Golf cottages, take 2: Town Board responds to public pushback, revising proposed code change

Proposed town code changes that would allow “golf cottages” on certain golf courses are being reworked following a wave of public criticism at a public hearing last month. Town officials are now proposing tighter limits on the cottages themselves and a separate zoning plan aimed at making the measure apply to more than two courses.

At Thursday’s work session, Senior Planner Greg Bergman walked board members through a revised proposal. 

The new draft returns to the 600-square-foot size limit recommended in the town’s comprehensive plan update, limits cottages to one per golf hole (18 maximum on a standard 18-hole course), and restricts construction to no more than two units connected with a common wall — a change the board said is meant to prevent long rows of attached units and keep the structures small in scale.

“We’ve been attentively listening to the public,” Council Member Ken Rothwell said, noting he and Councilman Bob Kern met with Bergman and members of the public and attended the Jamesport Civic Association’s February meeting to discuss the proposal. “I think the general public really wants us to stay within that 600 square feet, which was in the comp plan. Rothwell said. 

“We also changed it so that there’s no more than two connected,” he said. So we’re not doing nine in a row. They’re not going to be two-story buildings. There was a fear that we were somehow going towards a hotel-style complex. That’s never going to happen,” Rothwell said.

Bergman said the revised language is meant to clearly prevent resort-style add-ons and residential impacts, stating the definition would specify that nothing in the code change permits “the construction of restaurants, spas or other types of amenities related to golf cottages.” The cottages would also have to remain under the ownership and operation of the golf course and could not be subdivided or converted to condominium ownership for sale. The revised definition also prohibits use of the cottages “for the purposes of establishing residency” in Riverhead.

Bergman said that, under the revised 600-square-foot cap and 18-unit maximum, the total permitted cottage floor area on a standard 18-hole course would be about 10,800 square feet. Compared to the size of Riverhead’s larger golf properties — many exceeding 125 acres — Bergman described the footprint as minimal.

Tie-in to transfer of development rights

As in the earlier version of the proposal, the town’s transfer of development rights program would be central to the legislation. Development of the cottages would be tied to the redemption of preservation credits, as part of the town’s larger effort to preserve farmland while providing tools for existing businesses to remain viable.

Rothwell and Bergman also framed the legislation as a way to help golf courses avoid closing and being redeveloped for housing — a point that became a recurring theme at the public hearing and in subsequent community discussions.

 If a course doesn’t survive, Rothwell said, the alternative could be a large residential subdivision, with impacts on traffic and schools.

Bergman used Cherry Creek as an example, saying that if the 166-acre course were to close, the property could potentially be redeveloped for a clustered subdivision of roughly 83 single-family residences under its current Agricultural Protection Zone (APZ) zoning.

Expanding the proposal beyond two courses

A major shift discussed at the Feb. 26 work session is a new plan to broaden the code change’s reach by rezoning several golf courses from APZ to RA-80, addressing public criticism that the original legislation appeared to benefit only two properties.

Bergman said the first draft, as written, would have benefited only Baiting Hollow Club and Friars Head because they are the only two courses located in the town’s RA-80 zoning use district, which is one of the town’s designated “receiving” districts for development rights under the town’s  transfer of development rights (TDR) program.

In response to concerns about equity and “favoritism,” the updated approach would rezone several additional golf course properties as RA-80 so that they, too, would be in a receiving district and could use TDRs for golf cottages.

Bergman recommended rezoning four courses: Great Rock (now known as The Rock), Cherry Creek, The Woods at Cherry Creek, and Long Island National.

He said the rezoning would not change the underlying “as-of-right” development potential in a way that represents a major departure from current zoning, because the districts involved — APZ and RA-80 —are all two-acre residential zones that require clustering and preservation of open space. But he also acknowledged that RA-80, unlike the APZ district, could allow increased density if a developer redeems additional TDRs — a point he described as inherent to how the TDR program works.

Supervisor Jerry Halpin said the expanded approach addresses the perception created by the initial draft. “There was fear … that maybe we were showing favoritism to two golf courses and we weren’t,” Halpin said, adding that the broader plan is “more equitable.”

Bergman said he was not recommending rezoning certain other golf courses for specific reasons. The Vineyards golf course, he said, is only about 87 acres and would not qualify under the revised definition of a “standard” golf course, which would require a minimum of 125 acres. Swan Lake, he said, is in the natural resource protection district and Pine Barrens core area, raising environmental concerns. Indian Island is county-owned and located in the tourism resort campus district, which he said would not be appropriate to rezone.

What happens next

Because the revised proposal now involves rezoning — a more significant action than the initial “easy lift” discussed in January — Bergman said there will be “another round of public hearings.”

He told the board he plans to revise the draft law, and may reorganize the code language by moving some of the performance criteria out of the definition section and into a supplementary use regulation section, while keeping the intent and restrictions intact.

Halpin said the board wants to stay aligned with the town’s comprehensive plan, which recommended allowing golf cottages as an accessory use on golf courses.

The updated draft will return to the Town Board for further discussion at a work session before it is scheduled for public hearings and, ultimately, a vote.