OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Huntington Planning Board Meeting Summary - September 2, 2026

Meeting PortalWednesday, September 2, 2026
BodyHuntington, New York
SessionMeeting Portal
DateWednesday, September 2, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 54:00

Transcript — Verbatim
0:05

Good evening, everyone.

0:06

Welcome to the Huntington Planning Board meeting for September 2nd, 2026.

0:10

Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

0:25

Thank you, everyone.

0:26

Um, before we get into our regular agenda, we have a public hearing tonight.

0:30

And before we get into the public hearing, I just have a brief announcement or statement I'd like to make uh with regard to another project that's not on tonight's agenda, which is the Indian Hills subdivision.

0:41

Um I just want to make a couple of points.

0:43

Uh the planning staff want to let everyone that is interested in this, is putting together uh recommendations on certain procedural issues and CECRA related issues that will be presented to the planning board at probably the next meeting, if not the one after that.

0:59

And will be addressed, you know, while the planning board did express support for the conceptual plan with concerns and uh uh and support for various parts of the map that we saw.

1:14

Um, we will be addressing any zoning questions and any questions relating to CECRA processes.

1:20

Um none of those determinations have been made.

1:22

I know there was concern about uh in the public, there's a lot of public interest in this.

1:27

There's questions about zoning, there's questions about CECRA, and those will all be addressed and be made clear shortly.

1:33

Thank you very much.

1:34

Uh we have a public hearing for the map of Sound Sound Ridge Lots 4-16.

1:42

Um the rules for the hearing are as far follows.

1:47

A representative of the applicant will make a presentation to the planning board.

1:50

Upon completion of the presentation, the public will be offered an opportunity to address the board.

1:55

Each member of the public will have up to three minutes to address the board.

1:58

Member uh members of the public will not be permitted to speak again.

2:02

After the public has spoken, the applicant's representative will have an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the public and answer any questions from planning board members.

2:10

Uh may I have a motion to accept the public notice?

2:13

Motion, Mrs.

2:14

Amadola, second, Mr.

2:15

Tantillo, all in favor?

2:16

Aye.

2:17

Any opposed?

2:18

Motion carries.

2:19

Good evening, Mr.

2:20

Chairman, members of the board.

2:21

For the applicant, I'm Ryan Brown of Breslin and Brown PC, 44 Elm Street Suite 5 Huntington, New York 11743.

2:28

I'm sure the board is aware there's been a number of comments from residents, as we can tell from the crowd, we can expect some residents to speak today based upon reviewing those letters and emails.

2:37

I think there's uh conceptual misunderstanding, maybe by the public, so it might be better that I lay out some things that the board is probably aware of, but the public is probably not about what we're actually looking for here tonight.

2:50

So while it's called an expedited subdivision, I'm sure the board is aware this process used to be called an unmerger.

2:56

It was renamed somewhat recently, but it's really an unmerger, it's not a new subdivision.

3:02

What we're doing is we're unmerging a property that was previously subdivided on a map that was approved in 1938, the Vince has up there, to go back to lots 14, 15, and 16 of the previously filed map.

3:16

And this is a process that is provided for in the town's code.

3:21

The second question becomes that of the zoning.

3:25

Now, this is an R40 zone.

3:28

But in 1938, when this map was created and filed, this was an R 10 zone.

3:33

Then in 1947, the town board saw fit to upzone this area to B R 40.

3:39

But when they did that, they provided for exceptions for lots on this map, these three lots being included, which means that though they exist in an R40 zone, they only need to meet the requirements of R 10 zoning.

3:52

And all three of these lots do.

3:54

We're not seeking any relief from the board, asking for any special exceptions.

3:59

We're doing everything that we're allowed to do under the statutes.

4:04

Now the third question that seemed to come up the most, isn't really something that concerns this board, but it is something that concerns the application, is whether or not these board these lots meet the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health.

4:18

Now, they don't meet the current day standards, but again, we have an exception in the statute that enacted the requirements.

