma'am, ma'am, just for understanding, somebody's going to have to type the transcript. They can't do it when two people talk simultaneously. Please don't interrupt. Female Speaker 2 I beg your pardon, Your Honor. Male Speaker 2 Can I ask you, do, how many members are there of the LLC? Female Speaker 2 I'm sorry, for the property owner or for the local? Female Speaker 2 For the LLC. Female Speaker 2 For the LLC. Female Speaker 2 The property owner is Brian Stark. Female Speaker 2 And his partner, Gaspar Vitale. Female Speaker 2 Okay. Do either one of them own any other interests, ownership interests, stock interest, in any other cannabis retail site in the town of Riverhead? Female Speaker 2 No. And of course, there are, as you know. Female Speaker 2 Does the LLC, have any interest in any other cannabis retail site in the town of Riverhead? Female Speaker 2 No. Male Speaker 2 Do they own other locations? Female Speaker 2 No. Male Speaker 2 In other areas of Long Island? Female Speaker 2 No. Male Speaker 2 This is their first venture in this business? Female Speaker 2 Yes. Female Speaker 2 And just so you know, that those are questions that are typically part of the licensing, process with the Office of Cannabis Control because they have very strict regulations about ownership interests in terms of buildings and licenses and the other different types of cannabis establishments that are regulated by the state. Male Speaker 2 Male Speaker 2 Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to be heard? Male Speaker 2 Nobody on Zoom, I guess. Male Speaker 2 No. Male Speaker 2 No. Female Speaker 2 There's no one with their hand raised on Zoom. Female Speaker 2 Did we have any correspondence? Female Speaker 2 No. Male Speaker 2 Okay. Male Speaker 2 All right, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I move that the appeal of 1086 OCR LLC, 1086 Old Country Road, Riverhead, SCTM number 600-108-3-19, Shopping Center SC Zoning for variances and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-283.20 where the proposed site is located within 1,000 feet of a school with no retail or onsite consumption establishment shall be established or located within 1,000 feet measured from the nearest property line of each of the affected parcels, early school or library or daycare facility be adjourned for written comment and ZBA reserves its right to have additional physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical physical So appeal number 2025-012, Gutaco, LLC, 365 Harrison Avenue, Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Set Number 600-102-3-4.1, Business Center Zoning, for a one-story professional office building with site improvements. Applicant requests variances and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-93A, where proposed side yard setback is 5 feet and the minimum required is 15 feet, where proposed unoccupied landscaped area in front yard is 25 feet, where minimum required is 35 feet, and where proposed combined side yard setback is 30 feet 9 inches, where minimum required is 40 feet. Okay. Let's see. Good evening, Chairman Whitmire, members of the board. My name is Adam Grossman. I'm an attorney representing the applicant at tonight's hearing. My office is located at 120 Court Street here in Riverhead. So I'm here tonight with an application from my client for relief for a, what is now being proposed as a one-story professional office building. There is some history to this property. So the first thing I want to mention is that it is a very unusually shaped lot. It is narrow. It is. It's a difficult lot in terms of trying to figure out where the structure, the primary structure is to be located. And it has evolved. So back in 2013, there had been a prior variance application for a variance before this board that was granted for a two-story commercial restaurant. The date of that, of the decision on that application was July 11, 2013. This board was kind enough to grant the relief at that time for the proposed two-story commercial restaurant. It was not constructed. But relief was granted. And the specific relief that was granted back in 2013 was front yard setback relief from 50 feet to 5 feet, rear yard setback relief from 25 feet to 5 feet, and unoccupied landscape area from 35 feet to 3 feet. What's being proposed tonight is significantly reduced in terms of the relief that's being requested by this, for this board. Rather than it being a two-story commercial restaurant, this is a one-story commercial office, professional office building that's being proposed with a size of 1,400 square feet. It is a conforming use in this district, which is the B.C. zoning district. And it is next to the Taco Bell. It's a two-story commercial restaurant. It's located on Route 58. And my guess is you're all probably familiar, pretty familiar with the area. So my client has spent the last several months working with the planning department. We do have a planning, we have a staff report from the planning board that you should have received, dated February 28 of 2025, which made some determinations in terms of this application. My client has worked really hard on this. Thank you. I'll pass this over to you, Sean. Sean Porter. [transcription gap] from 15 feet to 5 feet, unoccupied landscape area from 35 feet to 25 feet, and combined side yard setback relief from 40 feet to 30.9 feet. So it's a little hard to look at the plans. They're kind of involved. But we think that this is a modest application considering the nature of this site, the size and the configuration of this lot. And we believe it's a reasonable use of the property. It's also, I think, very important to note that the restaurant use was a significant use and it would have involved a lot of traffic. It would have involved much more activity on this property and in the area than it would have involved in what is a much less intensive use as a professional office building. So a lot of efforts have been put into this. I think this application passes the five-part test, although that is, of course, up to you to decide that. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I also have Mr. Chokliam here as well, who is also quite familiar with the project. He's quite familiar with the property. And his wife is actually the owner of the LLC. The owner is Gudako LLC. Forgive me if I missed it. I didn't see it in the paper. Does he have any potential tenants yet? I don't think so. No tenants yet. And also, he intends to actually operate out of the site as well. What type of business? He's an engineer. So his office would be an engineering business. And I think he would be looking to have other professionals. I think whatever the uses would be in terms of the businesses would have a minimal impact, a small level of activity on the property. We're conforming in terms of parking spaces. Thank you. Yeah, sure. You're welcome. Means of ingress and egress, those are on Harrison Avenue, correct? I believe so. Yes. I'm sorry. [transcription gap] Anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this variant? Yes, sir. Come right up. All right. I know you, but I got to swear you in. You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. What's your name and address? My name is Richard Israel. The address that I use is 889 Harrison Avenue, Riverhead, New York. I am the owner of the adjacent property, which is owned by L.B. Diamond and Sons. 1992, I built a office building there and the Taco Bell, as you know it. I did send in a letter to the board. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. [transcription gap] Thank you. [transcription gap] But maybe it's better I just talk a little bit about the history of the piece which I state in my letter. This is a piece that was originally purchased by an individual on speculation and he sold it to another individual who was the original developer of where my office building is today. He was going to build a blockbuster shopping center there. Opser required him to purchase the piece. He wouldn't give him an option. The parcel that I currently own had an option. When he couldn't do the piece, basically came back on the market, I bought the parcel, the major parcel of it. The smaller parcel which was owned by a person by the name of Harrison Gray, he basically abandoned it and it basically went up for taxes. And it was auctioned off many, many, many years later. The applicant purchased that at that auction. He has attempted to do other site plans here. He has gotten variances from the ZBA but he was unable to complete it through site plan. Neither here nor there. I'm in the development business. I'm a developer. I build. I believe in property rights and everything else. The one thing that this parcel is it is very peculiar in its shape. It's 60 feet wide at its widest. It originally had one mobile home. And if you can remember back where Walgreens was, was a mobile park. Okay. Basically obsolete at this point and the like. The Walgreens. The mobile home was removed I believe by Herb Opser. And it hasn't been occupied by anything since. The problem that I think you need to look at is he's asking for a five foot variance for his building. But if you look at his parking and his curb as it travels back to the north, I can't tell but it looks to be either on the property line or within a foot. And yet he shows structures like lighting posts, leaving existing major trees there and the like. And if you actually can see the grade, the grade from my curb of my property is almost three feet taller or higher than the grade he's proposing on his property. And I don't know how he's going to change that grade in a foot or whatever. So that's just a technical question that I look at as a developer. But he has squozen onto this site the most that he can. And to have eight spots on this site of a 1,400 square foot building is, it may meet code, but it definitely is not sufficient for a professional office if they're going to have any tenants or the like. And I'm going to be the recipient of his shortage. People are going to park on my property and walk over to his property. And I have a 25,000 square foot office building sitting there. And I need my parking from my clients and their clients. So that building is turning into medical and the parking is going to be needed. So I look at it from my side to say he needs to create something that is practical. And I look at it to say this is a space or a property that contained a 250 foot structure originally. And now we have somebody coming and saying, well, this is a property that's going to be used as a parking lot. Well, I couldn't get my 2,200 square foot restaurant. I couldn't get this or that. But now I've squozen. If you give me relief, I can squeeze a 1,400 square foot. He shows an exit on the west side within that five foot setback. And that is, we don't, I don't know why his exit isn't out the back. He doesn't show an exit out to the parking lot. He shows two exits in his plan. That lead to the front and two on, one on either side. So are there sidewalks that lead from those exits? They're not shown on his site plan. His site plan is not complete. It has not been fully reviewed by the planning board because the planning board needs to see what relief you'll give him so that they could then better plan it. Okay. If he puts a sidewalk on the west side of his property and a normal sidewalk would be four feet, that only leaves a foot. The fence that you see on that plan is on my property. It's not on his. So I don't see, and that's up to the planning board to figure out how it fits, how it works. Chuck is an engineer. He's worked for the health department for many, many years in his professional career. He understands design and everything else. He has basically put his plan on his property line. Whether it's for parking on the east side or travel lanes on the west side. What I'm asking you today is see how you can help the neighbor have quiet enjoyment by at least him having some kind of buffer zone between us. And not just at the building, but at the rest of the property. If you look at to where his dumpster is, he's got a lot of space. The point of his dumpster is, it's basically going to be on my property and visible. He doesn't have any landscape screening around it. I've been developing in this town for over 40 years. You can go to any of my buildings. It has a fence and it has landscaping around every dumpster and . To me, these were the rules that we always had. You know, the other thing here is, please be cognizant of that. More than likely. The DOT of Suffolk County is going to ask him for a 15-foot easement in the front, which will eventually be taken for the further widening of Route 58. All of the properties that I've developed in the last 25 years along 58 have required that. And it's currently not shown on the plan because this plan hasn't been reviewed by all the agencies that it normally would be. So if you grant him that variance, he then has further ammunition, we'll call it, to just continue on the same path and utilize it. So I'd like you to at least uphold to some standards. That's why they're there. I don't mind him, you know, he can comply. He can basically take 10 foot off of his building and comply. You know, he can build a 800-foot structure here and comply. And it probably would be a better plan also for customers and everybody else to come to this site if that's something that he needs. What's your real concern? I'm sorry. [transcription gap]

