Patchogue panel refers proposed two‑family build on industrial lot to trustees amid zoning, railroad concerns

Christopher Ross, speaking for the Apple Spanish Panero Development, told the Planning and Architectural Review Advisory Committee on May 25 that his client proposes a 3,700‑square‑foot, two‑family structure on a lot “approximately, 100 by 60.”

The proposal would place a 3,700 sq. ft. building on a parcel the panel said measures roughly 99.5 by 60.4 feet and gives a lot area of about one half of the minimum required in the industrial zone. The committee noted the village’s minimum lot area in the industrial district is 10,000 square feet and that the application therefore requires multiple variances.

The panel referred the application to the Village Board of Trustees for consideration of the variances and special permits the project will need. The referral followed an extended discussion of zoning compliance, site constraints and livability concerns.

Why it matters: Committee members said the site’s small size, the proposed 40.5% building coverage, short rear setback (reported in the record at roughly 9.7 feet versus a 25‑foot requirement), on‑site parking and the lot’s immediate adjacency to the Long Island Rail Road raise questions about whether the proposed use is appropriate without significant modifications or conditions.

Committee members discussed several options raised during the meeting: redesigning a smaller single‑family footprint, increasing setbacks, rethinking parking layout, or adding sound‑mitigation and screening because the lot backs up to active rail lines. One member said the parcel “needs a little TLC and a little creative thinking,” and another suggested the developers consider a smaller single‑family design to reduce impacts.

Christopher Ross said the owners had initially proposed a four‑unit building and reduced it to two units before bringing the plan to the committee. He acknowledged site constraints and said the applicants prefer a two‑family layout for rental economics but are open to further study.

The committee did not approve the plan. Instead it voted to refer the project to the Village Board of Trustees so zoning variances and special permits can be considered by the board with full public notice. Committee members asked staff and the applicant to provide: an updated survey and site plan, a clearer parking layout and options for buffering or sound mitigation along the railroad right‑of‑way. The committee also scheduled a site visit and asked the applicant to return next month with additional materials.

The referral is procedural; it does not approve construction. Any variances or permits must be granted by the Village Board and, where applicable, the zoning board of appeals and county or state agencies.

What’s next: The applicant was asked to provide an updated survey, clearer drawings showing lot coverage and setbacks, and suggested mitigation measures for noise and stormwater. The committee set a further review after the site visit and referred the application to the trustees for their consideration.