Site plan covenants should mean something — or why bother?

Do covenants written by the planning board mean anything … to the planning board?

We’ll see. Presently, the planning board is considering negating covenants signed by a property owner just 60 days before he applied to change those covenants. Adding insult to injury, certain covenants agreed to by the owner have already been violated, with the owner installing items specifically prohibited, then “requesting” approval of changes already made.

Denying this application seems like an obvious decision for the planning board to make. But the planning board chairman has been quoted as saying he had no problem with the changes already made in violation of agreed-to covenants. During a public hearing held on Sept. 7, there were eight speakers objecting to the application in question. They raised objections to the use expansion as violating the present Agricultural Protection Zone by negating agreed-to covenants, as well as objections to the application violating the intent of the 1974 Sound Avenue historic corridor designation.

Riverhead staff reports sent to the planning board after inspecting the site location stated that as-built deviations from the approved site plan effectively changed the use of that location to a restaurant use, according to the county health department. The addition of parking spaces built in violation of the existing covenants led one speaker to advocate for a new traffic study. A neighboring homeowner spoke about noise now invading his property because of the installation of outdoor music speakers, which were specifically prohibited by existing covenants. When another speaker insisted that a noise study should be conducted, the planning board chairman became defensive, refusing to respond to questions asked to him by the speaker, stating he had no obligation to answer any questions raised at the hearing.

The only speaker at the podium in favor of the application was the applicants’ Lawyer, who spoke first. Interestingly, after eight speakers followed with objections, the lawyer never returned to the podium to rebut the objections.

This application should be denied for the numerous lawful reasons mentioned above. Granting this application would lead any reasonable person to believe that covenants in the Town of Riverhead are of no value. Approving this application will lead others to believe that an initial application should be sculpted for a foot in the door, and can be substantially altered at a later date. The planning board must deny this application or it will lose all credibility in the future.

The planning board positions are all by appointment, not election. That makes this decision more important because the Riverhead voter cannot change the planning board with a specific vote. The town board ultimately hand picks the planning board. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable approval of this application will be reflective on the planning board, the town board and Supervisor Walter.

We, the homeowners of Riverhead, have our futures influenced by the actions of our elected officials, and the people they appoint to enforce the zoning in our town. Allowing variances to zoning should be scrutinized. Allowing accessory uses should be rare, and restricted by covenants that should be adhered to. Presently, the planning board has before it an application that will allow a site that violates agreed-to covenants, and attempts to remedy the violations through modification of the site plan approval and the recorded covenants. This behavior should not be tolerated by the planning board, and must vote no. We’ll be watching!

Mike Foley is a resident of Reeves Park.

Editor’s note: The “In My Opinion” column is open to anyone who wants to submit a viewpoint on any topic. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of RiverheadLOCAL’s publishers. We welcome submissions. Be sure to include your email address and daytime phone number. Click here to submit your opinion.