hundred spots. And there's already a fence? There is not. The only fence that was put up was Taco Bell because it was required in their site plan along their drive-through for protection that someone doesn't walk into a drive lane. And it also has a five-foot buffer from that fence to the curb and it's all on my property. My property's curb is five foot from the property line. So you have to remember that zonings have changed, concepts have changed, and the like. But I still look at it even just from an engineering point when I looked at the height of my curb and the height of his curb. I don't believe you can put a legal slope. So does that mean he's going to build a retaining wall along his property line? I don't know these answers. There are always solutions to questions. Would an adequate fence stop the overflow of parking onto your property, you think? Is that what you're getting at? Well, a fence for sure. And then I just question, he shows leaving existing trees. He probably should remove those trees if he's going to do it. I hate to say that because when he went to develop it prior, there was a big discussion about the existing trees. They're of large caliber and the like and many people wanted to keep them. But if he keeps them, he's going to have to do it. If he takes that tree and builds within five feet, that tree will die. So it's just a question of time of whether it falls on my property or his building. And the same thing in the parking lots. And then I just question, he has two curb cuts on Harrison because he can only do it one way and it's releasing closer to the intersection and he shows it as a right hand only. But I don't believe if a person has to go up Harrison, he has to cross the turning lane if he's making a left. So there's still a lot of questions and issues. So at a minimum, I'd like to see him at least have the building 10 feet from the property line instead of the 15 that's required. And if you see fit that he should be closer to that corner, I leave that into your world. But there's still a problem with his screening and things like that. I'm going to be forced to build screening there instead of him. And he's developing his part. But a fence would help. Yes. If that's the answer to the question. I was just envisioning a six-foot fence going straight down the adjacent property line. This way that would stop anybody from walking across from your parking lot to his parking lot. Yeah. And he has plenty of other gauntlets. I don't know how a fire truck is ever going to get to that building and all the other things. But that's not in my purview. I don't think that's before us tonight. Correct. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? Ann Marie. All right. Are we ready to go? Who's got this? Please. Mr. Chairman. I'll head over to you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to appeal number 2025-012, I respectfully move that the appeal of Gouda Company, LLC, 365 Harrison Avenue, Riverhead, SCTM number 600-102-3-4.1, business center zoning for variances and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-93A, where proposed side yard setback is 5 feet, where minimum required is 15 feet, where proposed unoccupied landscape area and a front yard is 25 feet, where minimum required is 35 feet, where proposed combined side yard setback is 30 feet 9 inches, where minimum required is 40 feet, be approved. Subject to the office use for professional, not medical, only the basement being used for storage only, and a fence be installed along the west side in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments thereto, if any, as filed with the building inspector. Second. Mr. Prusetta. Aye. Mr. Wesske. Aye. Zillow. Aye. Barnes. Aye. And I vote aye. So it's been granted. Good luck. Just follow the rules, please. Thank you all. Good night. Good night. May I ask the board, do we have a height for the fence, or will we leave that up to the planning board? Whatever the code says. Six foot is ample. Okay. Six. Make sure it doesn't block visibility at the intersection, too.

