[0:01] Good evening, please rise to the pledge of allegiance.

[0:13] Good evening, Mr.

[0:20] Chairman, members of the board. I think we had the minutes from the last meeting

[0:26] just got posted today, so I think we're going to hold those off until the next meeting.

[0:30] Okay.

[0:31] There's no need to rush those, or provide them in the plenty of time for that meeting.

[0:37] So we move to the next section, which is Project Extensions.

[0:41] We have a resolution on for the extension of filing time for three subdivisions, country

[0:46] hollowest states, roburgest states, and yasselflap.

[0:50] Motion, please.

[0:51] Motion, Mrs. Mendole.

[0:52] Second.

[0:52] Second, Mr. Tentello.

[0:53] Will a favor?

[0:54] Aye.

[0:54] Opposed?

[0:55] Motion carries.

[0:55] Okay, we also have a resolution on for the extension of a lot line change approvals.

[1:01] We have Bravoville Gilmarton in Demilio.

[1:04] Motion please.

[1:07] Second, Mr. Becker, second, Mr. Bontapio and favor.

[1:09] Aye.

[1:09] Any pose?

[1:10] Motion carries.

[1:12] Okay, and we have one resolution on tonight to establish a landscape bond for the Dixil's Plaza Parking

[1:18] 2025 application.

[1:20] Motion please.

[1:22] Motion, Mr. Tantello, second.

[1:23] Second.

[1:24] This is Amidola Olavabra, any opposed? Motion carries.

[1:29] Okay, I

[1:32] just want to wait a second.

[1:33] We're trying to get the screen back up and running.

[2:51] The first site plan on the agenda for tonight is 1714 New York Avenue,

[2:56] take five oil change.

[2:58] This is an application that had gone to the zoning board of appeals.

[3:02] It is an auto repair use, auto repair uses require special use permits

[3:06] in the C6 zoning.

[3:08] This had been in gas station with an order repair use in the past.

[3:13] They are proposing to knock down the existing building and construct a new building.

[3:18] This will be a quick change royal place.

[3:21] So basically there's not a site with a lot of on-site parking.

[3:24] It is a site with lanes for stacking cars drive up.

[3:28] Go into the building, come out the other end.

[3:31] So you see the plan there.

[3:33] The cars will come off.

[3:35] off East 15th Street.

[3:36] This is a location just north of where West Hills Road

[3:39] comes into New York Avenue.

[3:42] So long New York Avenue there.

[3:43] It is a difficult traffic situation.

[3:45] You can see by the lines with the arrows.

[3:48] You have two traffic signals on the north and south ends

[3:51] of the property on 110.

[3:53] So is judge that the side street entrance

[3:55] would be better for a traffic flow.

[3:57] This is right now, it's before us for an introduction.

[4:01] They just got there approval from the zone of Board

[4:02] of Appeals.

[4:03] It's coming back to us for site plan approval and they've been put us for us for discussions of the architecture

[4:10] This is the building their plant proposing to the planning board

[4:15] And they staff wanted to see if you have any comments on the design

[4:20] Is there any way they could make the five a little smaller maybe not make it so cartoony or is that there is that their brand

[4:30] That's awesome. This is I'm a dual

[4:34] Is there anything in the vicinity that has as aggressive branding, I think, is what?

[4:40] I don't think so.

[4:42] There's a couple, you know, there's not that many, obviously, chain business in the place.

[4:48] There might be one or two on the west side of the road.

[4:52] I think there's a polio compare out there, but that's set back from the street.

[4:57] So they don't really notice it that much, but maybe we could,

[4:59] Thank you very much.

[5:00] Try to reduce the size of some of that signage a little bit. They do seem to have a lot of signs. I think I was talking

[5:07] staff before they did get variances to allow the signs on all frontages of the building. But certainly

[5:14] there's nothing that inhibits us from making some minor changes to try to make the signage.

[5:21] I actually like it.

[5:22] I think it's pretty cool.

[5:24] Yep.

[5:27] Craig, that should be good for that.

[5:29] Craig, would you mention something about,

[5:32] I took it to be elevated parking.

[5:34] Is that they're going to have lots like that?

[5:38] What do you, what do you have this question?

[5:40] In other words, we had this in hunting

[5:42] in station where we heard everyone

[5:43] and they had allocated certain spaces to deal.

[5:47] And part of it was predicated on being able to put them

[5:50] in elevated device and go up.

[5:53] And then you're on the second.

[5:54] Oh, if you're parking multiple of the notes,

[5:57] this doesn't have anything.

[5:58] This, I mean, these kind of uses generally tend

[6:00] to have very minor parking requirements.

[6:02] It's the employees only because all the customers

[6:05] stay in their car.

[6:06] As you can see, by the sign of John the Building,

[6:09] they want everyone to stay in their car.

[6:11] As they're waiting, as they're getting service.

[6:13] So parking demand for these kind of uses is very low.

[6:17] Thank you.

[6:23] The second application on tonight, similar at least previous use, it's Anton Realty of Long Island Site Plan.

[6:32] Did you say there was a resolution for approval on that?

[6:35] No, that is introduction.

[6:36] It's the first time it's back going for the full Site Plan review.

[6:46] Anton Realty of L.I. Site Plan, this is also an existing gas station and auto repair site.

[6:52] They went to the town board, in this case, and got a zone change approval to C-11, the gas station zone.

