Brookhaven planners review 7‑Eleven site plan, covenant relief requests and mixed‑use conversions; negative environmental declaration proposed for Ross Electric

Planning staff and town board members reviewed several land‑use items at the Town of Brookhaven work session on Monday, June 9, including a site plan for a new 7‑Eleven, requests to change subdivision clearing limits, a modification to convert a commercial building into mixed use and a negative environmental declaration proposed for Ross Electric.

The proposals drew detailed review from Don, planning staff, and questions from council members about aesthetics, maintenance and how covenants are disclosed to property buyers.

Don said the applicant will remove an existing service station and replace it with a 2,958‑square‑foot 7‑Eleven and described a “pretty substantial” landscaping plan that includes street trees along the frontage, landscaping to the north and plantings along the curb line. Don also said the applicant added a window on the side elevation so the side facing Granny Road looks more residential; he confirmed the window will be a faux window to preserve interior wall space.

A council member warned that prior promises about landscaping maintenance have sometimes not been kept, saying, “they promise you the world and give you nothing,” and noted that enforcement of maintenance will be handled as a condition of the special permit. Don said the special permit includes maintenance requirements and that enforcement could proceed as a covenant or condition violation if complaints arise.

On subdivision covenants, planning staff said a prior covenant limited clearing to 31 percent on lots in one subdivision. Ten of the 37 lots have received relief that raised clearing limits into the 55–60 percent range; planning staff said departmental practice is recommending a 60 percent limit to keep consistency with prior approvals. The board discussed how buyers learn about covenants: Don said covenants should appear in title reports and on surveys because surveyors are required to note them; a council member said that, in practice, closing attorneys and others sometimes do not convey that information to buyers.

Planning staff also described a request to lift a covenant that had prohibited further subdivision of a lot without planning board approval. Don said lifting that covenant would allow the property owner to seek a dimensional variance from the board of appeals (BZA), but would not itself remove all restrictions; it would only permit the owner to pursue the appeal process.

Another item set for a new hearing was a modification to an existing site plan originally approved as a one‑story commercial building. Don said that because sewers have been extended to Messick, the owner wants to add a second story with two apartments, creating a mixed‑use building. Because the modification increases the approved floor area by more than 1,000 square feet and is a substantive change from the original approval, staff scheduled a new public hearing.

On the resolution calendar, planning staff said the board would adopt a negative environmental declaration for Ross Electric, a combination amendment of restrictive covenant and site plan. Don explained that, under state law, the board can adopt a negative declaration and conclude the proposal “will not have an impact on the environment,” which avoids preparing a draft environmental impact statement; once adopted, the change of zone, amended restrictive covenant and site plan for Ross Electric can proceed to the decision calendar.

Board members did not take final votes on most of the individual site plans and covenant requests during the work session; several items were described as consensus or scheduled for upcoming hearings or decision calendar action. The board held a brief special town board meeting during which it approved a separate resolution (resolution 355 of 2025) supporting state legislation related to alienation of parkland for a tower installation; that resolution was moved, seconded and carried.

The planning presentations highlighted enforcement and disclosure issues — particularly how covenants and special‑permit maintenance requirements are relayed to property buyers — and noted that some approvals follow precedents set by earlier reliefs. Several items will return to the board at future public hearings or on the decision calendar, and enforcement of maintenance conditions will proceed if complaints are filed.