Okay. Next appeal is appeal number 2021. 25-013 Pendleton's Harvest Farm, 5558 Sound Avenue in Jamesport, Suffolk County, taxed at number 600-8-2-12.12, Residence A80 Zoning, Conversion of Existing Building to Farm Stand. Applicant Requests, Appearances, and or Relief from Town Code Chapter 301-283.4b, where a proposed farm stand is not situated upon real property where agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the land. Please vote. Thank you. [transcription gap] where agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the subject parcel in order to meet eligible criteria. Is anyone here for this hearing?

Hello. Hello. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God? Yes. Please state your name and address, and you might want to pull that mic down so you're talking. Thank you. My name is Jocelyn Pendleton, address 5558 Sound Avenue, Riverhead, and I am the co-owner of Pendleton's Harvest Moon Farm. We are a small livestock farm. We produce pasture-raised lamb, and it is just our family at this farm. And so we are trying to start a very low-impact farm stand in an existing building on our property. The building currently houses the freezers that we use to store our meat and a refrigerator for eggs that we raise with chickens. And we are, you know, the building itself is not, and it's certainly not in. It's not in the state of New York. [transcription gap] It's not intended for any type of events or even shopping. We're not looking to buy in gifts or products. We would just like to open on a, you know, small basis to allow people to come in, take a look at the meat that we have, and leave. Pretty much that's the operation that we have. Our facility is in three separate parcels, and so the parcels... The parcel that the stand is on is the residential piece where we live. It contains the barns and other outbuildings for our storage of hay, equipment, and other materials. It also has... The parcel also has the chicken coop and hoop house for production of seedlings for our market garden. Currently, we are taking our products to farmer's markets. We're taking our products to farmer's markets in primarily Riverhead. We're at the Riverhead farmer's market every weekend. And as that comes to an end, we'd just like to be able to have people be able to come pick up some meat and eggs and kind of head on their way. Anything else?

All right. So I'm just going to tell the truth to all truth, nothing but the truth. I'll help you guys. I do. Can you state your name and address and raise the mic? 558 Sound Avenue, Matt Pendleton. Welcome. Welcome.

