Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. With such allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, the first thing on the agenda is the extension. Yes, we had a request for an extension, appeal number 2024-023 for Riverhead Property, LLC, 230 West Main Street in Riverhead. The appeal was granted originally September 12, 2024, with an expiration date of September 12, 2025. So they are requesting their first one-year extension, thus expiring September 12 of 2026. All right, somebody make the motion? So moved. Second. All right. Mr. Proshad. Aye. Mr. Zawieski. Can't hear him. Mr. Barnes. Aye. Oh, wait, hold on. There we go. Sorry. Patillo. Aye. And I vote aye. So we'll do this for Danny again. I think Dan's volume's on now. Dan? Dan? Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes. We need a vote. Aye. Thank you. All right. Extension has been granted. All right. Next. Next, we had correspondence from Elisa Phillips. Regarding. Appeal number 0934, dated June 11th of 2009, 1430 Weeding River, Manor Road and Weeding River, Suffolk County Tax Act number 600-96-1-6, more specifically regarding a condition of the approval. So I circulated that to all the board members and you read the letter along with council. That's it. That's it. Is that it? Go. Okay. Next, we had a decision. Appeal number 2025-033. CMA Mine LLC. All right. This is an application submitted to the zoning board by the terms of the stipulation of settlement entered into between the town and CMA Mines. The stipulation also recited the process and the procedure for the matter to proceed before the zoning board, including the waiver of a public hearing before the board and record to be considered and determined by the zoning board. Our council has advised us. That she has made diligent inquiry as to the matters recited above relating the zoning board and pursuant to the direction of the town attorney and special counsel, the zoning board will proceed with application to and determination of zoning officer Bergman and as for application to zoning board together with consideration of CMA records submitted in support of its application seeking a letter of preexisting use. Second. Sale. Sale. Sale. And for the record, there was a voluminous record. All right, as to the Board's conclusion of determination, the Board has carefully reviewed and considered the record in connection with the appeal, as well as the findings as set forth above. After this review, this careful review, one, the Zoning Board denies that portion of the applicant's appeal, challenging the determination of the zoning officer to it that evidence and record presented by the applicant fails to establish a manifest intent or support a letter of preexisting nonconforming use to mine site to a depth below the water table. Two, the Zoning Board denies that portion of applicant's appeal and that portion of the zoning officer's determination to grant or be interpreted to grant a letter of preexisting nonconforming use to mine below the 14.984 acres and beyond the depth of mine limited to 30 feet. The Zoning Board determines that the record supports a letter of preexisting nonconforming use for the site described as 14.984 acres and limited to a depth of mine to 30 feet. Based upon the foregoing, I move that this Board hereby deny the appeal in its entirety. Second. Second. Mr. Pichetta. Aye. Mr. Zawieski. Aye. Mr. Barnes. Aye. Mr. Zawieski. Aye. Mr. Zillow. Aye. And I vote aye. That's a determination. Thank you. Heather. Heather.

Okay. So our first public hearing of the night is Appeal Number 2025-030, Ashok Patel, 305 West Main Street in Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Map Number 600-128-3-48, Peconic River Community Zoning for a Proposed Commercial Building. The applicant requests, experiences, and or relief from Town Code 301-162A, where proposed impervious surface coverage is 50.8%, maximum permitted is 40%, 301-162B, where proposed open space native landscape area is 49.2%, minimum required is 50%, and 301-236A1, where proposed landscaped areas abutting land owned by Suffolk County vary in depth, with the narrowest depth being 2 feet 4 inches, and the minimum depth required is 25 feet. And just for the record, I do have the affidavit of posting, mailing, and all of these certified receipts from the applicant's representatives. I believe they are on Zoom. Yes. Okay. Someone supposed to be Zooming? Yep. We have Jeff and Marty Sinluski on. If one of you wants to. Introduce yourselves for the record. Yes. Jeff Sinluski here. Can you hear me? Hold on. Justin? Jeff. No, no. Excuse me. I'm not speaking to the screen. Justin? Can we get these guys on streaming up on the screen? Thank you. No, that's our man. He's also Zooming. I don't want to be turning around all the time talking to someone behind me. Where is he?

Okay. Go ahead and speak, sir. All right. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Okay. Jeff Sinluski here from Sinluski Architects. Excuse me. Are you a lawyer? Architect. Okay. Raise your right hand, please. I do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Please state your name and address. Yes. Yes. Jeff Sinluski, 215 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York. Sinluski Architects. We've got to turn the volume up a little bit. I can't hear. I got it.

