2/8/15 updates are highlighted like this sentence.

To magnify, click on image and again when it opens.

For the full plan with additional information, click here.

Key Facts

The change of zone application, June 2010

A change of zone application and a Full Environmental Assessment Form have been submitted for 3 lots at the corner of the Montauk Highway and Union Avenue in Eastport. J-6 Main Business District is requested in place of existing A-1 Residence that covers most of the site and J-2 Business, a 100' deep strip along the Montauk Highway. The conceptual plan as initially submitted called for 3 buildings facing Montauk Highway and drive-thru facilities and parking in the rear. Specifically:

• a 3,800 sq. ft. bank,
• a 14,648 sq. ft. pharmacy,
• a 2-story 14,000 sq. ft. office building,
• drive-thru facilities for the bank and pharmacy plus
• 230 parking spaces (of which 82 would be "landbanked", that is, not installed now but potentially available for later installation).

The 500' radius map submitted shows more of the area surrounding the site and the current zoning.

As a result of comments at EMPOA general meetings and at Eastport Chamber of Commerce meetings, modifications were made and a modified conceptual plan was filed March 25. The proposed pharmacy building on the corner of the Montauk Highway and Union Avenue is now designated as a Rite Aid store and it has been moved northward to create a village green of approximately 20,000 square feet on the corner. The pharmacy building is not on Union Avenue, however; parking fronts on that street.

If the Town Board were to approve a change to J-6 zoning, it is good for any use permitted with a J-6 district. The 15 different permitted uses range from a church to a barroom, and with the Town Board's approval a hotel and other uses. For a complete list, see the Eastport Hamlet Center page.

Related Project

The developer seeking this change of zone is currently constructing Eastport Meadows, the PRC south of the railroad tracks due south of this site. The developer got final clearance in 2009 to proceed with its 50-unit PRC. So far, only 16 units have been built and not one is occupied. The construction site has been plainly visible from East Moriches Boulevard all the while. For more information, go to the Eastport Meadows (PRC) page

Agency Comments

Suffolk County Planning has stated in a letter that this application to be one for local determination and will not be reviewing it.

The Historic District Advisory Committee has looked at one aspect of the plan. There is a house on the site. As reported in an

8/5/10 letter and updated by a 8/11/11 letter, the HDAC has determined that the house was built around 1870 and should be preserved either where it is or elsewhere on the site.

The Town's Division of Traffic Safety has reviewed the plans, is concerned about increased traffic, as shown in its memo on the subject:

“Our analysis reveals that the proposed rezoning from J-2 Bus, A-1 Res to J-6 Res could have an adverse traffic impact. It is estimated that the proposed development will generate more than 2 times the vehicle trip-ends (2008 vehicle trip-ends in a 24 hour period) than if the site were developed under the existing zoning (988 vehicle trip-ends in a 24 hour period)” (emphasis added).

Despite this concern, no Traffic Impact Study has been filed with the Town Clerk.

The Town's Environmental Division reviewed the application and the site. In its report, it noted a number of issues, including the loss of vegetation and a significant increase in traffic, but nonetheless drafted a declaration for the Town Board stating that there would be no significant adverse environmental impact.

Hearing, August 2011

EMPOA has submitted a letter to the Town Board supporting this application but only if substantial conditions are imposed to protect the community and avoid specified risks. Its 8/12/11 email to members summarized many of the issues.

After hearing the applicant and residents, the Town Board adopted a Negative Declaration under SEQRA, closed the hearing and allowed written comments for 10 days. The Board then received strong written objections (1, 2) from nearby residents and members of the Fire Department.

Prior to the hearing, the Town's Planning Division had prepared recommendations and also proposed covenants and conditions for the Board. The proposed covenants and conditions dated 8/15/11 may be viewed (without the recommendations). A decision had been expected at the 10/4/11 Town Board meeting, but did not occur. Shortly prior to the meeting, the Planning Division prepared revised proposed covenants and conditions dated 9/27/11. The revised version included new conditions beneficial to the community, but did not include a condition that the historic house on the site be preserved. For all the differences, look at the computer comparison of the 2 versions.

Note that the Planning Division only recommends to the Town Board. The Councilpersons and the Supervisor cast the votes on land use applications.

Change to J6 Zone Approved, October 2011

At its 10/18/11 meeting, the Town Board approved the change of zone to J6 Main Street Business District subject to a number of covenants and restrictions. Many of the covenant and restrictions followed those proposed by EMPOA. View the approval resolutions for the detail, but significant covenants and restrictions included

• A covenant that whatever is built be in substantial conformance with the plan submitted to the Town Board.
• A covenant to pay $40,000 to the Town for "development of recreational facilities in the Eastport/Manorville community: and
• A condition that the historic house on the site be offered to any taker, and permission for it to be demolished if there is no taker.

Change effective, March 2014

A condition of the approved change of zone was that the required covenants be approved and recorded and that final survey be approved. The survey was filed, and the covenants were recorded with the County Clerk on 12/30/13. As figured by the Town Clerk, the change became effective 3/10/14.

Site plan application filed, October 2013

Before the developer may break ground, it must get the Planning Board to approve its site plan. The Board is required to consider the following in reviewing the plan:

• ingress to and egress from all public highways to the premises, subject to the approval of the appropriate municipal agencies having jurisdiction of such highways, the traffic pattern within the premises,
• the location and placement of parking spaces, parking areas, loading areas and spaces,
• curbs, sidewalks and access driveways as may be required under this chapter, or by any municipal agency,
• all drainage facilities,
• grading, lights, the placement of signs on the premises,
• the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures upon the site,
• open spaces, landscaping, screening, architectural features,
• all other physical features and improvements,
• the impact of the proposed use on adjacent land and land uses and
• such other elements as may be reasonably related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community" (Town Code 85-45.E, emphasis supplied).

A site plan and an application for its approval were filed 10/8/13, along with a full EAF. The site plan is substantially similar to the one before the Town Board on the CoZ application. Comments were requested and received from Town Departments fairly quickly. The Environmental Division's comments referred back to its review on the CoZ application, adding two other points. Traffic Safety's response pointed out that a traffic impact assessment was a requirement of the Coz approval and made a few other comments. On 5/6/14, Planning advised applicant by letter of a long list of items missing, in need of correction or for which a variance from the ZBA would be necessary.

Little has happened in the public record since May. A traffic study and revisions to the site plan would have been expected. It has been reported that applicant does not want to move forward without firm tenants and has been trying to work with the owner and/or tenants of the adjacent King Kullen shopping center to involve them in this project. The owners of the property are not developing it; a developer is contract vendee and applicant.