[7:00] As with many, all the other applicants we see on for that zoning classification,

[7:05] they are planning to add a convenience store replacing the order repair use on the site.

[7:11] So they have now also gone to the zoning board for their variances.

[7:17] They've come back and they're starting the site plan process.

[7:20] So, it's just before us for an introduction, the staff just wanted to point out some of the items that we normally consider as waivers as part of the site plan review is that they have non-conforming drive aisle widths.

[7:34] In this case, for the most part, existing conditions, they are planning to reuse the existing pump areas, so they really don't have space on the east side of the pumps along the road for cars to pass by if there's cars at the pumps.

[7:49] And on the west side, also, we've had them at a side walk in front of the building for safety purposes,

[7:56] and also to help people access the building from the handicap parking space,

[8:04] which cut down on their access a little bit now.

[8:06] They're now 16 feet on that side, between the building and the pumps,

[8:11] but they are signing that for one way travel.

[8:14] So, we think that is a good alternative that removes any concern about their not being enough space for cars to go in two directions.

[8:23] There are also one little point to Vince now showing you on the south side of the site.

[8:29] There is only 16 feet there between where a car would park at the pump in the adjacent parking space.

[8:35] It's at a point, you can see that curb sort of curbs, so it widens out, is it reaches the curb cut.

[8:42] That might be at area where just as a little bit of a pinch when cars are entering an exiting.

[8:48] But again, this is an improvement over existing conditions. These are existing pump locations.

[8:54] We are getting the parking. We need, and I think our staff is pointed out that this is as in every other gas station in Huntington.

[9:04] it's a full-service site, so there is staff at the pumps that are going to be monitoring traffic

[9:09] flow, and being that this has been an existing condition at the site for many, many years,

[9:15] we think they are probably able to handle these.

[9:17] So the existing conditions that are deficient are being improved or status quo with the

[9:24] exception of the drive-out with, and that deficiency is acceptable to the staff?

[9:28] Yes.

[9:28] This is sort of what we have been working on them for, you know, this is best case scenario for improving the site where we could.

[9:37] Obviously, you know, right now it's a very, this is why it opened the entire site's paved.

[9:41] We're getting landscaping, we're getting product and buffers.

[9:45] The one thing there's been some discussion about is the signage on the building.

[9:53] I think being that up now, they do have, they are adding a canopy.

[10:00] Over the pumps, which is on the east side of the building, and there's been right now they're showing symbols on three sides of the pump.

[10:09] On one side, on the east side facing the street, they are requesting an illuminated sign. It's facing a residential zone across the street.

[10:19] That would normally be a case where we would ask that the sign not be illuminated.

[10:24] I think in this case you have illuminated signs on the south side facing people coming up Green

[10:31] Lundbrode right from the south. You have it on the north side, just getting traffic coming from the north,

[10:36] as well as people coming west down Little Plains Road. There really doesn't seem to be any benefit

[10:42] having additional signage on that site and that lighting because its canopy is right on the property line right

[10:49] at the street, it is shining towards the residential property, and that would be something we recommend they remove.

[10:55] So will have that removed before we see it?

[10:58] That's something a planning board agrees with the staff.

[11:00] That's something we'll ask the applicant to do.

[11:02] Anybody agree with that?

[11:04] I would say we would do that.

[11:09] The third site plan on for tonight is 200 West Carver Street modifications.

[11:17] Title is so named because it's a site where they're making very minor changes to an

[11:22] existing office building and parking lot.

[11:25] They have mostly been upgrading existing features on the site, replacing some of the old

[11:31] onings that are there now, repaving the parking lot, restriping it, providing making sure

[11:38] that handicapped areas are well marked and paths into the building are well marked.

[11:43] This is right now.

[11:44] It is before us with a resolution for a site plan approval.

[11:49] Motion, please.

[11:49] then? Yes. What's the second? Second. Second. Second. Second was the Tantillo

[11:53] Wallerfavor, and the POST, motion carries.

[11:57] The fourth site plan on for tonight is Spagnulli road. LLC warehouse. 2026.

[12:05] This is an

[12:06] application we have seen twice in recent years for approvals. This was the site that the

[12:12] Town Board reasoned to aye to light industrial zoning which is the most common zoning

[12:17] along Spagnilly Road, original intent was to build a large warehouse, we later approved a

[12:25] site plan for two warehouses on the property. The now are have a possible tenant being

[12:33] Amazon on the site, so they proposed a new site plan design with a smaller building, but with

[12:40] more parking area for all the Amazon delivery trucks. I sort of see there on the screen,

[12:46] sort of little black areas where they stack in the morning, waiting to be loaded.

[12:50] This site plan does have a lot of similarities with the previous site plans.

[12:55] They have primary driveways on the west side of the site, on the inside of that curve.

[13:00] And on the east side of that site entering from sort of a diagonal direction towards

[13:05] spectacular road.

[13:07] This site is also adding a third curve cut in the middle that will be where tractor trailers

[13:12] enter the site and deliver into the building.

[13:14] They are maintaining their previous rating plans for the most part from previous plans.

[13:21] They have a conservation easement in buffer area along the rear of the property where they

[13:27] bought up against SUNY Farmingdale and they are building retaining walls in front of that

[13:32] buffer line to help the site level.

[13:37] This is before us that even though there have been a number of changes to the site, there are

[13:43] So a number of similarities with previous plans, so a lot of the interior work on this has

[13:48] been reviewed, processes been lessened, and so it is for us with the conditional approval

[13:53] that as long as they respond to the agency's comments that have been made in the past

[13:58] week that it could be ready to be built.