Go ahead, Jeff. Can you hear me good now? Yes. Put your hand down. Great. You can put your hand down. You're sworn in. Great. Okay. So to start out, in regards to this property, we did provide a list of handouts, that I believe are circulated for your use. That contains five different documents. The current site plan, the current property survey, the aerial photo of the existing property condition, the aerial photo of the adjacent development at the 7-11 property, which is east of the property, and a sketch of a revised site plan for landscaping compliance and reduction of impervious surface. I'll go through. The notes that I have in regards to the variances being sought. And then we'll touch on that revised plan, which does come into play regarding some of the notes that I have. So in regards to 301-162A, impervious surface coverage, we are proposing, our current site plan proposes 50.8%, with 40% being permitted. Notes that I have on this is that the current site development includes 15,000, 405 square feet, which is 77.8% of impervious surface. That's as the site currently sits right now. This plan that we're proposing does decrease the impervious surface from the current amount down by more than one-third. The access driveway and the parking layout, which includes a double-loaded parking, and the required loading and dumpster area, accommodates for 12 cars, which is the minimum we would need based on the current amount. And then we're proposing that the site be a 12-car by 250 square foot, which is the required layout of the building. That is a 12-car by 250 square foot, equaling 3,000 square foot. And the building is only 15.8% lot coverage, which is about half of the permitted building coverage of 30%. So, we're proposing that we increase the area to 49.8%, which would still require a variance, but we do have an alternative option just to reduce that impervious surface. And another side note is that, as we are aware, the town board is currently in the process of updating the impervious coverage in various zones in the town, which would include this zone. And this is due to percentages in the zoning chart that are basically impossible to achieve given this site. So, with that, I don't know if you want me to go through the other variance items that I have or discuss this first item first.

So, you're proposing a 3,000 square foot building, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. 3,000 square foot facility. And the existing building was what, 2,000? So, Yes. So, on the second page of the handout, you can actually go through this now, which is the, it's worth noting actually as part of this discussion. So, the project owner, the owner of the property, received one of the blighted property notices back in January of 2025 because of the condition of the property and the buildings that were currently there. Prior to that, the existing building area that was on this property totaled roughly about 25,000 square feet. So, roughly about 2,630 square feet. So, just under the 3,000 square feet that we are proposing. And then the remainder of the property had over 12,000 square feet of existing hardscaped area, which is shown in the diagram of the second page of the handout, as well as the site survey that was provided for this property. So, the facility that we would be proposing is about 3,000 square feet. And has it been identified what's going inside this building? So, we have it as a 3,000 square foot wet retail, which is divided equally into two 1,500 square foot spaces that are mirrored. And there's, as far as we're aware from the property owner, there's no specific business or anything that's committed to being in this location. If it were to happen, it's, he's just developing it as basically two 1,500 square foot wet retail spaces. Do you guys have any questions? You said that the prior buildings or structures that were knocked down, they totaled, I couldn't hear you, they totaled how many square feet? I thought I heard you say 2,600. Yeah, so just rough calculation that we have based on the property survey, which was taken when the buildings were still in place, is that it totaled about 2,600 square feet. So, that's 630 square feet between all three buildings that were on that property. And then we did, since we received the blighted property notice, as part of the requirements of addressing that, as soon as possible, we did receive a demolition permit through the town that encapsulated removal of those buildings down to the foundations at this point. So, the new building is going to be around 370 square feet larger than the old pre-existing buildings that were knocked down? Yes, that would be correct. So, it would be 3,000 square feet total.

Ann Marie, you have any comments now? Yes, I do.