Is everyone familiar with this? We've all visited. Huh? We've all visited. Okay. So this was originally, and Ann Marie can tell you, this was originally Fred and Lois Reeves' property, and then they... For estate planning... For estate planning and so forth. That's why if you look at the back, it was cut around all the barns and so forth in the way the property line was. So originally this was all one contiguous piece, and then when they did planning and sold development rights, that's how it got cut up simultaneously throughout the piece. Do you have any questions of us or anything? I have just one question. I'm looking at the map. I'm just trying to figure out which one of the frame buildings... Is the building? I'll put it up here. You can point to it. We have the camera.

It's this building here. So it's... Okay. A little small. 10 by 11. Yes. 14. And the intent was then that they would use the... Anyone visiting that would use the second driveway. Yes, basically. We're just trying to be in compliance with the farm stand. We're starting to move more of our lamb and so forth through, and we just wanted to be basically doing the right thing. So I'm on the Ag Advisory Committee, and I was just trying to be like the way you're supposed to be doing. Trying to be right. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this variance, please come forward. Oh, God. This way to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Can you state your name and address? Greg Dorowski. How do you spell it? How do you spell it? You're listening. D-O-R-O-S-K-I. Live at 2420 Deep Hole Drive in Mattatuck. I'm here to speak in support of my friend Jocelyn and Matt. Yes. I'm here to speak in support of their application for a farm stand. I've seen Matt and Jocelyn and their children, Seth and Marilla, who's at a softball game, farm the land surrounding their home on the parcel that they're seeking to build the farm stand. And I'm not only speaking in support of their application because they're my friends, I believe there's regional significance to their application. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the future of agriculture, the future of agriculture, on the East End is at stake as we weigh decisions like these. The farm stand code itself recognizes the importance of direct farm marketing and promoting and supporting agriculture and the local economy. As I look at their application, I also wonder if a code interpretation is useful here and that they're not just seeking a variance, but a variance. I think that the parcel that they're looking to locate the farm stand is actually in agricultural production. And as I look at the code, it says that front and side yard lawns are considered part of the residential parcel. For farmers like this that pasture, raise their poultry and their sheep, it's actually part of their agricultural operation. So looking at the survey, it may look like that it's mostly yard around a house, that's actually pasture. And the tennis court area, that's actually a hoop house where they raise seedlings and where they separate their sheep. So it's not so much a relief of a requirement that they're looking for as much as validation of the reality. And I think that's a really important part of the process. And I think that's a really important part of the process. I think it's, as we look at this, we also need to appreciate the importance of all of their parcels. Matt mentioned that it was subdivided for estate planning purposes. But all of these parcels serve a very important function in their agricultural operation. And each part is vital to the overall whole. I think for us to support a parcel that's a little bit more of a ! Matt mentioned that it's a little bit more of a !

I didn't have a clear head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head 18.5 frame structure. No. It's the 10 foot by 14 and a half feet. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. So when you look at the parcel, when you go, obviously the house is the house. And then behind is the barn and the hay storage. The small structure that has the one sliding door is a garage. And then what I think you saw that she pointed out is where all the meat is and so forth. And then the thing obviously in the back where you see the chickens is where the chickens are. And the tennis court has to go because that's getting old, dilapidated. But that's besides the point. It should be a pickled bull court. I apologize. I already forgot the name of the gentleman who just spoke. Greg. Could you exemplify? To the town board, the other parcels that you farm in Riverhead. So we rent another piece from Mr. Lewis next door in the back up there. That's where we pasture some of the rams when we are not breeding and so forth. We run about 30, 35 ewes. And we have about 38 lambs. And we have about 38 lambs down right now. So I mean we're trying to do it. We're doing a pasture based system where we irrigate and so forth and just move through the parcels that are in the back. We really try to do something more sustainably and local. We're not buying in animals and just butchering them. What we have is a closed flock. So and if you go back. You can actually see the pasture we've done what we put in and so forth. So we're trying to be a young family going with this. Better for worse. Thank you. Any other questions? Is that your son? This is Seth. Do you want to be heard? Do you want to say anything Seth? No. You take him up ice cream? I have one quick question. So the house and the property that's on 1.89 acres? Correct. And then you have about 20 acres behind that or something? Yeah. So that port. So Fred and Lois owned the front portion. Yep. And then Mark. I'm not trying to be. Same last name. I know who. Yeah. Mark Zaweski was married to one of the Reeves. Yep. And then Mrs. Reeve left the parcel to his daughters. And so for estate planning, one daughter owned one, another daughter owned the other, and then the third daughter owned both. Okay. And then you have all three of those as well? So that's all. We technically, yes. We're mortgaged, but yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. So anything else? No. No. We're good. Who's got the rating? I do. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chairman and the rest of the board, with respect to appeal number two, I would like to ask Mr. Zaweski to present his opinion. I move to appeal number 2025-013. I move that the appeal of Pendleton's Harvest Farm, 5558 Sound Avenue, Jamesport, SCTM number 600-8-2-12.2, residence A80, RA80 zoning, for variances and or relief from town code chapter 301-283.4B, where a proposed farm stand is not situated upon real property, when agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the subject parcel, where agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the subject parcel in order to meet eligible criteria, be granted subject to the following requirements. Condition one, an event that the owner ceases ownership and or lease rights to farm adjacent parcels located at NO number Sound Avenue, Jamesport, and described as STM numbers, and the following requirements. Condition one. To clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear [transcription gap] head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear [transcription gap] head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear head clear 14 foot 14 foot 4 inches approximately single-story frame building depicted on the plot plan survey dated May 12 2017 and prepared by John Minto LS this approval to use the above structures as a farm stand pursuant to the town code chapter 301 shall no longer be valid and in effect and instead shall terminate and use of the structures as a farm stand shall cease immediately upon transfer of ownership or expiration of the leases referenced and made part of this application for zoning relief notwithstanding the above applicant may make application to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals for same or similar relief if applicant has secured other lands that would meet the criteria set forth in the New York State agricultural and markets law and town code chapter 301 dash 283 point 3 however in no event may applicant use the structures as a farm stand until such time as approved by the requisite boards and or departments of the town of Riverhead condition to applicant shall not use the structure for habitation as that term is defined in the New York State Building Code unless all requirements and approvals are obtained including building fire Marshall and Suffolk County Health Department as applicable in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments there too if any as filed with the building inspector second mr. Porsche I so esky hi Godzilla right mr. Barnes hi and I vote aye sir versus granted good luck next appeal don't forget ice cream I'm sorry appeal number 2025-0 one for Northwind real estate holdings 1254 Northville Turnpike Riverhead Suffolk County tax that number 600 there's 65 dash 5-10 agricultural protection zoning to legalize a structure for a farm stand applicant requests variances and or relief from town code chapter 301 dash 39 for front yard setback is 13 point 3 feet and a minimum of 60 feet is required please raise your right hand tell me swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth so I hope you got I do please state your name and address and you might want to pull that mic down a little thank you my name is Sterling churgin live at 1288 North Northville Turnpike in Riverhead how do you spell your listing CH you are gin thank you go ahead we help you okay um my name is Sterling Churgin I live in Northville Turnpike Riverhead Suffolk County and I live in Northville Turnpike in Riverhead Suffolk County and I live in Northville Turnpike in Riverhead Suffolk County my wife and I that's that woman over there we have about 27 acres and we're my wife and I that's that woman over there we have about 27 acres and we're trying to make a go at production of cut flowers we need a venue with which to sell and what we would like to do is put up a unmanned farm stand where people could come and either pay with the Zell or Venmo and we would like to sell it to people so she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's not planning on selling anything that we don't produce ourselves.

