Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pre‑application proposes 'Penny Candy Gallery' on Montauk Highway; board flags parking and design issues
Summary
An applicant proposes to preserve the Penny Candy storefront as a retail/gallery and add a rear addition with a two‑bed apartment above; planners asked for a streetscape analysis, clarified parking and easement access, and warned of potential ZBA review for setbacks.
Michael Zelensky, attorney for the applicant, introduced a concept for the Penny Candy parcel on Montauk Highway: preserve the storefront and create the 'Penny Candy Gallery' on the first floor with a two‑bedroom apartment on the second floor. "It's gonna be the Penny Candy Gallery. It's gonna be an art art gallery," Zelensky said, describing plans to remove the deteriorated rear dwelling and replace it with a new two‑story rear element while retaining the storefront façade.
Board members and staff raised immediate questions about parking, access and scale. Staff noted the lot is roughly 5,000 square feet and only about 36 feet wide, which constrains vehicle circulation and on‑site parking: "We can fit 3 parking spots in the back," the applicant said. Board members asked for a rated occupancy analysis to determine the gallery plus residential parking requirement, and requested yield maps that show vehicle turning movements and where the three proposed spaces would be placed. Because the site depends on shared cross‑access easements to adjacent parcels for some spaces, the board asked the applicant to confirm easement ownership and whether off‑site public parking or purchased spaces would reliably satisfy code requirements.
The board also raised design concerns. The chair said the rear massing as shown in the concept renders risks overpowering the historic storefront and recommended a streetscape comparison and more glazing or fenestration to break up the addition’s elevation. The applicant offered several ideas, including introducing a hayloft‑style window on the second floor to reduce perceived massing, and committed to providing a streetscape analysis and additional sketches before detailed design work proceeds.
Next steps: the board asked the applicant to submit a site plan that includes parking calculations, yield/turning diagrams based on rated occupancy, a streetscape study, and details on easement ownership; staff also advised checking building‑code and fire‑access requirements with the building inspector. No formal application or vote occurred at the work session.