So, you're not claiming any vesting in the prior use or prior improvement of the building? No. Okay. So, you're not claiming any improvements of the property, are you? In terms of the new development and replacing what was there? Yeah, well, because you're reciting how much lot coverage there was. But the property was abandoned, the use was abandoned, correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. I believe in the staff report by Greg Bergman, and I don't want to get it wrong. That's funny because my name's on that staff report, Ann Marie. What? What? Oh, it's your staff report? My staff report. So, Heather, I thought the prior square footage of the buildings were, hold on, let me look at my notes. 2,000. I thought it was 1,900. 999. I don't know if I listed it on there. So, just to confirm, when you're giving the square footage of 2,600 square feet, that was simply for the structures on the property? That is correct, yes. Okay. I didn't list the square footage on there. I listed the buildings. I described the buildings. And I have the letter preexisting use on there. But I didn't cite the specific square footage of all the buildings that were there. Are there any uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? Are there uses for helt? WILL WILL STAND. WILL WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL WILL WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WILL STAND. WE HAVE CALCULATED FOR 12 PARKING SPOTS, WHICH BASED ON THE 3,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING SIZE AND THE PARKING CALCULATION WOULD BE THE MINIMUM THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ON THAT SITE. 12 WAS THE MINIMUM. YES. IF YOU REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MEET THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE? SO ACTUALLY ON THE WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WITH THE LAST PAGE OF THE HANDOUT, BECAUSE WITH THE PROJECT OWNER, WITH IT BEING A VERY TIGHT SITE TO BEGIN WITH, WHERE WE HAVE THE BUILDING PLACED CURRENTLY ON THE SITE PLAN IS ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH ACHIEVES THE TOWN REQUIRED SETBACKS OF 15 FEET FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. SO WE'RE KEEPING IT WITHIN THAT AREA. OKAY. SO THE WAY WE WERE LOOKING AT IT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THAT THAT WOULD BE ABOUT THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE PER UNIT THAT HE WOULD BE LOOKING TO USE. BUT WE DID RUN A CALCULATION ON THAT LAST PAGE OF THE HANDOUT WHERE WE COULD RECLAIM SOME AREAS OF THE SITE THAT WOULD BECOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPED AREA THAT WOULD GET US CLOSER TO THE BEING WITHIN THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM 40%. BUT WE WOULD REALLY HAVE TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE BOTH THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND AS WELL AS POSSIBLY REDUCE UP TO FOUR PARKING SPACES FROM THE PARKING CALCULATION IN ORDER TO PROBABLY EVEN COME CLOSE TO MEETING WITH THE 40% REQUIREMENT IS FOR THE IMPROVISED COVERAGE BECAUSE IT IS A VERY NARROW SITE. IT'S ONLY 83 FEET AT THE STREET FRONT. AND WHERE WE SITUATED THE BUILDING, IT'S ABOUT A 90-FOOT WALKWAY. SO THAT'S A VERY NARROW SITE. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY. AND BEYOND THAT IS WHAT'S CLASSIFIED AS A REQUIRED DEC AREA THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEVELOP IN. SO WE'RE MAKING SURE TO STAY OUT OF THAT. SO WHETHER MARTY HAS ANY IDEAS ON THIS OR NOT, I THINK THAT THE WE WENT WITH A MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE THAT WOULD WORK WITH WHAT HE INTENDS TO DEVELOP THERE AS WELL AS MAINTAINING WHAT THE TOWN WOULD REQUIRE FOR THE PARKING. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. Is there anyone in the audience or anyone on streaming that would like to be heard on this variance? Yeah, I'd like to sound in. I do solemnly swear to tell truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help you God, state your name and address, Marty. I do. Martin Sunluski, 215 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead. I just think that before we take comment, maybe Jeff could highlight the next two appeals also with our notes on those two appeals. Anybody have any comments? I don't. It doesn't. Does he? Mr. Sunluski, do you have a comment on this application? Yeah, I think there are two more. The other two items of the appeal. Jeff has comments on. The other variances. Okay. Please comment. Sure. Okay. Yes, because it does relate to the first variance being sought. So the next variance we're looking at is 301-162B, which is the minimum 50% landscaped area. So looking back at the plan, because in the current site plan that we have submitted, we're about at 49.2% proposed. Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? off of West Main Street, as well as behind the dumpster area, we'd be able to, without making any changes to the total amount of parking or the building itself, in making that change, we would gain enough landscaped area to put us over the 50% requirement. And with that, it would actually alleviate the requirement for a variance for the 50% landscaped area. And then the third variance that we are seeking is 301-236A1, and that is the 25-foot minimum side yard buffer, which is a result of the Suffolk County-owned property that is east of this property. And the items that I'd like to note in regards to that, obviously, because this site is so narrow that a 25-foot buffer from that property line would very much affect the property. So, we're going to be looking at that. The site is very much narrow, the site, to the point where both parking and any new facility or building would really just not be feasible. So, with the existing buffer setback at the moment, the parking area that we have shown in our site plan is basically per the existing established development. When you look at the existing site conditions page of the handout, you can see that both the building and the hardscape area of the site are very much narrowed. So, with that, I'd like to note that the parking area that we have shown in regards to the existing site is almost right up to the east property line. I believe it scales out as two-foot-six away from the property line currently. So, that was the basis for our line that we were holding for only the parking. The existing building, as I mentioned, before demolition was two-foot-six from the property line. And with what we are proposing now, it would be located at a minimum 15 feet from the property line, which would meet the side yard setbacks. And at the furthest point of the building, we would be able to move the property line to the east property line. And at the furthest point of the building, which would be the southeast corner of the building, it would increase to almost 18 feet from the property line. Another item I'd like to note is that the property that is east of the Suffolk County owned land, which is now the 711 property that was developed, we did not foil the file on this, but just when you look at the, what I believe is the fourth page of the handout, you