Construction can resume at a future shopping center.
At the Dec. 17 Town of Brookhaven Planning Board general meeting, the board members handed down a split decision for Stony Brook Square, a shopping center under construction across from the Stony Brook train station on Route 25A. In the summer, Little Rock Construction and its president Parviz Farahzad received a stop-work order after significant field changes were discovered by the town. The changes made to the approved construction plans included widening of a driveway, two buildings’ locations shifting a few feet and the addition of 19 parking stalls at the rear of the property.
Farahzad’s attorney, Hauppauge-based Tim Shea, said at the Nov. 5 planning board meeting that even though numerous professionals and town officials had previously reviewed the site plans, once construction got underway the new engineer and general contractor realized changes needed to be made.
“It went under construction, and it turned out it wasn’t going to work and raised traffic and safety issues.” Shea said.
In addition to three planning board meetings in the last few months, representatives from Little Rock Construction met with the Three Village Civic Association in October to discuss the field changes. In 2017, the developer had met with the civic association and residents during Route 25A visioning meetings and discussed community members concerns regarding the shopping center on the state roadway.
‘It went under construction, and it turned out it wasn’t going to work and raised traffic and safety issues,’
— Tim Shea
At the Dec. 17 meeting, the board members approved some modifications, including the location of the most western structure, known as building 1, toward the front of the shopping center being shifted a few feet from the original plan, widening of the curb cut onto Route 25A and driveway access from 24 to 30 feet.
The board denied the revised building location of a second building, which was constructed a few feet back from its original planned location, and construction of 19 previously land-banked parking spaces. The denial means the developer must construct the structure, identified as building 5, at the location originally approved by the board, which will bring it in line with building 1. The recommendation states the land-banking of the 19 parking spaces, which will be adjacent to the northern property boundary, require a minimum of a double row of evergreen plantings 7 feet high and 5 feet in diameter.
In the last few months, members of the civic association have been vocal in their opposition to field changes at the construction site.
“It’s fortunate that the town planning board understood the importance of the original site plan — a plan that was mutually agreed upon by the town, the community and the developer,” said Herb Mones, land-use committee chairperson for the civic association. “The Planning Board decision mandates the adherence to most aspects of this original plan and is an important reminder to developers to follow the rules.”
Civic association vice president George Hoffman echoed Mones’ sentiments.
“We are pleased that the town’s planning board stuck to its guns and rejected Mr. Farahzad’s request to modify his site plan after he was found to have made significant changes that were not in conformance to the site plan that was a product of discussions with the civic association.”
Farahzad declined to comment on the planning board’s decisions.