Country inn wellness retreat proposed for Main Road Jamesport homestead

A proposal to turn a long-vacant 23-acre Jamesport property with a historically significant house and two barns into a 20-room country inn and wellness retreat drew cautious interest from Riverhead planning staff Tuesday morning, but also a clear warning: the concept does not fit neatly within the town’s zoning code.

Attorney Stephen Kiely, representing Jessica Juliano, owner of the LLC that purchased the property at 1117 Main Road, described the proposal during a presubmission conference with planning department staff as a quiet, year-round retreat centered on wellness programming, preservation and open space.

Kiely said the owner wants to preserve and repurpose the existing historic structures on the Main Road frontage, maintain wetlands setbacks, keep much of the woodland area intact and create walking trails through the property. The proposed inn building would be placed farther back on the site, away from the road.

“There will be no weddings. There will be no events,” Kiely told staff, saying areas labeled on the concept plan as event lawn or event court would be used for guest activities such as yoga classes. A dining facility would serve guests only, he said, and would not be open to the public.

The plan also includes an indoor pool in a new pool house, intended to make the facility usable year-round.

Planning staff members said they saw appeal in the low-intensity nature of the concept, the preservation of open space and the plan to keep the historic frontage largely intact. But they also said the zoning obstacles are substantial.

“The zoning, I don’t see how the zoning really works right now,” planner Greg Bergman said.

Part of the property is zoned Rural Corridor, where country inns may be allowed only under limited circumstances, including proximity to a hamlet center or village center. Staff said the Jamesport site falls outside that distance. The proposed inn itself is also shown in the RB-80 residential portion of the property, raising the possibility that the applicant would need either a use variance or a rezoning.

Staff also questioned whether the project’s wellness, dining, pool and other accessory components fit within the town code’s narrow definition of a country inn. Bergman said the code limits the scale of accessory uses within a country inn, and the concept plan appeared to go beyond those limits.

Kiely said the applicant may seek a rezoning rather than a use variance, acknowledging that the project would require discretionary approvals. He said the owner is willing to meet with neighbors and civic groups and is not seeking to force the proposal through.

Dawn Thomas said the proposal raises the broader question of whether the town should consider a rezoning for a project that may have public benefits but does not match existing zoning.

“The question’s got to be, what are the impacts to the neighbors, the negative and positive, and does it make sense to consider rezoning?” Thomas said.

Riverhead Landmarks Preservation Commission Chairman Richard Wines, who was present for the discussion and spoke afterward in an interview, said the property has been on the commission’s watch list for a long time.

Wines said the house is historically significant and was associated with the Young family, including the Rev. Daniel Young, a longtime minister of Old Steeple Church. Wines said the newer front portion of the house was likely built by Daniel Young’s grandson, Squire Halsey Young.

The property also has a connection to Brister Youngs, one of the people enslaved on the North Fork, Wines said. Daniel Young was Brister Youngs’ enslaver, and Brister Youngs may have lived in the house, although Wines said he has not been inside and could not confirm the age of the rear portion of the structure.

The Landmarks Commission is preparing to install a historic marker for Brister Youngs, Wines said. The marker has been approved by the Pomeroy Foundation and is currently at the foundry.

Wines said the barn next to the house, probably dating to around 1900 or slightly earlier, is also historically significant. Although its exterior has been altered, he said, the interior remains intact. A second, larger barn farther back on the property, likely dating to around 1950, may also be historically significant because of its age and character, he said.

“The Landmarks Commission is looking for a way that we can preserve those buildings and that farmstead,” Wines said. He said he could not speak to whether the wellness retreat proposal should be approved or whether it could overcome the zoning issues, but said the commission’s interest is in preserving the house and barns.

Kiely told planning staff the applicant is willing to landmark the buildings and preserve the historic viewshed. He said the alternative could be less desirable: the property might otherwise be developed with about 10 houses, which could result in demolition of the historic structures.

Staff did not endorse the proposal, but several said it did not strike them as out of scale for the site. Bergman said a 20-room country inn on 23 acres, with the main building set far back from the road and much of the property remaining open, would be relatively low-intensity compared with other possible developments.

Still, he said, the central issue remains unresolved.

“I don’t hate the concept,” Bergman said. “I like the open space.” But, he added, “it’s just a matter of how you get there.”