And it's essential for us to be able to have some sort of income if we're going to continue farming. It's just my wife and I at the moment. My wife has a girl helping her in the cutting house right now, but basically we're trying to do this ourselves. So essentially, you're trying to legalize that which you've already constructed, correct? Yes. Yes, I would like to be able to. And prior to that, can you describe what you had in its place? Okay. Previously, I had put up a small shed to try to sell the flowers, and we're actually selling some flowers. The problem that we had, the flowers are very perishable, and we would put the flowers out and the heat of the day would destroy the flowers, where in the morning we'd put them out, and by the afternoon they'd all be blown and we'd have to throw them away. So what I'd like to do is be able to put up a structure that could be, we need temperature control. So we have to be able to run electricity, and we're not going to be running big condensers. We're going to use something called a cool bot. What a cool bot is, it's a... Basically, air conditioned window unit that you stick in a wall, and there's a controller that lets the air conditioner run away with itself, so you could actually create a walk-in cooler. So that's essential to self-cut flowers. So I have gone by numerous times when he had the old stand, and it was just that, an open stand. And midday... All the flowers, you know, just sitting out, all the flowers that were out there were perishing. Unfortunately, the flowers are perishable, and we do have a cooler so we can keep our flowers alive. The problem is we're trying every which way we can to be able to have an income to sell the flowers. And we were actually, we were doing, it's viable. I see a future. If we could have, if we don't have a venue that we could sell these as bouquets, we can't do it because the other alternative for us would be to sell them wholesale, and unfortunately we're not able to charge enough money per unit to break even. But with the experiment we did conduct in the cooler weather, for example, Thanksgiving was nice and cool. We have all kinds... And we've been at it now for six or seven years. So we're going to have to do it. And we've been at it for seven years. So my wife has planted all kinds of perennials. So I mean, growing the product isn't the problem. It's just the ability to sell it. And I'm new to Riverhead. We moved up here. We live here since I think 2021, early 2021. I bought this parcel with my wife at the very end of 2017. Riverhead's been very good to us. I fly a Riverhead town flag. If I pass my farm, there's an American flag. And I pay for it. They don't give it to me. I buy it. And when we built the flag, I mean, we could use a shipping container and insulate it and write flowers on it. But what I did do, my wife and I went up to Rochester two years ago. We took down a 120-year-old barn. And if you go by and take a look at the building, I'm really doing the best that I can to contribute to Riverhead town. We needed a barn. The farm board was gracious enough to give us one. I built a beautiful barn. That barn's going to be here for hundreds of years after I'm in the building. I'm going to be here for a hundred years. I'm going to be here for a hundred years. I'm going to be here for a hundred years after I'm in my box. That's a legacy to Riverhead. The building that we're building is 120-year-old redwood. And those redwoods, when they were standing, saw the second temple. You can take a look at the growth rings. They're thinner than my hair. They just give you texture T111. So we are trying to build something beautiful. I had gotten a letter from the county. They asked me if you were gracious enough to give us a relief. They want to see a concrete 20 feet. Asphalt. Kirk cut. Well, they said asphalt. But I'm not going to use asphalt if it's okay. I'm going to ask. I would like to be able to use concrete. Sterling. Yes. I strongly recommend you follow the letter of the requirements of Suffolk County D.C. I'm going to ask. [transcription gap] I'll just clear this up so you can clear this up. I'll clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you can clear this up so you numerous times for numerous improvements made on your farm correct yes ma'am and one of those improvements that you came before the farmland committee was deer fencing wood post wire mesh right correct and you installed that around the perimeter of the property correct and then you removed it and substituted it with black wrought iron without farmland approval that was it i didn't know i was making an error i didn't realize that it had to and again this my my error was explained to me and had i known i was making this error i would have gone before the farm board and what what we had regular agricultural fencing and i had happened to do a job in brooklyn where they were taking down the old sears building on bedford street in flatbush and i came into possession of wrought iron fencing that was built in 1932 each section weighs about 300 pounds where i have to pick it up with a machine i could easily sell it on ebay for 1200 a section and i thought it'd really be nice for the character of my property to put this wrought iron fencing up in lieu of the dime a dozen so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so 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 as for that really i didn't that to me i thought eight foot fence is eight foot fence so if the zoning board of appeals uh

