Riverhead officials are again revising a proposed code change to allow “golf cottages” at golf courses, this time abandoning a plan to rezone several golf course properties to RA-80 and instead drafting a new golf course zoning district that would require environmental review before moving forward.
Senior Planner Greg Bergman told the Town Board at its work session Thursday that after taking another look at the proposal, he no longer recommends rezoning existing golf courses to Residence RA-80, one of the town’s transfer of development rights receiving districts.
The earlier approach was intended to make the golf cottages proposal available to more golf courses, after residents criticized the original draft as benefiting only two properties: Baiting Hollow Club and Friars Head, the only two privately owned golf courses already located in the RA-80 zoning district.
But Bergman said mapping additional golf course parcels into a TDR receiving district would require the town to study the potential impacts of allowing those properties to use development rights not only for golf cottages, but potentially for increased residential density if the golf courses later closed.
“If we’re going to map any new parcels to meet TDR receiving districts, they have to be mapped with specificity,” Bergman said. “So just rezoning the property to RA-80 still requires a GEIS.”
Bergman said that approach could open up “potential increased development” on golf course parcels because RA-80 zoning would allow additional residential density through the use of transferred development rights.
“In the event they closed, they could essentially double their density with the use of TDR,” Bergman said.
That raised a problem, he said, because the town’s comprehensive plan does not contemplate adding several hundred new housing units on golf course properties.
“Just from a practical standpoint, when I was sort of gaming out what a GEIS would look like and how we would scope that, discussing the growth-inducing impacts of that potential action was a little hard to justify in light of nothing in the comp plan really speaking to the potential increase of several hundred housing units,” Bergman told the board.
Instead, Bergman said he went “back to the drawing board” and is now proposing a new “golf course zoning use district.”
The new district would be designed specifically to allow existing golf courses to add golf cottages as an accessory use through the transfer of development rights program, without creating the broader residential density increase that could result from rezoning the properties to RA-80.
The purpose of the new district, according to the draft code, is “to allow for the flexibility to support the continued economic success of existing golf courses operating within the Town of Riverhead by creating a regulatory framework to allow for the creation of accessory golf cottages, with the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), while continuing to allow for low-density, clustered residential development in the event of golf course redevelopment.”
Under the new approach, Bergman said, the town would keep the existing dimensional regulations from the two-acre zoning districts and would not allow increased residential density through the use of TDRs.
“There would be no potential under the golf course zoning use district for any increased density of use of TDRs,” he said.
The proposal is the latest revision to a code change that has been under discussion since last year and was the subject of public hearings in January and March. The original draft would have allowed golf cottages of up to 1,200 square feet in the RA-80 district, tied to the redemption of preservation credits. After public criticism, the board revised the draft to return to the 600-square-foot limit recommended in the town’s comprehensive plan update and to limit attached cottages to no more than two units sharing a common wall.
The latest draft keeps the 600-square-foot cap and would allow no more than one cottage per hole, for a maximum of 18 cottages on a standard 18-hole golf course.
The draft also specifies the TDR redemption rate for golf cottages: one preservation credit would allow 1,200 square feet of golf cottage floor area. Because each cottage would be capped at 600 square feet, one preservation credit would allow two cottages. A standard 18-hole golf course seeking the maximum 18 cottages would therefore need to redeem nine preservation credits.
A “standard golf course” would be defined as an 18-hole course, with or without a clubhouse and golf cottages, with a minimum par of 70, a minimum of 6,000 yards measured from the middle tees and a minimum size of 125 acres.
The proposed district also includes siting restrictions intended to address concerns raised during prior hearings. Golf cottages would have to be located to minimize visibility from public roads and neighboring properties, and no cottage could be built within 125 feet of a property line.
For golf courses with frontage on Sound Avenue, golf cottages and related improvements, including parking areas, would have to be set back at least 300 feet from Sound Avenue.
Bergman said he included the Sound Avenue setback because the road has long been designated as a scenic and historic corridor, but the designation has not resulted in concrete protections.
“If we don’t start implementing some protections, I don’t really see the point of ever having that designation,” Bergman said.
Council Member Bob Kern questioned whether 300 feet was too much and suggested 200 feet may be more appropriate. Bergman said he would prepare maps showing what a 300-foot buffer would look like on affected golf course properties.
“I don’t really think it would be an impediment to any golf course that would seek to do these,” Bergman said.
Council Member Ken Rothwell said the revisions appeared intended to address public concerns that the earlier language could allow larger, hotel-like lodging structures, even though board members did not intend that result.
The proposed definition of golf cottages would also bar their use as permanent residences and prohibit them from being subdivided or placed into condominium ownership for transfer. The cottages would have to remain under the ownership and operation of the golf course where they are located.
The draft also states that nothing in the golf cottage definition would allow construction of restaurants, spas or other amenities related to the cottages.
Bergman said the proposed district would make golf courses a permitted use, removing the need to treat a golf course seeking cottages as an expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use. A golf course seeking cottages would submit a site plan to the Planning Board, he said.
The new zoning district would also retain agricultural and low-density residential uses if a golf course property were redeveloped. Permitted uses would include agricultural production, one-family dwellings, attached single-family dwellings within a cluster development, standard golf courses, riding academies and greenhouses on parcels of at least five acres.
If a golf course property were redeveloped for housing, the draft would require cluster development intended to preserve agricultural soils, scenic vistas, wooded areas, natural features and open space. The draft requires preservation of at least 70% of Class I or Class II prime agricultural soils through farm lots or preservation of 70% of the land as open space, though the Planning Board could approve a lower percentage based on unique site characteristics. In no case could the preserved area fall below 50% of the tract.
Bergman said that while agricultural use would remain allowed, it may be unrealistic to assume closed golf courses would return to farming, given the extent to which the properties have already been developed for golf course use. Residential redevelopment, he said, is the more likely scenario if golf courses close.
Council Member Denise Merrifield said the point of the golf cottages proposal is to help golf courses remain viable.
“The overall goal is to give the golf courses the economic ability to stay golf courses and help the town commercially,” Merrifield said.
Bergman said he will prepare the environmental review documents needed to move the revised proposal forward. He recommended combining the public hearing on the code amendment with the hearing required for the generic environmental impact statement, rather than holding separate hearings.
“I would likely recommend rather than having a public hearing on this, and then having a public hearing on a GEIS, I would look to combine,” Bergman said.
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.