[14:02] If I can just say something, so I believe the corporate real estate brokers that are on this

[14:09] is Kishman and Wakefield, which is a company which I'm affiliated with.

[14:14] Kishman's got 53,000 brokers, which is sort of similar size of companies like General

[14:20] Electric.

[14:22] I don't have any benefit in this.

[14:24] I don't have any compensation, nothing in this.

[14:27] So I just wanted to state that.

[14:30] Thank you.

[14:32] You know what I'd say about it is, you know, we've seen the site before us in a number of

[14:37] And looking at this particular application, first of all, I think it's a very, very good.

[14:42] It fits really well with the area and the needs of the area and the zoning of the area.

[14:48] And it's less intense, I think, development than we've seen in the past than we've already reviewed.

[14:54] And the reason I'm saying all this is because, oftentimes, we don't like to see you so many conditions associated.

[15:00] I'd like to see a little bit further, more progress. But in this case, I think it's fine. There is a, as you pointed out, a pretty large conservation easement. And I think it's in the best interest of the town that we move this forward now expeditiously. I'm very supportive of this project. And only hope that we can move, hopefully the town can move through some of these approvals at an expeditious pace. So that would be my only comment. And we also have anything they want to add?

[15:32] Okay. Motion to approve, please. Motion Mr. Backer. Second. Second. Mr. Penetta.

[15:40] All the favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

[15:45] Okay, next on the agenda are two transfer of density flow rights applications.

[15:50] These are holdovers from the prior meetings.

[15:53] The first application is 683-707-old country road.

[15:58] This is an application where they are buying flow credits in order to fill two existing vacant spaces in the building.

[16:06] They're converting a former bank into a physical therapy office and a former retail store into a real estate office.

[16:17] All right, so, you know, as we talked about this quite a bit, again, I'm just going to reiterate my feeling is that I think we've been processing these applications a little bit off.

[16:27] And I really don't think it's appropriate that we classify these as type 2 actions.

[16:37] The type 2 action, as we said before, signifies that the item is on the type 2 list,

[16:43] which indicates that absolutely no environmental assessment is required.

[16:50] And I feel like when you're intensifying a site in one of these cases,

[16:56] It's, and there's really no limit to what it could be, but in one of these cases we're talking

[16:59] about about 2,700 gallons per day of extra septic above and beyond the standard limits

[17:07] of the Suffolk County Health Department.

[17:09] And I know they're going to weigh in on this.

[17:11] But now I've seen the arguments, Reyes counseled, and they did a great job sending us two

[17:18] days ago, a two or three page legal letter with 70 pages of

[17:24] addendums, including an entire generic environmental impact

[17:28] statement that I've had for two days.

[17:31] And pretty smart guy, I guess, but not sure if I quite,

[17:35] you know, absorb that all in the two days that I looked at

[17:39] over, but so I put that aside and say that I don't really

[17:43] think that that's something that I can work with.

[17:46] at this point. If you add that now, I looked at the letter and the points that were made,

[17:52] I have some trouble with. So we can talk about that. So one of the points was, which I've

[17:56] never heard of this before, but a generic environmental impact statement on a program 18 years ago

[18:02] for the entire town will exempt every application within that program in perpetuity. That is not

[18:16] in form and streamline and expedite those reviews.

[18:22] We were also told in the letter that besides that,

[18:26] it somehow fit into the type two list because

[18:30] the type two list is so broad.

[18:32] I would differ to that.

[18:34] I would say the type two list and the type one list are lists

[18:37] that, you know, it's a flow chart.

[18:39] You go, you get an application in, you look at one list,

[18:42] you look at the other list and that's why you have

[18:44] the classification called unlisted.

[18:45] So, TDFR is not following to either list.

[18:50] So, you know, I'm not suggesting that we need to do

[18:54] an environment level next year.

[18:56] Positive declaration, I think the overwhelming majority

[18:59] of these cases will be like every other

[19:00] and listed action we do where we'll do a basic assessment

[19:08] and neck deck, the project.

[19:11] I'm sure that will be what we'll, you know,

[19:13] I've only done one positive in the nine years I've been here, so but I don't think it's proper for that.

[19:20] Now, it also came to light to me that we're processing sending sites, which I actually think probably couldn't fit into the type 2 list because we are creating a conservation easement.

[19:37] But they're being treated, I'm sorry, as type 2, they're being treated as unlisted.

[19:43] So I'm kind of confused about that, so we're creating, we're creating, we're creating, we're

[19:47] would de intensifying a piece of property, and creating a conservation easement, we're requiring

[19:55] an environmental review, but we're intensifying that property on the other side of that

[19:59] exact.

[20:00] We're exempting it from a review. And that just defies logic to me. So, you know, I don't know if there's any, if you want to respond to that.

[20:10] I think on council's memo, basically, was talking about how, when this program was created, when this law was added to the town code, the town board at the time had completed a generic environmental impact statement,

[20:25] which laid out the situations in which this was appropriate.

[20:31] And so Council laid out that as long as the following,

[20:36] you know, after that was completed,

[20:38] as long as the forthcoming applications were in line

[20:42] with what had been discussed in the GEIS

[20:45] and was in informants with the code adopted by the town board,

[20:49] that these would be actions that wouldn't require further review

[20:52] as long as the termination is made that this was in line with what the town board had decided.

