Vocal residents who helped develop the Downtown Pattern Book urged the Riverhead Town Board to adopt proposed amendments codifying the document into a key Main Street zoning district during a public hearing Tuesday afternoon.
The new code would adopt the pattern book’s recommendation for size, scale and character of future development downtown, including limiting buildings to four stories or 50 feet tall (from five stories or 60 feet tall); reducing floor-area ratio, which determines the developable area of a property; and requiring certain architectural design elements. View the proposed amendments here and the proposed amended schedule of dimensional regulations here.
The pattern book was adopted by the town board Jan. 20, 2021. Projects submitted before the adoption would be exempt from the code’s requirements.
Former Councilwoman Catherine Kent, who previously acted as the town board’s liaison to the Downtown Revitalization Committee, said it “was a long time coming” getting the pattern book integrated into the zoning code. She recognized the more than 100 community members who participated in the pattern book design process and thanked town employees for their work on the project.
Connie Lossandro, the president of the Riverhead Chamber of Commerce and consultant on development projects downtown, said she was happy to see the pattern book “come to fruition.”
“I think by making the pattern book a mandatory, as far as I’m concerned, is going to take away the opinions versus what’s required,” Lossandro said. “Because let’s face it, we all know everybody has a different opinion.”
Martin Sendlewski, an architect based in Riverhead who has worked on several projects in the Downtown Center 1 zoning district, was the lone objector to the requirements in the code. He said the design requirements outlined in the pattern book are “subjective,” and therefore should be guidelines and not requirements.
“When you read [the requirements], they talk about percentage of glass, they talk about 14-foot high storefronts — which means you have to have a 14-foot high ceiling on the first floor. And a number of other things,” Sendlewski said. “My favorite one is that the windows will relate to the storefronts below for upper floors. So how do you define in a code how things relate to windows?”
Jim Farley, co-chair of the Downtown Revitalization committee, said bringing the form-based code to the town was a “really great idea.” Farley, though, partly agreed with Sendlewski that the code was ambiguous, but advocated that the design standards be written so that there are no disputes about the code’s requirements, by taking out words like “avoid” and replacing them with more definite wording.
Farley also said the area the pattern book covered was more than just the DC-1 zoning district, and included some property north and west of the zoning district. He asked whether the code in those areas would also be changed.
Deputy Town Attorney Anne Marie Prudenti said the “true focus” of the pattern book was on DC-1. “It was determined to draft it for DC-1 only and not try to incorporate and capture those areas slightly north and west, which may have some historic residential structures,” she said.
Sendlewski also objected to a requirement that 40% minimum of a roof be covered by green roofing — which is a layer of vegetation covering the roof. He said it should not be required for developers, but instead incentivized.
“For example, if you were to give developers 50% of a fifth floor, which would obviously be setback because it’s only 50% of the land area, and required 40% green roof, you’d find a lot more green roofs because you’d see developers say, ‘hey, 50% more fifth floor, I can do that,’” he said.
Councilman Frank Beyrodt said he would prefer having an incentive-based option rather than have it be mandatory. Councilman Bob Kern agreed.
Sendlewski also objected to a requirement in the amendment that developers adopt zero net energy standards.
The draft of the code amendment is vague as to the requirements related to zero net energy. The text states that the standards are “strongly encouraged and are required to be incorporated into the project, including the use of solar panels on roof tops and geothermal heating systems in order to achieve [zero net energy] to the maximum extent practical.”
Sendlewski said that if the town wants to meet the zero net energy standards, it should draft an energy code that applies to all development and construction.
“I think codifying it in this one area is putting these particular property owners at a disadvantage, if it’s going to be codified. It should not be in the code,” he said. “I agree with the concept. I agree with looking ahead toward green energy and toward zero net energy increase, etc. But right now, it’s basically you’re only imposing it on one very select group of developers in the town. I think that’s unfair. I think it’s gonna be costly.”
Prudenti responded to Sendlewski’s comments on the green roof and net zero energy requirements: “The town board should be very mindful. That was a year-long process with input from everyone throughout the town as to those provisions, which are set forth in the pattern book, and potentially in the new code,” she said.
Kent urged the board to keep the green roof and zero net energy requirements. “Certainly those were recommendations from the downtown committee and the environmental committee. And I think that we want to be ahead of the curve… those are the trends of the future,” she said.
Lisa Gavales of South Jamesport, who is also a board member at the North Fork Environmental Council, said she opposes any cuts to the energy requirements in the code.