can see that in yellow is the Suffolk County owned property, which presents the buffer. Our site is the area in red. And east of that being the 711 property, it appears that the development of that property, both parking and the building itself seems to encroach somewhere around maybe 10 to 15 feet from that property line, the Suffolk County owned property, which I would assume presents a similar circumstances with the 25-foot buffer. And aside from that, we would be, as part of our landscaping, obviously we have a certain amount of buffer area that we would be providing along that eastern property line, but with that Suffolk County owned property as it stands right now, it does appear to be mostly of just an overgrown and neglected area. We would obviously improve on that with the area that we have, that we're providing along our eastern property line, which would be still treated as a landscape buffer. But with what we are proposing currently with the site plan, our narrowest point along that property line would be about two foot four inches, it would be at the northeast corner of the site where the access is to West Main Street. But that would gradually increase to about an 18 foot setback at the new building. And then we would maintain the 25 foot setback buffer area that is within the DEC regulated area. So it's just, those are the notes that I have regarding the two other variances. So again, looking at the last page of the handout, if we were to make some slight changes to the landscaped area. AREA. I THINK WE WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SECOND VARIANCE ITEM FOR THE 50%, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY SEEK THE VARIANCE FOR THE 25-FOOT BUFFER AND FOR THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, ONLY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DECREASE THE SURFACE COVERAGE SLIGHTLY WITH THE ALTERNATE LAYOUT. SO ARE YOU PROPOSING THE AREA BEHIND THE DUMPSTER WHICH MEASURES TWO FEET BY EIGHT FEET AS PART OF A LANDSCAPED AREA? WELL, JUST AS TO REMOVE THAT FROM WE COULD SCALE DOWN THE SIZE OF THAT PAD THAT WOULD ADD INTO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. FOR THIS SIZE FACILITY, IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO HAVE A LARGER PAD THERE, SO WE COULD JUST LOOKING AT AREAS THAT WE COULD RECLAIM EVEN MINIMAL AMOUNTS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE WE WERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE TIME TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND THEN REALLY WITH UTILIZING THE EXISTING CURB CUT AT WEST MAIN STREET WAS A PRIORITY OF OURS, BUT WE CAN GO DOWN TO A 25-FOOT ENTRANCE, YOU KNOW, IN AND OUT ENTRANCE INTO THE SITE AND GAIN BACK ANOTHER 150 SQUARE FEET THERE AS WELL. SO IT WAS REALLY JUST MORE, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERING IT TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHERE WITHOUT REDUCING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE NEW BUILDING. OR WITHOUT TAKING ANY OF THE PARKING AWAY, WHICH LOCATIONS WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECLAIM A LITTLE BIT OF A PERVIOUS AREA. SO DID PLANNING REVIEW YOUR REDUCTION OF THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT? NO. SO THIS ACTUALLY WAS SOMETHING WE PUT TOGETHER JUST AS WE WERE LOOKING AT IT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES FOR THIS MEETING. BECAUSE WITH REALLY IT WAS BECAUSE WITH GOING THAT ROUTE, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE COULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND ITEM, WHICH WOULD BE THE 50% LANDSCAPE. RIGHT. BUT UNLESS THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED THAT, CORRECT? OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD BE COMING BACK HERE BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING ON THIS NEW REVISED PLAN WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE. THEY MIGHT HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. CORRECT? YEAH. AND I THINK IT WAS WE WANTED TO LOOK AT IT TO SEE WHAT OPTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF WE WERE TO TRY TO FIND LOCATIONS AND REALLY CALCULATE TO SEE BECAUSE OF HOW CLOSE WE WERE WITH THE 50% COVERAGE. IF WE IF THE OPTION WAS STILL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VARIANCE FOR THE 50% COVERAGE, WE ARE JUST BARELY UNDER THAT WITH THAT BEING 49.2% OF THE VARIANCE. SO THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. BUT A NOTE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS I BELIEVE WITH THE ORIGINAL OPTION, WHICH IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN WITHOUT THE REVISIONS, WE'RE AT 50.8% IN PERVIOUS SURFACE ON THE SITE. AND THAT WOULD STILL BE IF WE WERE GOING FORWARD WITH THAT OPTION, A ONE THIRD REDUCTION FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE THE BUILDINGS WERE REMOVED WAS A 77.8% IN PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ON THAT PROPERTY. SO WE WOULD STILL MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BASE PLAN BE REDUCING THAT CURRENT SITE FROM ITS 77.8% IN PERVIOUS DOWN TO 50.8. SO IT WOULD STILL BE A DRASTIC REDUCTION FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON SITE. RIGHT. BUT THE POINT I'M SIMPLY MAKING IS IT'S PURPORTING TO PUT THE ZONING BOARD IN A POSITION WHERE THE CURRENT PLAN IS NOT GOING TO BE A DROP IN THE CURRENT PLAN. SO IT'S PURPORTING TO PUT THE ZONING BOARD IN A POSITION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAY HAVE IMPORTANT OPINION REGARDING A REDUCTION OF THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT WAY. IF I COULD COMMENT ON THAT, MR. BEDE. THE 25-FOOT CURB CUT, TWO THINGS. ONE IS THAT CURB CUT WAS PLACED THERE BY THE DOT. WE HAD ORIGINALLY INCLUDED A PLAN THAT ACTUALLY INCREASED IT. WE LOOKED AT IT AGAIN AND REALIZED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO INCREASE IT. IN FACT, THE AREA THAT'S NOW BEING RECLAIMED CREATES MORE GREEN SPACE ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE GOAL OF THE ZONING THERE AND HAVING MORE LANDSCAPING AS YOU ENTER DOWNTOWN FROM THE WEST. AND SO THAT CURB CUT WAS PUT THERE BY THE DOT. IT IS A CURRENTLY EXISTING CURB CUT THAT THEY PLACED WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE BASED ON THE PROXIMITY OF THE INTERSECTION. AND ALSO THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM 25-FOOT CURB CUT, WHICH IS WHAT WE NOW HAVE. SO IT DOES MEET THE CODE. IT MAY MEET THE CODE, BUT PLANNING MAY HAVE COMMENTS REGARDING SAYING. CORRECT. WHERE AM I LISTENING? I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY RELEASE REGARDING THE ENTRANCE. THAT'S MY ONLY POINT, IS PLANNING HASN'T VIEWED A REDUCTION IN THE DRIVEWAY. NEXT, I JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING. IN ALL THE RECORDS THAT I REVIEWED, I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRIOR BUILDINGS TOTAL 2,600 AND X NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET. INSTEAD, ACTUALLY, I HAVE THE SHORT-FORM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE. THAT WILL CAUSE ME TO STAND. I WILL STAND. I WILL STAND. I WILL STAND. I WILL STAND. I WILL STAND. I WILL STAND. I WILL STAND.

