Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gas Station Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Expanded Bridge Petroleum plan raises traffic, safety and battery‑storage questions; board asks for tightened description and code checks
Summary
A March 12 presubmission for a larger gas station at 535 Montauk Highway that would add repair bays, EV chargers and on‑site battery storage drew strong public comment on traffic, lighting, groundwater risk and unauthorized site changes. The board asked staff to refine the project description, verify repair‑shop discontinuance thresholds, and require the applicant to appear at a future meeting.
The Planning Board flagged a presubmission for an expanded service station at 535 Montauk Highway as one of the meeting’s most contentious items on March 12, with neighbors and board members raising traffic, lighting, groundwater and public‑safety concerns.
Planner Claire summarized public comments and technical concerns, and told the board she would revise the project description to explicitly include “solar, EV chargers and battery storage” and circulate the changes in advance of the next meeting. Chair Lofaro noted neighbors’ reports that the repair bays had been inactive for years: “they have been closed for at least 3 years according to neighbors' reports,” and staff said the applicant will need verification from the chief building inspector about whether repair operations have been discontinued for purposes of the town code.
Residents and board members questioned the proximity of gasoline storage to proposed battery storage and EV infrastructure. One board member urged staff to flag traffic and lighting as areas of potential environmental review under SEQR. Several commenters also alleged unauthorized on‑site changes and asked what enforcement remedy the town has; staff replied that violations can be pursued but that the applicant has been pursuing approvals since 2018 and the town has limited penalty leverage beyond fines and the formal application process.
The board made no final determination and directed staff to request the applicant attend the April 9 meeting with a revised project description and documentation of past use, and to refer technical issues (discontinuance of repair bays, battery‑storage setbacks, traffic impacts) to the appropriate reviewers.