required you to go back and either replace the fencing with what was approved by farmland or secure their approval for the fence the the wrought iron fence and they gave you 90 days to do it would you think that was fair i'll do whatever is asked to me

anyone in the audience that would like to speak at please

okay same drill raise your right hand i do solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so i'll help you god yes please state your name and address matthew sabrina 24 north apollo drive in aqua book go ahead i just wanted to speak on behalf of sterling i've known him for quite a few years now i feel most people never have gotten to know him at this point he's probably if you if you don't know him as well as i do you'll find out really quickly he'll give you the shirt off of his back for those on the board that don't know he's with me and a few other members of the audience remember the james port fire department he just recently be uh finishing up the process of becoming a state certified emt he's constantly looking for ways to give back to the community and when this man tells you he loves riverette town he really has the flag flying on his flagpole it's the only private residence i've ever seen when he built this structure or any work he does on his house he tries to yeah and he always does he hires local local younger individuals keeps the money in town always says wants to keep the money in the pot he goes out of his way to do the right thing i know we're not here to speak about the fencing and if that's part of the deal it is soapy um i'm kind of of the opinion with him that uh an eight foot fence is an eight foot fence and if you if you've driven by the area it adds quite a bit of beautification to the area i assume all members of the board have driven by and seen the structure at least we were there i think i think i can comfortably say that the board would agree with me that if you head a little further south on northville turnpike there are a couple dilapidated areas that i think sterling has gone through and with all the improvements he's made to his property including this structure with it's elevating the community it's building that character that we all that love to live in riverhead and live on the north fork you know it's something we hold near and dear to our hearts um i understand there's a process there is a zoning and you know members of the board will make their decision i just i really hope that the members of the board can use their discretion in this case to grant this variance so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so about how much she's learned from Mr. Sterling, as she calls him. She's learned how to sell her eggs. She has her own chickens, and she's learned the idea of having a business. The flower stand is just another example of that. Can't tell you how many times we've gone and purchased flowers. In my opinion, they're probably some of the best flowers you'll have in the town. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Did you build this structure? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Did you build this structure? No, you would not want me to have built this structure. It would have fallen down. I like the way it came out because he used repurposed wood. It's really beautiful. It's gorgeous. It came out nice. Leroy, I've been to his farm numerous times. It's beautiful. It's really nice. Anybody else? Very pretty. Anyone else out there? Okay. Where's this reading, please? I have it. So, Mr. Chairman, with respect to appeal number 2025-014, I move that the appeal of Northwind Real Estate Holdings, 1254 Northville Turnpike, Riverhead, Suffolk County Taxes, be approved under Act 665-5-10 in APZ zoning. Prevarance is end or relief of Town Code Chapter 301-39, where front yard setback is 13.3 feet and a minimum of 60 feet is required to be granted subject to the following requirements. Condition one, applicant shall comply with all provisions outlined in correspondence dated April 10th, 2025 from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, including application for a Suffolk County work permit. Condition two, applicant shall not be granted a certificate of occupancy for farm stand until applicant has complied and received approval from the County of Suffolk Department of Public Works for asphalt curb cut. Condition three, applicant shall not use the structure for habitation as the term is defined in the New York State Building Code unless all requirements and approvals are obtained, including building fire marshal and Suffolk County Health Department as applicable. Condition four, applicant shall restore the fence to the post and wire deer fence approved by the Farmland Committee on December 19th, 2017 or, in the alternative, secure approval from the Farmland Committee to replace the once existing deer fence with the black wrought iron fencing within 90 days from the date of this determination. Notwithstanding the above, at such time the retained area is developed with the residents, the fence shall comply with all fence height requirements stated in the New York State Building Code. The following are the requirements set forth in the Town Code for the Town of Riverhead. In accordance with the applications and sketches with the amendments thereto, if any, as filed will the building inspector. Second. Mr. Porsche. Aye. Mr. Weske. Aye. Mr. Godzilla. Aye. And so, Mr. Westman, I would like to ask you to please stand up. Mr. Westman, I would like to ask you to stand up. [transcription gap] Mr. And Sterling, please, don't deviate from Suffolk County DPW. If they tell you asphalt, you do asphalt. If they tell you six inches, do six inches. Mr. Can you say something about a water permit? What's a water permit? Ms. Work permit. Mr. Work permit. No, no water permit. Just work permit. Good night. Ms. All right. Mr. Have a good night. Ms. The last appeal is Appeal Number 2025-016-47-Pelletreau, LLC 22411-2211. The appeal is approved. Ms. Thank you. [transcription gap] Sub abges. [transcription gap] parcel in order to meet eligible criteria. Good evening, Board Members. Kimberly Judd, 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York for the applicant. I also have Peggy Kaneski here. She's the managing member of 47 Pelletreau LLC, the owner of the property. Heather, can I hand this to you?