4:25

And in 1986, when Article 6 of the county code was created to govern these regulations and require that there be 20,000 square foot lots.

4:36

There's an exception that says that any lots that had previously been approved by the New York State Department of Health are exempt from having to meet that requirement.

4:45

These three lots were approved by the New York State Department of Health in 1938 when this lot, this map was filed.

4:52

So do we have to have 20,000 square feet?

4:55

We don't.

4:56

These lots meet the requirements of the Department of Health.

5:00

We're not going to have to go to the Board of Review and ask for any relief in order to get these approved by the Board of Health, and those applications are already in.

5:05

What we will have to do is provide an IA nitrogen reducing system.

5:10

And all of these lots, the new homes that will be constructed on them will meet all of the current day standards that are required.

5:17

So again, what we're really asking for here tonight, and not so much asking is submitting an application to meet all of the requirements that are in the code is to unmerge these three lots, lots 14, 15, and 16 of the map of Soundridge, going back to three lots with areas of 15,152 square feet, 17,796 square feet, and 16,499 square feet.

5:44

Now I also have Chris Robinson from RM Engineering here.

5:47

He can speak to the technical aspects of the lot or the lots if the board has any questions about that.

5:54

But really our application is to unmerge these lots and go back to the 1938 map as we're entitled to under the code.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████51%
Environmental Protection█████████████████19%
Procedural██████████████16%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████12%
Transportation Safety██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Huntington Planning Board Meeting - September 2, 2026

The Huntington Planning Board met on September 2, 2026. The meeting opened with a public hearing on the Map of Soundridge, Lots 14, 15 and 16, followed by routine resolutions, site plan approvals, subdivision discussions, two tabled transfer of density flow rights applications, a lot line change approval, and a tabled ZBA referral. The chair announced that planning staff would bring procedural and SEQRA recommendations for the Indian Hills subdivision to a future meeting, and that no zoning or SEQRA determinations had been made. The transcript spells the acronym as CECRA.

Public Hearing: Map of Soundridge, Lots 14, 15 and 16

The agenda lists the hearing as Map of Soundridge, Lots 14, 15 and 16, although the chair's opening announcement referred to Lots 4-16.

  • Ryan Brown of Breslin & Brown PC, attorney for the applicant, described the application as an expedited subdivision/unmerger of three previously filed 1938 map lots, not a new subdivision. He said the lots are in an R40 zone but retain an R10 requirement through a 1947 upzoning exception, and that the lots are exempt from the Suffolk County 20,000-square-foot lot requirement because the New York State Department of Health approved them in 1938. The proposed lot areas are 15,152, 17,796, and 16,499 square feet. Chris Robinson of RM Engineering was available for technical questions.
  • Christopher Larson (51 Dogwood Lane) opposed the unmerger, arguing the property has been treated as one merged residential lot for decades and that three large homes would not fit the neighborhood character. He asked the board to uphold the current zoning and warned of a ripple effect for other merged lots.
  • Frank Jacovina (42 Bayberry Lane) cited existing flooding and drainage problems, including a 1.5-inch rainfall on April 16, 2018 that caused thousands of dollars in damage. He asked for no net increase in peak flow, on-site capture of driveway and apron runoff, sediment controls at the toe of the cleared slope, extended basin maintenance, corrected drainage calculations, and other conditions.
  • Joe Aiello asked the board to clarify the legal basis for creating three lots from a roughly 49,000-square-foot parcel under a decades-old exception. He contrasted Huntington's population of about 30,000 in 1938 with over 200,000 today and said proposed homes would be far larger than the area's 1930s homes. He requested a clear legal explanation, a SEQRA determination, and clarification of home sizes before final action.
  • Diane Aiello (25 Rose Court) raised the loss of mature woodland, saying the applicant's tree preservation plan identifies 128 trees but the property likely has about 1,028. She asked whether an environmental study had assessed the flooding impact of removing mature oaks and urged the smallest possible clearing limits, protection of mature trees and mountain laurel, and meaningful replacement plantings.
  • In response, the applicant said each driveway would have a trench drain connected to a dry well and each dwelling would have a rear dry well, for six dry wells total, and that runoff from impervious areas would be captured to the three-inch stormwater retention standard. A new leaching catch basin would be added on Narcissus. The applicant described the soil as poorly graded sand and gravel with groundwater more than 100 feet down, said each dwelling footprint, including porch and two-car garage, is about 1,860 square feet, and said only lots 32 and 33 in the subdivision could be similarly unmerged, so the request would not set a widespread precedent. A board member acknowledged the unmerger is a discretionary action. The hearing was closed with no board vote on the merits.