[20:58] Right, so the GES has parameters set within it.

[21:01] I said, again, I didn't read the whole thing. I don't understand the whole thing.

[21:04] And I think now you're making the argument that if you can establish and I don't think you're establishing that anywhere.

[21:10] In any of these documents, that this particular application fits within those parameters.

[21:15] I mean, you're asserting it.

[21:16] In every resolution we do for transfer events to flow rights, we do make a statement in there that

[21:23] these project application being considered by the Planning Board is in conformance with chapter

[21:29] 172 of the town code.

[21:31] Well, it's in assertion.

[21:32] And that's in assertion that assertion is being made by the staff when they bring that

[21:37] application.

[21:37] So the research that I've done and I went on the secret handbook and when on the New

[21:43] They website, I went on the educational websites, and what I'm getting is that a general

[21:47] capital impact statement is a broad program where planned level EIS that addresses common

[21:52] environmental issues for a class of actions while EIS focus on unique impacts, I'm sorry.

[22:06] A GIS,

[22:10] a project meets a GIS stated conditions that may not require a full EIS.

[22:15] If a project would cause impacts beyond the GIS scope, a supplemental or specific EIS is

[22:21] required to address those new or site-specific issues.

[22:24] We don't have an answer to that.

[22:27] And we're stating in advance that we'll never

[22:30] need to have an answer to that.

[22:33] So I think the way the GIS is set up under the secret law,

[22:38] that if a project is deemed to be not in conformance with the GES,

[22:43] that's when it raises the situation where we

[22:46] They do a new seek review may request a supplemental EIS or further seek review for the seek

[22:56] reviews in accordance with based on what the EIS had had but what is missing with the current

[23:03] proposal.

[23:04] Can you show us?

[23:04] I think it's some co-section when the state law that says that a GIS, if there is a GIS

[23:11] on a program that it exempts any future applications?

[23:15] Yes, and I'm missing the beginning section.

[23:18] I think at 617 it might be 0.12d, it might be 0.11, but D1.

[23:25] It says no further secret compliance is required.

[23:29] If a subsequent proposed action will be carried out in

[23:32] conformance with the conditions and thresholds established

[23:35] for such actions in the generic EIS or its finding statements.

[23:39] Sorry, it's 617.10.

[23:42] So we talked about that on phone today.

[23:44] that I asked you if you would be able to

[23:46] rather than simply assert that that's the case,

[23:47] give us some documentation that the each application

[23:50] fits within those parameters, can you do that?

[23:55] Can you provide that for us?

[23:57] I think it's, I think we will tell you

[23:59] that that's our staff review is determined

[24:02] that they just consistent, and that's why we put

[24:04] that language into the resolution we bring.

[24:06] Let me ask you a separate question.

[24:09] So sending sites are unlisted actions.

[24:13] Is that correct?

[24:13] We have been doing sending sites as unlisted actions because usually there's some flexibility

[24:18] and where the conservation is established, what areas of the land are preserved, and so we

[24:25] have been doing them as unlisted actions.

[24:27] So the sending sites don't fall within the provisions that you were just telling me, only receiving sites.

[24:33] We have basically been operating under the interpretation that because there's more flexibility

[24:37] and ability to make changes to what's being proposed for us because there's more decisions

[24:45] to be made that we have been running them as unlisted sites to be.

[24:49] When you're usually taking the unused section of a property and you're usually taking the

[24:53] back section, the unused section of a property, the wooded section of a property, like, is that

[24:58] what you want that for the most part.

[25:00] Yes, it's supposed to be an area that's natural, obviously, that's where the preservation.

[25:05] Okay, so the staff has made a determination that you don't need to follow that section of the code for sending sites.

[25:12] And it may be the case, we are incorrect.

[25:16] And you may run the town attorneys memo.

[25:18] They stated that we had been incorrect on the receiving sites.

[25:22] We had been citing a different section of the type 2 law, and they had informed us that

[25:28] So, 37 was the better citation because of the generic EIS.

[25:34] 37?

[25:36] Under 67.

[25:38] 65, see 37.

[25:40] And so, that is the citation they asked us to use.

[25:44] And so, I think probably going forward on the sending sites,

[25:47] we would be using that same citation.

[25:49] OK, so citation.

[25:50] So, now you're using a, I mean, which is it?

[25:53] Is it that it's exempt or it needs, you need to find a spot on the list for it?

[25:57] Because now you say you need to find the spot on the list for now.

[25:59] 60% of the interpretation made by the town attorney's office is that we are proposing this as not reviewing this as a separate secret determination but looking at it as whether it is in conformance with the adopted.

[26:12] Is it six, 17, 5, C, 37, you said it was?

[26:17] Is that a TDFR or is that redevelopment of a site?

[26:22] That is under the memo written by the town attorney's office.

[26:25] that is in sort of an interpretation of an existing code, rule, or regulation, and it's basically

[26:33] as it says under 617.10D1, whether it's the interpretation of whether or not the current

[26:42] proposal is in conformance with whether or not we're broadening the definition of 617-5C-37

[26:49] to include TDFRs, even though they're not on the list, we're broadening that definition.

[26:54] If I think there are a lot of actions not specifically stated under 37, but it's well, then why do we have an unlisted classification?

[27:04] Yeah, why do we bother with an unlisted classification when we decide to put it?

