Sketch plans rejected for Aquebogue subdivision

The Riverhead Planning Board rejected three “unacceptable” sketch plans for the proposed Summerwind Farms subdivision in Aquebogue after an engineering firm called out builder Vincent Calvosa for submitting illegitimate entries and a fabricated traffic study report on behalf of the applicant.

A resolution was voted on to reject the sketch designs on March 20 after a design professional hired by Mr. Calvosa requested the false documents be removed from the record.

“We were disappointed to learn that the applicant’s representative submitted documents to the Planning Board perpetuating to have been prepared by a licensed design professional, when in fact they were not,” Planning Board chairman Edward Densieski said in a statement before the March 20 vote. “It’s not clear whether or how the matter will progress after today … the Planning Board will have no additional comments and will refer all matters to the town attorney’s office.”

Summerwind Farms, at 200 Peconic Bay Blvd., is a property of over 30 acres that has historically been farmed. The land was previously part of the minor subdivision of William Nohejl Jr., which was approved by the Riverhead Planning Board in 1983. 

Located between two split zones, Residence B-40 and Residence B-80, the Planning Board approved a 19-lot as-of-right development yield map for the site on Feb. 6 and considered three alternative sketch plans, prepared by Andrew Stolzenberg, P.E. 

Vincent Gaudiello, the Planning Board’s consulting engineer, left comments for each sketch and determined that Sketch Plan 3 was the most suitable. However, he wrote, the applicant’s design professional would need to provide a calculation verifying that a minimum of 70% of the prime agricultural soils would be preserved within the portion of the site zoned RB-80.

Mr. Gaudiello deemed Sketch Plan 1 “less than desirable” because five of the lots on the property would have direct vehicle access to already heavily trafficked Peconic Bay Boulevard. The proposed layout of Sketch Plan 2 was also flawed because of the location of the recharge basin that captures stormwater runoff from the development of the roadway.

Following this review in February, Mr. Calvosa submitted and presented a revised Sketch Plan 3A, a comprehensive sight line analysis report and intersecting sight distance reports, all of which he said were done by a “highly regarded engineering firm,” Barrett Bonacci & Van Weele. 

Frank Bonacci, president of the engineering firm, left a voicemail for Riverhead’s community development director Dawn Thomas on March 7 stating that none of the documents submitted by Mr. Calvosa were created by Barrett Bonacci & Van Weele.  

“The reports were not written by us, the Q&A that was in there was not written by us, the plan was a partial amalgamation of different plans that this company has produced,” Mr. Bonacci said in his voicemail. He requested the Planning Board “pull everything” having to do with Barrett Bonacci & Van Weele from the record. 

Shortly after leaving the voicemail, Mr. Bonacci sent an email to Heather Trojanowski and Greg Bergman of the Riverhead Planning Department, town attorney Erik Howard and deputy town attorney Danielle Hurley to further advise that the plan submitted by Mr. Calvosa “were a combination of several different BBV plans and was in no way representative of the final plan the client asked us to produce.”

He mentioned that the calculations in the plan were not accurate — noting misalignment of lines, contours and repetition in labeling. The traffic report submitted was also not developed in the BBV office and not representative of their recommendations. 

“Even an online AI detector will question its origin,” Mr. Bonacci wrote. Therefore, the Planning Board no longer considered Sketch Plan 3A, the Sight Line Distance Analysis Report, the Sight Line Analysis & AASTO Standards Review as “legitimate entries.”

Mr. Calvosa was “admonished” for his “substantial breach of professional and ethical conduct,” which “further undermines public trust,” the resolution read. The Planning Board committed to exercising the “highest level of scrutiny” toward any future representations, submissions, documents or sworn testimony submitted by Mr. Calvosa. 

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify that ALS Engineering PLLC did not have a role in drafting the rejected sketches.