Minutes and Routine Resolutions

  • Approved the July 15, 2026 and August 19, 2026 planning board minutes; the motion carried with one abstention.
  • Approved the 62-day review-time extension for Holy Trinity Plat, extended to November 16, 2026.
  • Approved the 90-day filing-time extension for Kreling Plat, extended to December 14, 2026.
  • Approved the three-month lot line change extension for 55 and 65 West Hills Road, extended to December 14, 2026.
  • Approved one-year performance bond extensions for 45 Sammis Plat (A and B) and Kaufman-Pebble Plat, extended to October 30, 2027 and October 4, 2027 respectively.
  • Approved a $2,000 landscape bond for Nana's Nursery, 11 Manor Road.

Site Plan Approvals

  • Approved an amended approval for BSL Dix Hills, a Benchmark Senior Living assisted-living project originally approved about four and a half years ago. The project was recently referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, which returned an approval resolution, and the amendment adds time to complete the project before the original approval expires.
  • Granted conditional approval of the site plan for 1765 New York Avenue (SP 25-10005), following earlier architectural approval. The building is at the street on New York Avenue, with parking behind on two sides of a central drive aisle and required landscape buffers around the parking lot.

Subdivision Discussions and Actions

  • Map of Willow Gardens, Lots 32-38 (Derby Avenue, Greenlawn): The board denied the applicant's waiver requests for curbs, underground electric, and concrete aprons. A board member said utility lines should not be run across the street and that new construction should include curbing and aprons. Staff had noted curbs are intermittent in the neighborhood and that the immediately adjacent properties do not have curbs, but recommended keeping the underground electric requirement and the standard concrete apron.
  • Crosby Estates (pre-application, Cold Spring Harbor): The board received an introduction to a former radio tower site split-zoned R80/R20. The applicant proposes R80- and R20-conforming lots, two access points, and removal of the existing radio towers. All proposed lots exceed 20,000 square feet, so they would meet county septic requirements. Staff is conducting preliminary review and expects to send comments shortly. A representative for the applicant noted the project would add about 26 homes to the Cold Spring Harbor School District and provide new local connections.

Transfer of Density Flow Rights (TDFR)

  • The board discussed TDFR applications for 683-707 Old Country Road and 1019 Fort Salonga Road II. A staff description characterized 1019 Fort Salonga Road II as a fully leased shopping center purchasing 288 gallons of flow rights as a reserve for possible future wet uses; current tenants meet Suffolk County standards.
  • One board member questioned classifying TDFR transfers as SEQRA Type II actions, since the transfers are separate from the underlying site plan and are discretionary. Another board member questioned whether credits should be banked while other projects need them. The board tabled both TDFR resolutions pending review by counsel.

Lot Line Change and ZBA Referral

  • Approved the Galioto lot line change along Derby Avenue, Greenlawn, in which a larger lot conveys land to an undersized 40-by-100-foot lot so the smaller lot has more yard space; the resulting lots are oversized.
  • Tabled the planning board recommendation on ZBA referral #23763 (90 Washington Centerport) for about two weeks; the ZBA hearing is scheduled for October 10, 2026.