comes to setbacks and coverage under zoning. Not a concrete patio, that's exempt, but wooden porches and the like are included. So that initial calculation of the building is correct. However, the coverage includes those other two areas, which increase the footage to what's, what was reported by Jeffrey earlier.

Okay.

Heather, you have anything? No, no. And I mean, this was discussed with the planning board. That's how we got to the point where a denial letter was issued and it's before the zoning board. So. I'm sorry, I had that one. The application was discussed with the planning board. And obviously, you know, the existing curb cut, they didn't really have any comments on, but I did note that any changes to the curb cut would require review and approval from the DOT. Because it's a state road.

So Heather, I'm looking at an aerial that was part of your report. I'm not seeing porches. It's so there's a small house all the way proximate to the river. I see the small house. There's a roof over porch. And then there's a small wooden plat that's hidden in the shadow of the main building that faces the street. If you, I think it's easier to look. Are you of the opinion that that totals nearly 700 square feet of area? So I actually just added up the square footages on the survey, which is probably the most accurate way to assess the property. There are no dimensions for the wooden patio, but based on the one story, which is 16 by 20.5, the one story frame, which is approximately 18.2 by 91.3, plus the one story frame house, I got it. I got it to be about 2,300 square feet. And that's not including the porch stoop and the wooden patio.