[27:08] I mean, we'll decide to put it. I just say something type of pride. This man is not being cross-examined here

[27:13] Right? He's not being cross-examined to the level that you're asking. I don't even know what they're all you're talking about, right?

[27:19] So can we stop?

[27:19] We don't know what I'm talking about.

[27:21] We're going to direct some of them.

[27:22] We're going to judge on him.

[27:23] So I'm not attacking him.

[27:25] You essentially are.

[27:26] Well, it's rude.

[27:26] And it's inappropriate.

[27:27] Well, we moving to move these forward or not.

[27:30] Well, I'd like to make a motion, as the Vice Chairman, to move these 2DN-2 forward.

[27:35] This evening.

[27:36] Right.

[27:36] On the motion.

[27:37] On the motion.

[27:38] Mr. Bontampi.

[27:39] You just stated that you don't know what we're talking about.

[27:42] And that you want to make a motion.

[27:43] You're asking if you have the knowledge base to go that to the state code.

[27:48] It's not necessary.

[27:49] We've been doing this. This has been in place for 18 years. My six years on this board and you're nine

[27:53] We have been moving these for it now to have this

[27:57] Trust we are discussion when nothing has changed the whole person not change years

[28:02] That's the world second your motion on the motion

[28:05] We have we have a second on the motion. We also have and I'm allowed to speak on the motion

[28:12] Mr. Chairman

[28:14] Okay, I have another question

[28:16] say it nicely. It'd be a little bit nicer to my microphone if you like.

[28:22] Okay. So we have the resolution that Mr. Bontempi and Mr. Penetra Tantillo and

[28:30] soon Mr. Penetra will be moving forward. Okay. So in this resolution we have a

[28:36] sending site and a receiving site and work. So we identified the sending

[28:42] site where the credits came from but we are not approving the sending

[28:45] sites in these resolutions.

[28:48] We are just identifying where those credits,

[28:51] where the credits have been purchased from.

[28:53] We're not approving the settings.

[28:55] We're not the sending sites.

[28:56] We're already approving how we're approving the receipt

[28:59] of sites that have not been set.

[29:04] I'm sorry, I don't understand.

[29:05] They were approved in the past.

[29:07] They just said that the sending sites were approved.

[29:08] The sending sites were approved on the same side

[29:10] on their previous, OK, that's fine.

[29:14] That's fine.

[29:14] OK.

[29:15] All right, listen, I could see what the board

[29:17] What's the deal, so Mr. Bond, Mr. Montefi, go ahead ahead.

[29:20] I'd like to make a motion to move these two forward,

[29:23] take them together, and move them forward.

[29:25] The 2TDFRs that we discussed.

[29:27] I'd second to that motion.

[29:30] We take a roll call, though.

[29:33] Mr. Becker?

[29:35] I'm working with moving these two forward.

[29:38] Judge Wilson?

[29:39] I would agree with the Chairman.

[29:42] I wouldn't be for this.

[29:44] They should be kept unified.

[29:45] They should be kept unified, too, but a later date, okay?

[29:51] Is that my dollar?

[29:53] I'll say aye.

[29:55] Is it Tantillo?

[29:56] I'm aye.

[29:57] Second of the motion.

[29:58] And Mr. Penetta.

[30:01] Here we go. I can't count that high. What do we get up to? And by the way, I just want to say, I have absolute confidence in our professional planning staff and our talented attorneys have been doing this for decades. And I read the memo, and I went through it. And I do have confidence in you. And I think we all do. So I appreciate it, that.

[30:21] Just a second that I concur with Mr. Bonzambi. I have absolute confidence in the planning staff. I also have absolute confidence in our chairman.

[30:29] so there are some questions that he brings forward that I'm absolutely 100% okay with moving

[30:38] these TDFRs forward, but I would like to have some of the questions that our chairman

[30:44] has put forth addressed.

[30:46] Not necessarily today, I'm okay with doing this at a future meeting, but I think he brings

[30:51] up a couple of good points that I would like some further clarity on.

[30:55] Thank you.

[30:56] Okay. Well, thank you. You know, I would, I'm only going to say the, obviously, this is moved forward.

[31:01] It's, um, it is what it is. And I, I, not first time I've lost the vote. But I do, would like, really,

[31:07] to get some of these questions answered more directly. I will be forwarding you my response to the memorandum,

[31:15] which I have prepared. And maybe we can have some kind of a dialogue on this. And, um,

[31:21] possibly revisit how we're making these determinations in the future,

[31:24] because I feel very strongly that we're handling it in an improper fashion.

[31:31] Okay? Thank you.

[31:35] Anybody else?

[31:38] Okay.

[31:39] We have two subdivisions on the agenda for tonight.

[31:42] The first one is an introduction.

[31:44] This is Marcy Avenue Platt.

[31:46] This is a property in Huntington Station, just south of Jericho,

[31:51] term bike west of Route 110. We had seen this when it was a pre-application. They came before

[31:57] us to before the letter of referral to the zoning board. They are short on lot with. These are

[32:03] R7 lots with 60 feet of lot with, which is the predominant lot with in the on this block and in a lot

[32:12] of the lots in the neighborhood. They went to the zoning board of appeals. The zoning board approved

[32:16] the lot with. So now they are coming back before us to continue the subdivision process.

