Huntington Planning Board Meeting: Estates at Elwood Public Hearing (August 5, 2026)

The Huntington Planning Board held a regular meeting followed by a public hearing on the proposed Estates at Elwood subdivision, a 46-lot clustered development on 55 acres zoned R-40. The board approved routine consent items, tabled a transfer of density flow rights (TDFR) application, and heard extensive public testimony on environmental, traffic, fiscal, and community character concerns. The SEQRA public hearing remains open for written comments for 30 days.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes from the July 15, 2026 Planning Board meeting were approved.
• A landscape bond for Nana's Nursery at 11 Manor Road in the amount of $2,000 was approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

• John Mazaran (25-year resident of Old Chester Hills) expressed concerns about inadequate notice of the meeting, traffic safety, wildlife displacement (e.g., rabbits, foxes), incremental tax burden on existing residents, and whether the development would set a precedent for smaller lot sizes. He appreciated the board's clarification that no rezoning is involved.
• Daniel Carpin (resident of Huntington) argued that the property (known as Sand Hills) should have been designated a sole source aquifer under ECL Article 55. He claimed his 2016 petition to the DEC was approved by default due to the agency's delayed response (one year, five months, and 20 days), and he asserted the proposal is invalid due to illegal segmentation. He declared the project "dead on arrival."
• Robert Lamont (resident of Dix Hills) raised concerns about single egress for the development, fire suppression with close house spacing, traffic on Jericho Turnpike (speeding over the crest), and the fiscal assumptions. He suggested a secondary egress and noted that the property could be developed with one-acre lots instead, but acknowledged that would eliminate preserved land.
• Jill Finkelstein (67-year Elwood resident) expressed support for the project, stating she is glad that half of the property will be permanently preserved.
• Andrew Martin (resident) deferred detailed comments to the next meeting but asked about the safety of making a left turn from the development onto Jericho Turnpike (45 mph speed limit, cresting hill, no signal).
• James Tomio (President, Elwood Union Free School District Board of Education) stated the district does not take a position but wants accurate financial information. He criticized the expanded environmental assessment form (EEAF) for overstating fiscal benefits, noting that property tax cap laws prevent automatic spending of new tax revenue and that foundation aid does not scale per student. He requested the district be included as a meaningful participant in the review.
• Nina Pombo (fourth generation of Media Villa Orchards, adjacent property owner) asked about a security barrier between the development and her farm, school bus pickup safety on Jericho Turnpike, and noise impact on the farm from 40+ homes.
• Douglas Bush (also on adjacent property) asked about environmental impacts on wildlife displacement, noting the active farm and deer population, and questioned the applicant's plan for preserving wildlife habitat.
• Donald Janke (resident of Whistle Hill Lane) criticized transparency, stating a 130-page technical document was made available only two days before the meeting despite being available for months. He called for better communication and noted that the school district had been left out.
• Glenn Auerbeck (Sabrina Court) questioned whether lots 45 and 46 are intended for future commercial development (noting their large size) and raised concerns about steep slopes and retaining walls.
• Bob Chernak (resident) challenged the accuracy of the steep slope analysis, claiming the property rises 50 feet from front to back and that many lots would need retaining walls. He requested an independent review of the slope data.
• Dale Sabatini (Old Chester Hills) asked how half-acre lots are permitted under R-40 zoning (minimum one acre), expressed concern about tick disease from displaced animals, questioned the status of lots 45/46 (commercial vs. residential), and asked about a second egress for fire safety.
• William Paul Guichard (Manor Road) cited deer-vehicle collisions on Manor Road and requested a left-turn arrow on Deer Park Avenue for safe access.
• Alan Robert (Clay Pitts Road) asked for more educational resources for residents to understand zoning terminology and processes, noting the complexity of the 130-page technical document.
• Patrick Deegan (Elwood resident) raised concerns about lack of a landscape buffer, removal of approximately 275,000 cubic yards of earth, no traffic light, wildlife, historic trails, late release of information (appendices added recently), and two known unpermitted dumping locations that require evaluation for toxicity and remediation.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation: Chris Robinson (RM Engineering) and Carrie O'Farrell (Nelson Pope Voorhees) presented the proposal: a 46-lot clustered subdivision on the 55-acre westerly half of the former Media Villa property. The yield of 46 conforming R-40 lots was determined by the board in February 2026 after steep slope analysis. The cluster plan preserves 21 acres (nearly 38%) of the property as permanent open space, contiguous to Berkeley Jackson County Park, at no cost to taxpayers. The development requires no rezoning, no variances, and no zoning board relief. Access is via a single driveway on Jericho Turnpike; improvements including deceleration/acceleration lanes are proposed and under review by NYSDOT, which has requested a traffic signal warrant analysis. The environmental assessment covers natural resources, traffic, community character, noise, cultural resources, and fiscal analysis estimating $1.44 million in annual tax revenue and 43 projected school-aged children.
• Board Questions: Board members asked about water district notification (applicant stated they contacted the district and are conducting a hydraulic analysis), fire department consultation (done, no concerns), school district coordination (applicant sent a letter in March 2026 to the superintendent but board was unaware; applicant expressed willingness to meet), steep slope analysis methodology (mathematical per town code, showing capacity for 54 lots), lots 45 and 46 (applicant confirmed no current plan for commercial rezone but acknowledged future possibility; offered to accept a condition restricting housing on those lots), buffer for adjacent farm (25-foot landscape buffer proposed, fencing possible), and earthwork volumes (some cut-to-fill on site, remainder carted away).
• Applicant Response to Public: The applicant defended noticing (mail to 500 ft radius, newspaper ads for six weeks, signs on site, online posting, documents available for months). Regarding the school district, the applicant stated they reached out in March 2026 and received no response. Clarified that clustering allows smaller lots within R-40 without changing the zone, and that the preservation of 21 acres mitigates environmental impacts. Traffic analysis shows the single 40-foot-wide driveway can accommodate fire apparatus. Remediation at a prior demolition site was completed with DEC oversight.

Key Outcomes

• The SEQRA public hearing was opened and will remain open for written comments for 30 days. No determination was made.
• The Transfer of Density Flow Rights (TDFR) for 1019 Fort Salonga Road was tabled to a later meeting without discussion.
• The board accepted the public notices for the hearing via motion.
• A future public hearing on the preliminary subdivision map will be held at a later date.
• The board will consider all written comments submitted within the 30-day comment period before reaching a SEQRA determination.