So this property is located at 2241 Roanoke Avenue. It contains a little over 40,000 square feet and it's located in the Agricultural Protection Zone, APZ. The property is improved with a barn that benefits from a letter of pre-existing use stated 2024 and for a pre-existing frame barn with bathroom. The principals of 47 Pelletreau LLC are Peggy and Ed Kaneski, and this is Peggy. And they also live and reside and own the property directly to the south at 2229 Roanoke Avenue. Peggy is also owns and operates Riverhead Flower Shop on Main Street in Riverhead. Before I met Peggy, I had passed this barn because I live not too far from Roanoke Avenue myself. I had passed it for many years having grown up in Riverhead, but never knew the history of it until I sat down and talked to her. This property and the surrounding farms have played a significant role in the origin and farming roots of Riverhead. Peggy's grandparents were Vincent and Michalina Zelnicki. They bought the land on which the barn sits in approximately 1922. If you look at the last page of the handout that is going down the line here, you'll see that there are pencil marks on the inside of the barn. So I was pretty fascinated when I went there. It starts at 1922 and there's 12 numbers there. 1938 house, barn, 1937 and 12 numbers. And it's all throughout the barn throughout the years. And when I asked her what this was, she says, and it's 12 numbers under each year, and she says she thinks it's the amount of either potatoes or hay that her family had collected each month. So hence each makes sense. There's there are 12 numbers under each year. You'll see on the upper left hand picture it says Zelnicki Farms, I'm sorry, Zelnicki Brothers. And the other picture is Peggy in front of a potato thresher that's been historically at the property. Her grandparents when they came to this country and over the years, they accumulated over 300 acres of farmland during their long farming career, of which this barn and the adjacent property that they reside to the south were part of. The Zelnicki Brothers farm had a working livestock farm. They ate hay, growing potatoes. And over the years, the 300 acres has been subdivided and conveyed off to family members. And the subject property and the adjacent lot to the south are now owned by Peggy. And she received the property from her parents, Edward and Constance Zelnicki. Miss Koneski has been growing flowers for about 30 years now on nearby properties owned by her family members, which I think some of them might be here for Riverhead Flower Shop on Main Street. When you look at the aerial photos that I just handed up, you'll see the first one, the top one says September 2010. You'll see the barn and then you'll see that she was raising flowers. And if you look at the footprint of what she was growing is bigger than the barn. And it's every three years I attached aerials. So she started growing them in 2010. And every three years you can see there's a picture there. She stopped using that area in 2023 because she was using the properties that are owned by her family members to grow the flowers. She grows plants and and grooms heirloom varieties of flowers during the growing season on nearby properties and began to expand crop offerings after the pandemic. She needs space to harvest properly, condition and cool the stems of the flowers of which this barn is offers the perfect opportunity. I don't know if you had a chance to go see it. It's a beautiful building. She has done a wonderful job in upkeeping it and just walking through it and seeing the pencil marks all over the beams and so forth of the years that they wrote down how many pounds that they grew over the years is very heartwarming. So she has submitted a farm stand application to the planning board. She has submitted an application to the town assessor's office for agricultural assessment application. She is going to lease two properties owned by her family members, one at 2067 Roanoke Avenue and the other at 378 Reeves Avenue. She received a turn down letter because you have to submit proof that the existing use agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the subject parcel as defined in this article. That's what we're here to seek a variance for tonight. She would like to continue to grow her flowers on the nearby properties and sell them out of the barn, which is in essence would act as the farm stand. So the purpose of the application for a farm stand utilizing this barn is to sell her flowers. Yes, that she's been growing on the other properties. So that's what she would like to do. This is not a case of first impression. I submitted with the application in addition to the one that was just granted a short while ago. There's a 2017 zoning board of the decision issued in Aqueborg on Meeting House Creek Lane where the farmer did not have the property was not the principal use. The farm stand was not because the farm stand was not the principal use. The farm stand was not because the property he was farming was a flag lot. So he didn't have any room to sell it on the roadside. So that's the application and a decision that I attached for the board to take a look at. And my clients here, I believe, are these all your family and friends here? Okay, these are all yours in the back. Okay. So were there any violations issued with respect to this piece of property? Or the barn? Yes, there were violations for repairing. She was renovating the barn because it was falling apart. And she did go through the initial process. We're going if you approve the variance tonight, we will continue with our site plan application where those violations can be remedied. I know she's handling that herself in justice court.