Communications

The agenda listed 27 communications, including resident comments on the Map of Soundridge, emails and letters regarding Estates at Elwood, and an email from Chief Connor Beach regarding Residences at Oheka II. No oral discussion of these communications occurred on the record.

Key Outcomes

  • Public hearing on the Map of Soundridge closed; no decision made.
  • Minutes approved with one abstention.
  • All listed extensions and the Nana's Nursery landscape bond approved.
  • BSL Dix Hills amended approval and 1765 New York Avenue site plan approved.
  • Willow Gardens waivers denied.
  • Galioto lot line change approved.
  • Both TDFR applications tabled pending counsel review.
  • ZBA referral #23763 tabled.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Huntington Planning Board meeting for September 2nd, 2026. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, everyone. Um, before we get into our regular agenda, we have a public hearing tonight. And before we get into the public hearing, I just have a brief announcement or statement I'd like to make uh with regard to another project that's not on tonight's agenda, which is the Indian Hills subdivision. Um I just want to make a couple of points. Uh the planning staff want to let everyone that is interested in this, is putting together uh recommendations on certain procedural issues and CECRA related issues that will be presented to the planning board at probably the next meeting, if not the one after that. And will be addressed, you know, while the planning board did express support for the conceptual plan with concerns and uh uh and support for various parts of the map that we saw. Um, we will be addressing any zoning questions and any questions relating to CECRA processes. Um none of those determinations have been made. I know there was concern about uh in the public, there's a lot of public interest in this. There's questions about zoning, there's questions about CECRA, and those will all be addressed and be made clear shortly. Thank you very much. Uh we have a public hearing for the map of Sound Sound Ridge Lots 4-16. Um the rules for the hearing are as far follows. A representative of the applicant will make a presentation to the planning board. Upon completion of the presentation, the public will be offered an opportunity to address the board. Each member of the public will have up to three minutes to address the board. Member uh members of the public will not be permitted to speak again. After the public has spoken, the applicant's representative will have an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the public and answer any questions from planning board members. Uh may I have a motion to accept the public notice? Motion, Mrs. Amadola, second, Mr. Tantillo, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the applicant, I'm Ryan Brown of Breslin and Brown PC, 44 Elm Street Suite 5 Huntington, New York 11743. I'm sure the board is aware there's been a number of comments from residents, as we can tell from the crowd, we can expect some residents to speak today based upon reviewing those letters and emails. I think there's uh conceptual misunderstanding, maybe by the public, so it might be better that I lay out some things that the board is probably aware of, but the public is probably not about what we're actually looking for here tonight. So while it's called an expedited subdivision, I'm sure the board is aware this process used to be called an unmerger. It was renamed somewhat recently, but it's really an unmerger, it's not a new subdivision. What we're doing is we're unmerging a property that was previously subdivided on a map that was approved in 1938, the Vince has up there, to go back to lots 14, 15, and 16 of the previously filed map. And this is a process that is provided for in the town's code. The second question becomes that of the zoning. Now, this is an R40 zone. But in 1938, when this map was created and filed, this was an R 10 zone. Then in 1947, the town board saw fit to upzone this area to B R 40. But when they did that, they provided for exceptions for lots on this map, these three lots being included, which means that though they exist in an R40 zone, they only need to meet the requirements of R 10 zoning. And all three of these lots do. We're not seeking any relief from the board, asking for any special exceptions. We're doing everything that we're allowed to do under the statutes. Now the third question that seemed to come up the most, isn't really something that concerns this board, but it is something that concerns the application, is whether or not these board these lots meet the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health. Now, they don't meet the current day standards, but again, we have an exception in the statute that enacted the requirements. And in 1986, when Article 6 of the county code was created to govern these regulations and require that there be 20,000 square foot lots. There's an exception that says that any lots that had previously been approved by the New York State Department of Health are exempt from having to meet that requirement. These three lots were approved by the New York State Department of Health in 1938 when this lot, this map was filed.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com