[32:22] As you can see from the aerial before you, this is a property. It's right behind commercial

[32:26] development. And Jericho term bike is also commercial development to the rear. That's

[32:31] something we're going to keep an eye on as we go through the process. But after this, the next step

[32:36] in the process will be completing the secret review. Once the secret review is done, we will be

[32:41] scheduling a public hearing on this application. Any particular concerns?

[32:45] There are no particular concerns here other than, you know, sort of the proximity to that commercial building behind it.

[32:52] But these are, it could be just two same size residential lots of buildings, new houses.

[32:59] And both except for the lot with, they're conforming to the zone and go in every other way.

[33:05] Okay, great.

[33:06] Okay, the second subdivision up for us tonight is the map of Willow Gardens.

[33:12] there at the attorney for the project had seen our rejection of the waiver requests for

[33:18] curves, curb aprons and underground electric at the last meeting and he had written

[33:23] a letter to see if the board was willing to change their mind on any of the requests.

[33:29] Mr. McCarthy, would you like to come up and address the board?

[33:40] Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board, Michael McCarthy, and I'm going to

[33:43] with the for celly deegan terranna, with officers at 444 New York Avenue.

[33:49] Thank you for letting me address the board regarding the letter I wrote that it's

[33:51] September 8th, 2021.

[33:54] Mr. Chairman, I was in attendance at the board meeting two weeks ago,

[33:58] and quite frankly, it was involved in another conversation on another matter

[34:02] and neglected to appreciate that the matter was being discussed by the board,

[34:06] regarding this waiver for a client of mine, Mr. Morris,

[34:10] who is operates under WTP construction LLC.

[34:14] This application contemplates a expedited

[34:17] two-lots subdivision.

[34:19] It's a resubdivision of old file-map lots on Darby Avenue.

[34:27] And the request for a waiver of underground electric

[34:31] and a waiver of curbs and sidewalks and concrete aprons.

[34:36] Now, the reason for that request is that this property is

[34:38] on the west side of Derby Avenue, and all of the utility poles are on the east side, and

[34:45] every other home in the immediate vicinity on Derby Avenue is serviced by overhead

[34:49] electric, and Mr. Morris has concerned that the requirement that he be forced to bring

[34:55] in the electric underground, he will have to, you know, how do you describe it?

[35:00] Jack under the road or missile under the road at great expense. In addition, none of the homes in the immediate area have concrete

[35:06] curves, none of them have sidewalks and none of them have concrete aprons. So, it's also thought that, by the way, if the waiver's granted,

[35:15] he contributes money to the town of Huntington's Curve and Sidewalk Fund. It's just that the pattern of development would look odd on the street in the way I described it in my letter.

[35:24] It would create what would look like a saw tooth effect or a side walk to nowhere.

[35:31] In fact, I think it would look odd indeed if the two houses at Mr. Morris is going to

[35:35] build would look, they would stand out from the other houses that are on the same side walks

[35:41] on that street.

[35:41] There's no sidewalks there.

[35:42] There's no kerbs there.

[35:44] There's no kerbs there.

[35:45] We are already way of the sidewalks that are previous meeting.

[35:48] So at the last meeting, what we were discussing and that I had suggested that we do not grant the waiver on after you and I spoke, I did go to the property and I viewed it thoughtfully when all the way up and down Derby, which is long road, I looked at the percentage of homes I agree with you, the waiver of curves should be granted.

[36:11] However, the underground electric, I think, is absolutely necessary, and if you could go back to the photo, I think you're mistaken about the sides that have the poles, because it's the other side that has the poles.

[36:26] That entire side has all underground electric, and you can see it there.

[36:30] If you look at the pictures that I sent you, if this is Emma Dola, well, I was there.

[36:34] I actually drove up and down several times, so I was almost the property, and he's describing

[36:40] how it is that he's going to be required to build it, and he's telling me and representing

[36:44] to the board that if the wave or not granted, he is going to have to have to tap into one

[36:50] of those utility poles and check the electric under the street.

[36:54] But if the house is on the same start of the poles, this is Emma Dola, they're not.

[36:57] The houses on the houses Mr. Mr. Chairman on the west side of Derby, those poles are on the east side of Derby.

[37:05] And all of the other houses, and essentially the pictures, if you look at the pictures Mr. Chairman,

[37:09] you can see the electric line coming across the street to service the houses.

[37:13] So if Mr. Morris has to do that when he builds the two houses,

[37:17] he's going to have to tap off the utility pole on the east side of the street

[37:21] and jack under the road to service the house on the west side of the street.

[37:25] So there's a question here that we're not understanding.

[37:29] There's poles on one side of the street.

[37:31] Correct.

[37:32] On the other side of the street, Ms. Amendola saying

[37:36] that there's underground electric.

[37:39] There's definitely not poles.

[37:40] Not over head electric to the poles on the west side.

[37:45] So is there overhead electric or is it underground electric?

[37:48] There's overhead electric.

[37:49] Mr. Penetta, I've provided you with pictures of that.

[37:52] And maybe I've provided you with pictures.

[37:54] There is definitely overhead electric serving the houses on the east side of Derby.

[37:59] So there we could see wire, but go to the other photo?

[38:05] Yeah, there's no wires all the way going to.

[38:08] I think it's little plans, bro.

[38:12] Is there any underground electric in that area?

[38:15] I can't verify if there's absolutely none.

[38:18] But this way, do you know if Mr. Morris is going to build these homes?

