Neighbors press planning board for noise study and plan clarifications for Brother Bear Canana greenhouse

Riverhead’s Planning Board paused final action on a proposed cannabis greenhouse at 1458 Middle Road on June 18 after staff and residents asked for additional technical data and plan clarifications.

Attorney John Anelone, representing Brother Bear Canana, said the applicant revised the project to reduce the greenhouse from about 31,782 sq ft to 27,489 sq ft and cut impervious coverage roughly 2,640 sq ft, bringing lot coverage to 14.99% to comply with the APZ zoning use district. Anelone said the team submitted a neighborhood sound study by AGS and a memo from E Noise Control that reported measured sound samples at 10 ft (66.3 dB), 100 ft (59 dB), 300 ft (52 dB) and 600 ft (53.7 dB), and that the Maryland facility studied had differences in layout and equipment.

Board members and staff focused on three gaps: the removal of previously proposed sound walls, the need for site-specific ambient noise measurements and predictive acoustic modeling, and clearer plan labeling showing which concrete pads will hold condenser units and other equipment. "I would like an acoustic modeling study at least," one member said. Staff agreed to notify the applicant and require an acoustic modeling report and a revised plan that identifies equipment on each pad.

Neighbors turned out in force during public comment. George, a nearby resident, cited New York State cannabis regulations and said operations require perimeter security, vaults and comprehensive camera logging; he told the board he had not seen a vault shown on the plans. Other residents warned of generator noise, truck and backing alarms, light and odor impacts, possible effects on aquifer quality near a historic landfill, property-value declines, and the applicant’s absence at the meeting.

Applicants said waste would be stored inside and removed as needed, and that OCM licensing limits prohibited solvent extraction at the site, restricting the operation to cultivation, drying, curing and packaging. The board asked the applicant to return with the requested acoustic modeling, a labelled equipment plan, and clarifications on internal spaces (for example, whether a claimed extraction area is needed given the license limitations) before scheduling further action.

The board directed staff to require the acoustic study and to add plan notes identifying equipment on exterior pads; a return hearing with the applicant’s design team present was requested.