But I'm neither an engineer or an architect. So I'm not going to certify those numbers. Just an estimate.

And Heather, are you aware whether or not there was a letter of preexisting use for those improvements you just identified? The letter of preexisting use dated May 19th, 1993, were for a frame office, frame garage, and frame bungalow. I don't have the survey that was submitted with the LPU application. So whether or not the, I would like to, but, roofed over portions and patios you're talking about, you can't tell me if those were, legally existing? No, and really the property owner or the representatives of the application should be the one to answer that.

County piece next to it.

You might as well come on down. Unless, yeah. Yeah, I'm gonna call you. Yeah, me too. Marty. Me too. Do you know anything about the county piece, next to it? The county piece where? Well Suffolk County owns the piece adjacent to it, to the east. Okay. Do you know anything about it? How they took it? Why they took it? I have no idea. My guess would be that the county purchased it because it was on the riverfront for, you know, for... Yeah, I was wondering if it was taken for tax sale or whatever. Yeah, I would assume so. And it's, you know, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, realistically, I mean, I think that they should get a notice because the problem we had here was that vagrants were breaking into this building every time it was boarded up and locked up. Right. And they kept moving into it. So we finally demolished it when we got the notice from the town. And unfortunately I think some of them are now have tents in the county property. So that's really a derelict property. Okay. Thank you. Okay, that's good. I can live with that. I can live with that. Good. We're good. I think we've had enough discussion. Marty, what we'd like to do, we'd like to get an opinion from planning about the reduction on the entrance to the property. So we'll adjourn it for two weeks and we'll make the reserved decision on the next meeting. Right, I would just like to add though, however, we're not reducing the entrance. We were increasing the entrance, which we decided not to do. So the existing entrance, as Heather had mentioned, is existing per the DOT standard and the town standard, and it's going to remain. If we had widened it, as Heather had said, it would require a permit from the DOT, which we are no longer seeking. Marty, you submitted a site plan to the planning board with a different entrance, correct? Correct. Okay. So the zoning board is simply stating they want an opinion from the planning board if this, and I know you don't like the word reduced, the reduced concept for the entrance and exit is the planning board is good with, because it's different. The site plan was presented to them as a result of the site plan. The variance relief came to this zoning board. If the planning board's going to have an issue there, then we're talking about different numbers yet again. We have no issue with that. We're confident with the fact that it does meet the town code. It does meet the DOT standard. It does increase the landscaping and the intent of the code along the corridor approaching downtown from the west. And it does reduce the amount of impervious service, which we're trying to keep in mind. So we're going to keep that in mind. surface and brings us in compliance with the 50 landscaping totally eliminating one of the required reliefs uh so therefore we're absolutely good with that okay great great somebody make a motion here let's move this thing along please make a motion adjourn this for two weeks what's the second day heather um uh october 9th make it reserved hold on uh ninth okay october 9th okay we have a move in a second mr prashetta hi mr zaweski mr zaweski danny we lost danny he's up there i just here we go sorry i was muted all right hi okay mr barnes hi phillip hi i vote aye so we'll see you in two weeks wherever you are and uh we'll have a reserve decision for you thank you thank you thank you all thank you okay let's move this thing along here folks all right the last appeal of the night is appeal number 2025-031 doreen stone o'hare 31 nautical drive riverhead suffolk county tax net number 600-14 1-35 residence a40 zoning for a proposed two-story single family dwelling applicant request variances and or relief from town code chapter 301-11 where proposed front setback is 26.3 feet minimum required is 50 feet and where proposed rear yard setback is 31.7 feet minimum required is 60 feet who's going to speak to this fast yep are you a lawyer no sir i do state your name and address please john cook 20 sandalwood lane riverhead new york welcome please present uh we're looking for relief for front and rear yard setback to build a new home for the client doreen o'hare i'm the builder for the client sublime contracting we're pretty much uh building the house back the front yard is staying where it currently is and the side yards are staying where they currently are and we're going to be encroaching to the rear yard from what the existing dwelling currently is we have health department approval for a new ai system in the front yard