[38:22] And in order to service these homes, he's going to have to tap off the pole

[38:25] on the east side of Derby Avenue, and Jack P. the SWAT cut the road and repair it were

[38:32] Jack under the road. And I appreciate Mrs. M in dollar that there was a waiver of the curbs,

[38:37] but we were also asking for a waiver of the sidewalk and the concrete aprons. And I'm not confident

[38:41] that that was covered by the board when the waiver was granted.

[38:44] OK, so many of the polls I do not see any polls on that side. I drove up and down. That is

[38:55] Well, I don't know over there there are but not all the way they're all connected to the houses there

[39:01] All right, so go down there the other way to little planes

[39:05] See there's no wires. All right, just go down

[39:12] You can keep going

[39:14] Please

[39:19] No wires. I I loved

[39:22] Then do you get me to the pulp that a hole in front of those two houses near a little plane, so this is Emily you're you're looking at a section of derby

[39:30] That's that's removed from the subject property

[39:32] But if you look at the homes to the right and to the left immediately in the vicinity, they're being

[39:37] serviced by overhead electric.

[39:40] So if Mr. Morris needs a electric for the two homes he's building.

[39:44] Unless he gets a waiver of the overhead electric by this board, he's going to have to jack

[39:47] under the road.

[39:48] Is there a fee with the waiver that goes to the town on the overhead electric?

[39:52] I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman.

[39:54] But he estimates the cost of jacking under the road to be in the neighborhood of $25 to $30,000.

[40:02] And he's still, whether he goes underground or not, he's still dependent upon that same poll.

[40:07] Dependent upon that poll and the entire poll goes down, he's at a power, whether he's underground or not.

[40:13] Correct.

[40:16] Those might not even go to the homes. They might be continuing the power line up behind those homes to the block behind it.

[40:27] We just go to an aerial of that section. You know, the, yeah.

[40:34] I think, you know, I would imagine the legislative intent of requiring underground electric

[40:40] is for more than two houses in the middle of an existing neighborhood that has surrounded

[40:45] by overhead electric.

[40:47] I would think that a reasonable interpretation is when this board is looking at a new subdivision

[40:52] of substance, where you're bringing in a call to sack or you're developing a new neighborhood.

[40:57] Typically, the way the board is always treated in fill lots is that you would handle

[41:01] the way you'd always handle what's the pattern of development in the area. So if the pattern

[41:05] of development in the area was for overhead electric it was typically granted. In fact shame on

[41:10] me but you know I was so confident that the board would have granted it that I just didn't even

[41:15] concern myself with it when I was here two weeks ago. Well we were following the staff recommendation

[41:21] and I'm telling the truth I went there and I'm not telling the story. I have no doubt that you

[41:29] and then we can vote on it.

[41:31] And you know what we can do?

[41:32] So if you want to kick it over for maybe two more weeks,

[41:36] and then what I'll do in the intervening time is,

[41:39] if I need to try to find information from PSEG,

[41:42] but I think it speaks for itself.

[41:44] You're looking at it right there.

[41:45] This is a section of Derby that is served by overhead electric.

[41:49] It's an infill lot.

[41:51] It was a vacant lot that Mr. Morris bought.

[41:54] And we're doing an expedited subdivision.

[41:56] He, you know, obtained the, dare I say the TDFRs to make this happen.

[42:02] So, and, and again, he's just looking to build two houses in the neighborhood and, you know,

[42:07] wants them to be, you know, obviously, is on a point.

[42:10] Would you come back in a couple of weeks?

[42:11] I mean, I think this precedent for changing our mind.

[42:13] We did it recently on Hellsite with the sidewalks.

[42:17] We've done waivers of this magnitude.

[42:20] I know we did it on Platt Street a few years ago.

[42:23] So, this precedent for what you're asking for.

[42:25] So I want you to come back with a little more information

[42:27] in a couple of weeks so we can revisit it.

[42:29] Well, with some of the board members go, look at it

[42:31] because I don't know what more information I could do.

[42:33] I'll just go.

[42:33] Other than the photograph said, I just want to add something.

[42:36] I went to Derby of myself.

[42:39] I did not, just like Mrs. Amidola said,

[42:41] there were no power of blinds on their side of the street,

[42:45] but I did.

[42:45] Everywhere I saw, I was looking for two things.

[42:47] Did I have power lines going overhead, which I did,

[42:51] go into the houses on the other side of the street.

[42:53] And one thing I did not notice, which I was looking for, is when they have the in-ground

[42:58] electric, they've got those boxes, sorry, those boxes at the, kind of like at the Basins

[43:04] River where the electric enters there is none of that on their side of the street.

[43:09] So that kind of lens me to believe what they're saying, that they would have to, if they were

[43:15] going to the ground, they would have to go through all the steps that Mr. McArthur described.

[43:19] I can tell you right now, Mr. Becker. Thank you. But without question, for this property where it's located in proximity to that pole.

[43:27] Can you put the map back up then? That shows the utility pole.

[43:30] And the utility pole is right there. So, there's the two houses.

[43:34] So, if Mr. Morris builds those houses, that's where his electric surface is coming from without question.

[43:39] If you see they're going to go more.

[43:40] I personally feel right now that it's absurd for us not to grant this waiver.

[43:44] I mean, that's my opinion. I mean, if you all want to wait, that's fine.

[43:47] But I just, I don't make somebody dig up a street for, you know, to be so

[43:52] at a character with the rest of the neighborhood and spend 25 grand, and a

[43:57] copish almost nothing because you're not losing a pole anyway.