“I feel like you’ve been working on this for a long time. I’m sure that you negotiated more aggressive green things out of the bill and landed here,” she said. “I would hate to see you walk it back now. What seems onerous today will be commonplace in the future. This is a great opportunity for us to move from our history to a really exciting green future.”
John Wagner of Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, who represents Metro Group, the developers of a 170-unit apartment complex proposed for the former Sears site on East Main Street, also commented during the hearing. He said he wanted to make sure the grandfather clause in the legislation would exempt the project from the requirements of the code.
Wagner said he has worked closely with Prudenti and Community Development Director Dawn Thomas to revise the building’s design to the town’s liking.
The code grandfathers project site plans, special permits and commercial developments of properties less than 40,000 square feet, which have filed filed on or before Jan. 20, 2021, as long as if the applicants participated in one or more pre-submission conferences with town officials, and as a result of those conferences had a licensed licensed engineer and architect revise their plans.
Building and Planning Administrator Jefferson Murphree mentioned three large mixed-use projects downtown with pending applications would be grandfathered in: the Suffolk Theater expansion, the Zenith Building, and the 170-unit Metro Group proposal, also known as the Muchnick project, after Metro Group principal Rob Muchnick. Murphree said one major pending application will not be exempt from the requirements of the code change: a four-story mixed-use building at known as Landmark at Riverhead, which is proposed for the long-vacant former West Marine site on the corner of East Main Street and the entrance to the Peconic River parking lot, opposite Lucha Cubano.
Kent also asked whether some parts of the pattern book were not being codified, and if so, why. Prudenti responded by saying that certain sections, including pedestrian friendly passages, lighting and placemaking, are not in the code. But if the town follows the design of the pattern book through the planning process, “you will be creating that,” she said.
Parking district advisory committee say new code needs more work
Members of the town’s Parking District Advisory Committee had mixed feelings on proposed amendments to the town code to change off-street parking requirements within the parking district during other public hearings.
The first proposed amendment would establish a separate parking schedule for residential uses, including hotels, in the downtown center zoning districts (DC-1, DC-2, DC-3 and DC-4). The separate schedule would reduce the calculation of the number of off-street parking spaces for studio apartments in multifamily buildings from 1 to .5 space per studio unit and set a range for other types of apartment units/hotel rooms from 1 to 1.25 parking spaces per unit. The current parking schedule, which would remain unchanged for other zoning districts, requires 1 space per unit.
Sendlewski and Richmond Realty real estate broker Ike Israel, who are both on the committee, questioned why the amendment created ranges for parking.
Prudenti said the numbers were pulled out of the town’s Downtown Parking Study, which was adopted by the town board in 2020.
Israel also questioned why the town would be limiting developers on providing parking, since most one bedroom apartments could have two people living there.
The men also commented on another change to the code that would require developers of new residential uses, including hotels, to provide off-street parking for residential units as provided by code or pay $12,500 per parking space into a parking improvement fund for up to one-third of the required number of parking spaces. Developers of new residential construction would still be required to provide two-thirds of the required spaces on their own properties.
Sendlewski said the committee does not support the code changes as written. He took issue with the code applying to all downtown center zoning districts, some of which, including parts of DC-3 in the Railroad Avenue Overlay District, are outside the parking district. He said the town needs to create a new parking district or amend the parking district map, to make sure what they are doing is legal.
He also said that it isn’t fair that only developers with residential uses would be charged fees for developing in the parking district when other uses, such as restaurants and recreation, like the Long Island Science Center, will create a lot of use and should contribute to the expansion of parking downtown. He said the parking district tax rate should be raised instead of charging the payment in lieu of parking fees, even if it breaks the 2% tax cap.
“The parking district has requested — we’re probably the few taxpayers ever to request — that our taxes be increased substantially,” Sendlewski said. “So instead of a one-time fee for a project here or there, people that become part of the parking district, we’d rather pay a higher parking tax every year, because in the long term, that’s going to be better for the parking district.”
The amendment would also allow the town board or planning board to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces required for a new residential development if the board determines, based on “an official traffic count or similar prepared data by a licensed traffic engineer” that residential parking use within the parking district is less than 70% of available off–street parking facilities within the district.
Sendlewski said the data used to determine whether the town board or planning board should reduce parking “seems very subjective.” He said the requirements should be defined in the code.
Sendlewski asked the town board to adjourn the hearing so the Parking District Advisory Committee could submit further comments for the consideration of the amendment after their meeting on May 26. That hearing was adjourned until May 27.
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.
