Planning Board changes course on Brother Bear Canna review

The Riverhead Planning Board has changed course on the proposed Brother Bear Canna facility in Calverton, voting unanimously Thursday night to reclassify the application as a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

The decision means the applicant must prepare a full environmental assessment form and the town must begin a coordinated SEQRA review with other agencies before the Planning Board can move forward on the site plan.

Brother Bear Canna is seeking approval to construct a 27,489-square-foot building at 1458 Middle Road, with related improvements including an asphalt driveway, drainage, lighting, mechanical equipment and a new innovative/alternative sanitary wastewater system. The 5.3-acre parcel is in the town’s Agricultural Protection Zone.

The Planning Board’s resolution marks a significant shift from the way the application had been handled by the Planning Department since it first surfaced publicly last fall. Planning staff had previously identified the proposal as a Type II action under SEQRA, meaning no further environmental review would be required, because the project was being treated as an agricultural farm management practice.

The board rejected that approach Thursday.

In the resolution adopted by the board, the Planning Board found that the proposed structure is not a “farm building” or “agricultural structure” as defined in Riverhead Town Code because it would be a place of employment where crops are grown, treated and packaged. The resolution states that because the project is not specifically listed as a Type II action, it should be considered Unlisted – and then elevated to Type I because of its size and proximity to town-owned open space.

The site is adjacent to a 41-acre open space parcel owned by the Town of Riverhead.

Type I classification does not mean the project will require an environmental impact statement. It does mean the project is presumed more likely to have significant environmental impacts and requires a fuller review before the Planning Board determines whether an EIS is necessary.

The resolution directs the Planning Department, after receiving the applicant’s full environmental assessment form, to seek lead agency status and coordinate review with the State Department of Environmental Conservation, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Suffolk County Planning Commission, Riverhead Water District, Riverhead Fire Marshal’s office and the Riverhead Highway Department.

Before the vote, residents urged the board to adopt the resolution, saying the project should never have been allowed to avoid environmental review.

Diane Gaudiosi, a Windcrest East resident, called the proposal “a massive, mechanically intensive place of employment” next to public open space.

“Calling it a greenhouse does not erase its size, its equipment, its wastewater, its truck activity, or what will happen inside it,” Gaudiosi told the board.

George Pammer, also of Windcrest East, said the project would bring 24-hour activity, lighting, truck traffic and employees to a residential area where the land has not been farmed for decades.

“This is not just a farm,” Pammer said. “This is not your traditional farming.”

Toqui Terchun, president of the Greater Calverton Civic Association, read a letter from Group for the East End supporting the Type I classification. The group said the project is “clearly not a standard greenhouse facility” and that a full environmental assessment form is needed to evaluate impacts on groundwater, community character, protected open space and resource consumption.

The board adopted the resolution without discussion beyond minor corrections noted by Senior Planner Greg Bergman, who said the draft resolution incorrectly listed the meeting date as Aug. 4 instead of Aug. 6 and contained a square-footage typo. The corrected resolution refers to a 27,489-square-foot greenhouse.

The vote was unanimous, with Chairman Ed Densieski and board members Ken Zilnicki, John Hogan, George Nunnaro and Joe Baier voting yes.

The decision is the latest turn in a contentious review that has drawn organized opposition from residents of Windcrest East, Foxwood Village, North Woods Road and other nearby neighborhoods, as well as the Greater Calverton Civic Association.

When the proposal first came before the Planning Board in November, the project was described as a 33,700-square-foot cannabis greenhouse. Planning staff said then that no further environmental review was required under SEQRA because the proposal involved an agricultural use consistent with farming practices. Residents immediately objected, arguing that the building’s scale, mechanical systems, lighting, security requirements and processing areas made it more like an industrial facility than a traditional greenhouse.

See: Proposed cannabis greenhouse in Calverton gets first Planning Board review (Nov. 10, 2025)

The applicant needed two variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals: one to allow 24% impervious surface coverage where 15% is permitted in the APZ district, and another to allow an eight-foot deer fence where six feet is the maximum allowed.

That December ZBA hearing quickly expanded beyond the two variance requests, with residents pressing questions about odor, traffic, water use, fire safety, cannabis licensing and whether the use itself should be classified as greenhouse agriculture. The ZBA ultimately denied the variances in January, leaving the applicant to either redesign the project or challenge the decision in court.

See: Zoning Board hearing on cannabis greenhouse variances veers into broader debate over plan (Dec. 12, 2025) and

Proposal by cannabis grower for Calverton farmland hits a wall at ZBA (Jan.

The applicant returned to the Planning Board in May with revised plans intended to eliminate the need for the variances. The greenhouse had been reduced in size and the paved parking areas removed. At that meeting, Bergman said the State Department of Agriculture and Markets had opined that cannabis cultivated in accordance with state Cannabis Law is an agricultural crop and that the proposed greenhouse operation is agricultural in nature.

See: Revised plans for Calverton cannabis greenhouse return to Riverhead Planning Board (May 22, 2026)

But residents continued to argue the project’s impacts had not been adequately studied. They raised concerns about odors, noise, lighting, water, wastewater, traffic, fire protection, property values and the precedent the project could set in the APZ district.

In June, the Planning Board required the applicant to provide acoustic modeling after board members questioned the applicant’s noise submissions. Densieski said then that he disagreed with what he called the “industrialization of farming,” whether the crop was cannabis or carrots. Bergman also said the state Agriculture and Markets opinion was not a “carte blanche” and that the Planning Board still had authority to review site plan issues including noise, odor, light, community character and property values.

See: Planning Board requires acoustic modeling study for proposed cannabis facility in Calverton (June 22, 2026)

The Aug. 6 vote takes that scrutiny further by bringing the application into coordinated environmental review.

The Planning Board’s agenda packet also included an extensive list of correspondence about Brother Bear Canna, including multiple letters and emails from residents raising questions about truck movements, APZ code, whether town experts should work for the town rather than the applicant, the completeness of the plans, fire classification, cannabis waste, noise and the applicant’s proposed operations.

No representative for Brother Bear Canna spoke before the board voted Thursday. Densieski said before public comments began that he did not know whether a representative for the applicant was present.

A representative of Brother Bear could not immediately be reached for comment.