[44:00] I, I, I, I, listen, I want to rely a little bit upon Mr. Morris's reputation as

[44:05] a quality and thoughtful builder intent, he's before the board regularly, and

[44:09] it's, it's, it's not without knowing that there's some consternation by the board

[44:15] that he's asked me to come back and make the request.

[44:17] And he does not make the request lightly.

[44:20] And I think you know him to be a good builder.

[44:22] And he always follows the rules.

[44:23] But he's looking at this saying Mike, it just doesn't make any sense.

[44:28] Because it's going to cause tremendous expense.

[44:29] I don't think I appreciated, by the way, Mrs. Mendole,

[44:32] that the curves had already been waived.

[44:33] Thank you for that, by the way.

[44:36] I thank the board.

[44:38] But he's telling me that in order to make that happen,

[44:40] that's the poll he's going to tap off of.

[44:42] And he's going to have to figure out how to either open the road

[44:45] fix it or jack-on-ritch.

[44:48] Yeah, I think that's the logic we used down at

[44:50] Platte when we waited a few years ago that we were using the same pole.

[44:54] So if that pole goes down, the electric goes down, you're not really

[44:56] compushing anything, you're not fitting in with pattern of development.

[45:00] Just costing the guy a lot of aggravation in a lot of money.

[45:02] Mr. Chair, clearly all day long. Any time you can put the electric underground is beneficial, without

[45:09] question. And any time you can, you know, have a curb and a sidewalk, you know, for drainage

[45:14] and things of that nature, it's helpful. And I know that this forward doesn't grant these

[45:18] waivers lightly. And, but in this instance, you know, he's looking at the cost, benefit,

[45:29] and

[45:29] relationship to the houses that are immediately next to him, to the north end of the south,

[45:34] and it's as simple as that.

[45:40] Okay.

[45:40] Well, so is that the way the board would like to proceed?

[45:43] Is the Bontape?

[45:44] I despite my T-DF-Rout Perse, I agree with the chair.

[45:47] You should grant the waiver.

[45:48] Thank you.

[45:49] Just about that.

[45:50] Okay.

[45:51] Okay.

[45:51] So everybody agreed a grant to the waiver?

[45:54] I would.

[45:55] I would.

[45:58] I was asking for the curb.

[46:00] So I'd walk that kind of-

[46:01] You already have the good side.

[46:02] Thank you.

[46:03] Did I get the current?

[46:04] Yeah, the current.

[46:05] And the concrete effort.

[46:09] So is it going to get my welcome?

[46:11] So the planning department is saying that the apron is a big deal.

[46:16] Is that a big deal for me?

[46:16] Well, they want to know what the material is going to be, right?

[46:19] It would just be driveway, because they're just black topped into the street.

[46:23] Black shop rather than concrete.

[46:25] Yeah, black topped.

[46:26] So you'd have a black topped apron.

[46:28] Well, you can see it here.

[46:29] Hold on.

[46:30] There's a whole monitor that looks a little pride

[46:32] and put in right there, black top, that one right there is concrete.

[46:38] It's, as a majority of the evidences are either concrete, or it can be still

[46:43] which is really a thing to do with the permission of the white department, the full arm of the

[46:48] secretaries.

[46:49] And because of that area, things that most impact when people are currently

[46:53] into the driveway is that's why we refer to that way, not as full service.

[46:59] Fair enough.

[47:00] We have a problem with the concrete apron.

[47:02] Listen, in exchange for an open electric waiver, you've got it.

[47:05] I'll give you three of them, even though we're getting three out of four.

[47:09] Okay.

[47:10] So I think we're clear Mr. Turner.

[47:12] We're clear.

[47:13] We're clear.

[47:14] We're clear.

[47:15] Just so you know, we did reach a consensus at the last meeting.

[47:18] Thank you.

[47:18] Now we're amending our decision.

[47:22] And we've been.

[47:24] It's not ready.

[47:24] This is Hamidil Mica's.

[47:27] I'm sure I don't be lovely.

[47:28] He'll make it lovely.

[47:29] OK.

[47:30] So we've been curved, and we're waving.

[47:32] Sidewood?

[47:32] 8-prin.

[47:33] Not at 8-prin.

[47:34] Wait, wait.

[47:35] No, not at 8-prin.

[47:35] I'm not, at 8-prin.

[47:36] The electric.

[47:38] Curve, side-walk, and underground electric, what you're waving.

[47:42] You'll have a concrete apron.

[47:44] But we want to create aprons.

[47:45] Yeah, good.

[47:45] You've got it.

[47:46] OK, thank you very much.

[47:47] Anything else from Sternor?

[47:48] I'll put my hand prints on you.

[47:50] Anything else from Sternor?

[47:50] Just briefly to state we have a we did have one ZBA referral on the agenda table over our last meeting

[47:59] Staff has been having a lot of issues with this because it was unusual application. They're proposing a use that really doesn't exist in the code

[48:07] We've been going back and forth with the applicant and their attorney

[48:10] And they've agreed that we should hold this over again, and maybe this needs some further discussion

[48:15] and to verify how we're taking this.

[48:18] Okay, they're going to push back there.

[48:20] They're going to push back.

[48:21] They're going to be a hearing date to let us come up with a better plan for this assembly.

[48:26] Okay.

[48:27] Good.

[48:27] Thanks, everybody.

[48:28] We need adjourned.

Plannning Board Meeting

Agenda

Transcript