PB & Goose LLC asked the Patchogue Village Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 7 to remove or modify recorded covenants tied to a 1991 restriction so ClearView Plate Glass could develop roughly 17,000 square feet behind 239 East Main St. for employee parking. The applicant’s representative described a proposed plan for about 20 spaces and a 15-foot-wide vegetative buffer along the residential edge.

The request prompted a sustained round of public comment and legal argument. Eric J. Russo, an attorney representing an adjacent homeowner, urged the board to require a full New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review and argued the zoning and planning applications were incomplete. "Neither the village board nor the planning board may legally proceed with the respective applications before them until a SEQRA process is properly conducted and completed," Russo said, citing the state SEQRA regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617) and minutes from prior hearings in 1989 and 1991 that placed limits on development behind the Main Street building.

Neighbors cited loss of long-standing tree cover, noise and light impacts, potential effects on property values, and wildlife habitat. "Repurposing the land behind our property would be detrimental to our quality of life," said Elizabeth Fairbrother, who identified herself as a Rose Avenue resident. Amanda Kiernan, an environmental analyst for the Town of Brookhaven who lives on Rose Avenue, told the board she had identified the parcel in state mapping as potential habitat for the northern long-eared bat and noted tree‑clearing windows and other protections that could apply.

Applicant representatives said the proposed parking is meant to serve an established local business and that their plan includes a substantial buffer and lighting controls to reduce impacts. "We're not proposing any buildings on the parking lot," said Craig Augie, who represented the contract vendee. Augie and another applicant representative also said the parcels subject to the covenants were commercial in character and that the immediate intent is limited to parking, not new construction.

Board members and counsel asked procedural and technical questions about the site plan, the number of current parking spaces, existing outdoor storage and containers on the property, and whether the planning board should be lead agency for SEQRA. The applicant’s attorney acknowledged some application material would need to be expanded and said the applicant would coordinate with planning and building staff.

After discussion the board voted to adjourn the application to the next meeting so staff, counsel and the applicant could resolve outstanding submission and environmental‑review issues. The chair announced, "we'll pick this up again on the 20 first," and the board took a voice vote to adjourn the item.

The matter remains open; the applicant and village staff were directed to address SEQRA/lead‑agency questions, provide a complete site plan and clarify proposed lighting, buffering species and existing outdoor storage before the board considers any removal or modification of the covenants.


Speakers quoted or cited in this article include the applicant’s representative Craig Augie; attorney Eric J. Russo speaking for a neighboring property owner; and residents Elizabeth Fairbrother and Amanda Kiernan. Other members of the public and local counsel also provided testimony and written material that the board entered into the record.