Could you tell me how many acres is she leasing? Seven. So she's trying to comply with the farm operation statute? Yes. So that those parcels can receive agricultural assessment? Correct, yes. And she submitted her application to the assessor's office and she produced the leases for the two properties I mentioned. And have they approved it? They, I think verbally, they said that she met all the criteria. She meets the income criteria. But it's still a matter of time. Okay. So the bill has to go up to New York State and if it's granted, it will appear on the next assessment roll, the tax roll. Okay. How long are the leases? Five years. Five-year leases? Yes. Starting and ending when? Right now, I think they already started March of this year. So five years out from now? Correct. Okay. Thank you. [transcription gap] I don't know if anybody else would like to speak. Is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, Miss Ferriance? Okay. So, it's been, I guess, posted online that events are being held there, weddings are being held at this location. No. [transcription gap] a website but they're not holding any events there she had a wedding there last year for her niece okay she's allowed to have weddings for her family members there but as there there have not been she's not selling flowers out of it yet and she hasn't had any events okay any of the code enforcement issues related to that I believe that I believe when she had a wet you correct me if I'm wrong I believe she had a wedding for her niece last year and code enforcement did show up and she explained to them I'm here this is my niece's wedding did she get a ticket I think so did you I'm gonna let her speak to that because I don't represent her in justice court but I know she's in justice court right now and she's going through that okay I do please state your name and address Peggy can ask I live at two two two and three and I'm at the

nine Roanoke Avenue right next door to the premises in question okay answer that we received a visit from code enforcement miss Buckman and she came in before we had our family wedding and gave me a list of things I needed to do and said go to the town website and I'm going to do this when I went to the town website unfortunately there there is no lane for agriculture there's only lane for commercial and residential so this property being APZ where do you go so when I called building department they pretty much said you you're what you have done so far is okay I in turn did not get back to miss Buckman and she issued me summonses approximately 30 days after her visit so what's the status those summonses now should they keep adjourning it I'm sorry may I correct the record it's Buckner is the last I'm sorry just for clarification and this was summons because you had a wedding there but it was a fair family wedding no we didn't even she told me I could not have so much as five family members in that born I would have to change the use of it it's a fire occupation issue it's for the safety of everyone located in that building dep she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's she's under the fire code changes related to the occupancy. I understand that. And so different fire requirements have to be in place. I understand that. Okay.

So Justice Court keeps postponing it because you're in front of the zoning board? Would that be the reason? Even though she has a letter of preexisting use for the barn, they want her to go through the farm stand application process first, and if that gets granted, then they will dispose of the Justice Court violations. Oh, okay. I thought that's what was going on. There's no big deal there. No. No.

I took this out. Everything else is good? I took this and this. All right. Anybody else? Is that good? Anybody else? Is that okay? Is anybody else? Is there anyone else that wants to speak? We're glad you're all here. I mean, we're normally lonely here at late, but thanks for being here. All right. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, regarding appeal number 2025-016, I move the appeal of 47 Pelletroom LLC, 2241 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, SCTM number 600-42-1. Agri-cultural protection APZ zoning. The variance is enterily from town code section, chapter 301-283.4B, where a proposed farm stand is not situated upon real property when agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the subject parcel, where agricultural production is the principal and primary use of the subject parcel in order to meet eligible requirements. Agri-cultural protection APZ zoning. criteria be granted subject to the following requirements. Condition 1, in the event that the owner ceases ownership and or lease rights to farm application, adjacent parcels located at 2067 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead and 378 Reeves Avenue, Riverhead and described as SCTM numbers 600-42-1-305 and 600-63-1-8.1, the structure in Perrin, 2109 square feet frame barn with attached roof over patio, close Perrin. Depicted on the plot, planned survey dated March 31, 2025 and prepared by Howard W. Young, L.S. This approval to use the above structure as a farm stand pursuant to Town Code 301 shall no longer be valid and in effect and instead shall terminate and use of the structure as a farm stand shall cease immediately upon transfer of ownership or expiration of the leases referenced and made a part of this application for zoning relief. Notwithstanding the above, applicant may make application to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals for same or similar relief. If applicant has secured other lands that would meet the criteria set forth in New York State Agricultural and Market Store and Town Code Chapter 301-283.3, however, in no event may applicant use the structure as a farm stand until such time is approved by the requisite boards and the departments of the Town of Riverhead. Condition 2, applicant shall not use the structure for habitation as that term is defined in New York State Building Code unless all requirements and approvals are obtained including building fire marshal and SCHD as applicable and finally condition, next condition, applicant shall make and obtain a road opening permit for curb cut from the highway superintendent and this is in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments there to if any as filed with the building inspector. Second. Okay. Mr. Porsche. Aye. Mr. Weske. Aye. Mr. Gazzola. Aye. Mr. Varnes. Aye. And I vote aye. So your variance has been granted. Good luck. Thank you. Good seeing you. Thank you. Have a good night everyone. We have minutes March 27th and April 10th of 2025. Somebody move them? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Next meeting date is May 8th, 2025. Good. Awesome. Motion to adjourn. That was great. You guys did good. We're still on the record. Yeah. Motion to adjourn. Oh, that's good. So moved. I love my job. Second. All approved. Aye. All approved. Aye. You guys want to?

Aye. [transcription gap]