pretty much it looking to tear down the existing house and build a new house in the same spot how much bigger is the new house going to be the first floor lot coverage is about 350 square feet larger than the existing first floor because we're bumping out the back and the second floor there's currently no second floor on the existing house it's about 800 square feet with a 300 square foot roof deck that comes off of that a total of about 2 000 square feet what's the distance from the back of the new house to the new house to the to the rear yard 31.7 first it's currently 41.7 so we're building 10 feet further back staying building the house back to where it is in the front currently and the side yard setbacks so they meet they meet town code on the side yard and the front yard is staying the same or is changing it stays right where the existing house is but of course it's uh all the town zoning in that area front yard rear yard setbacks have changed over the years so uh Yeah, we're seeking relief for the front yard as well Has any discussion been made with any of the neighbors no sir We do have some neighbors here who went over you information. Oh, I'd want to know if the neighbors favorite they are okay with it Yes it from what we gather everybody is okay with this, okay Anyone else on the board here Would you like to speak at the mic just for a short brief moment who wants to speak please

Come on you can do it. Come on earn your money

Again you tell me swear to tell the truth the whole truth I do this state your name and address a Lauren Stabler 28 would Hollow Road Great River, New York Now the only thing I Want to add And we were discussing this out in the halls we were just concerned a little bit about the privacy issue It would come from a rear setback Advancement toward the because we're in the property right behind it So now it's a two-story house and you know the concept of somebody like looking over into your yard That's that's all we had so we were just gonna wonder if we could get a little Some trees put up or something like that That onto trees back there Yeah, with the amount of the amount of work that needs to be done on the property is Right now there's just basically vines and shrubs and stuff So we're gonna clean that all out and to the best of my knowledge My client is going to be planting some new evergreens along the back of the fence which will grow and eventually provide privacy for both dwellings Anyone on the streaming that would like to talk about this variance Anybody else have any questions How big of the arborvitae is gonna be in the back six to eight million has to plant that and the way the property is set it's high in the back and Property drops off to the front. So a couple of years. They'll be ample Twelve thirteen feet they grow pretty fast. Sorry you adverse to putting that in if we if we happen to grant this Would you well, yeah as a condition absolute contingent on that that your clients gonna line the back fence with absolutely I don't see some arborvitae that are gonna They're gonna be planted or provide ease or some Leland cypresses or something of that nature. Yeah. Yeah either that or a green giant something of that. The green Giants grow fast. Sure Yeah, very fast. Yeah, excellent Can I say something please would your client be I think the homeowners on if you want to swear her in oh, yes. Hi Hi. Hello homeowner. Hi How are you? Please raise your right hand? Yeah, if you're gonna speak thank you. So I'm is for the tell truth the whole truth and that's what the truth So help you God, I do. Please state your name and address My name is Doreen stone 31 nautical Drive and Riverhead then Okay, what do you have to say a Couple of things the neighbor directly to our here is Michael Tillman I Believe the neighbor that spoke Is caddy corner? Behind us but regardless We are going to do some landscaping in the back to increase the privacy for the neighbors and for us Because the lots in Reeves Park are so small you really need Some lining between the properties to provide that privacy and we are absolutely going to do that Are you okay with making that a condition here tonight? I'm just granting it Okay, sounds good to me. Let's move it on How high you want to make those? Alba Vita's minimum plan six to eight feet is good because if they use the Green giants or whatever they're called, okay, they'll grow fast you got it I

Just got a mr. Chairman with respect to a number two zero two five dash zero three one I moved at the appeal of Doreen stone or hair 31 nautical Drive Riverhead SIT SC TM number six hundred days fourteen dash one dash thirty five residents a forty are a forty zoning But variances in the relief variances and our relief front town code chapter 301 dash 11 where proposed front setback is 26.3 feet minimum required is 50 feet and where proposed rear yard setback is thirty one point seven feet minimum required sixty feet be granted subject to the homeowner agreeing to Plant some arbor varieties namely green green Giants preferably in the six to eight foot height across the back fence the rear fence In accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments there too if any as far filed with the building inspector second Mr. Perchetta aye, this is the whiskey aye Mr. Barnes aye Mr. Godzilla aye and I vote aye Thank you welcome And just to note we didn't receive the minutes from the September 11th meeting yet when we receive them I will circulate them to the board and we can adopt them at the next meeting then. Yep anything else The next meeting date is October 9th 2025 So moved motion to close next to Lee's birthday. Okay, so moved second All right favor to adjourn aye Aye We lost

! Sale. Sale. Sale. Sale.