Ok
good evening everyone, welcome
to the zoning
Board of Appeals for thehe town of
Huntington for the meeting
of AUGUST the 6th, 2026, please
rise for the Pledge of
allegiance to our flag. I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the
United States
of America and to the Republic
of nation
under GOD, indivisible with
liberty and justice
for all, please be seated.
Minutes for. JULY 23rd.
Um, I looked at
them, they were good, didn't
make
any corrections, changes or
deletions if no one has
any changes, deletions or
corrections, um, when entertain
a
motion to accept the minutes for
JULY 23rd, 2026. I'll make
that motion, MR. McGrath, on the
motion, MR. Castania on the
second, all
in favor, any opposed? Minutes
are accepted. Dawn, are the
appropriate postings
and publications done with the
appropriate affidavits to give
us jurisdiction for the hearings
tonight. All right, thank you.
The order
for the hearings tonight will be
as follows.
2373239 Bunker Hill Drive
237308 Bayview Drive
Huntington, 23696.
Yeah.
426 Mount Misery Road.
23689.
140 Eaton's Neck Road, and
finally 2373816 Wentworth Drive
in
Dix Hills. Well, the applicant
or the representative
of the applicant for
2373239 Bunker Hill Drive,
please address the court.
Actually, the zoning
Board of Appeals and not the
court. That was
that was some kind of mistake
from the
old days. Good evening, um, I'm
Aristotlekjamitros
I'm here with my wife, Sarah.
We're the owners of the home
at uh 39 Bunker Hill Drive.
We're seeking a variance for,
uh, the
swimming pool that is there, um,
for the
50-foot setback, as you can see
1 corner of it is
um, at 33 ft, uh, that corner
right there, um. I
didn't even know that was a
thing until I applied for to
close out the permit
that we were in violation, um,
you can't see it
from this, um Survey, but
the, the land is significantly
sloped from where the
home is to the edge of my
property on Bunker Hill. Um, so
we
placed the pool where it was
logical and in the logical spot
for it, I
will say, when on the street,
when you're on Bunker Hill, you
cannot see
the pool. Um, it is not visible,
it is not visible from any of my
neighbor's
properties on Bunker Hill. It's
1 acre zoning that we have
there. There's
significant space between, uh,
our pool in our house and, and
all of our
neighbors. Furthermore, being At
our, uh, neighbor's homes on
Bunker Hill.
I, I can't even hear the the
pool, obviously I could hear the
kids if they,
if they're yelling, but, uh,
other than that, I don't hear
the equipment
or anything like that, so we're
seeking relief for that to be
able to close
out, thank you. Is there anyone
in the audience that wishes to
be heard
regarding this matter 23732,
Bunker Hill. Noticing that no
one wishes to
be heard. I know that the, the,
it's required to be fenced, your
property
is fenced, and it also has a lot
of trees that have been placed
on the,
on the roadside of the fence. So
your commentary about the fact
that you
really can't see it from many
places accurate, um, noticing
that no one
wishes to be heard, and, uh,
perceiving this to be a de
minimis application,
I'll entertain a motion to grant
motion MR. Cast on the motion.
MR. Capadano
on the 2nd, all in favor, any
opposed, your application is
granted, get
your pools. Thank you. Well the
applicant. With the
representative of the applicant
for 237308 Bayview Drive in
Huntington, please address
the board. I'm so jealous of him
right now.
Honorable CHAIRMAN,
distinguished board, Dawn, my
Sherpa, thank you
I appreciate it, I'm Hank
Ludwicki, the owner of 8 Bayview
Drive in the
Huntington Alps section, also
known as No Wood Beach. Um, I'm
here asking basically sympathy
and relief for 2.
19819 and 19857.
I bought a woodpecker. Chipmunk
squirrel infested house. That
is boarded up. And dilapidated.
Would not weed And because I'm
a fool, it's a 625
square foot bungalow that's
a triangle. On a property that's
0.1 acres? And it's so small and
on
such a steep hill, the area in
yellow. Is
actually covering half of Laurel
Drive. So I'm wondering if I
could even
put a toll on there at some
point. But anyway, what I'm
asking for relief
is basically, uh, 3 things. The
portico, I'm
looking to put in the house is
in violation of the 20-foot
setback. The
house is only 14 ft from the
street at one ft from the other,
so I'm asking for
a 45 inch variance for the
portico
so we don't fall off the slope.
Uh, we want a
little peekaboo deck so we can
see the water. We're asking
for 30 inches there. I don't
know why the architect did that,
that's
why he's fired, uh, and then the
last
1, 19857. These houses are so
close to each
other. Um, 5, we have a 6-foot
setback, um.
5 ft, my house is 6 ft. Um, my
wife is hot
and she wants an air
conditioner, the house never had
an air conditioner for
50 years. So, I bought the
smallest 1, 32
inches, and we're asking for a
28 inch variance for that.
I got letters of recommendation.
I have 2 streets and
1 neighbor, I got letters from
every single neighbor. They love
that I fixed up this dilapidated
house and I got it from the
neighbor that
is affected, Scott Martin, great
guy. That's what I'm asking for.
Ok, thank you for your
presentation. Is
there anyone in the audience
that wishes to be heard
regarding this application.
All right. Noticing that no one
wishes to be heard, and also um
On the record, I noticed that
you did have letters of
uh, recommendation and approval
from several of your neighbors,
and maybe
there's 1 or 2 that came in and
the, at the last minute as well,
so it was pretty
obvious that the people who live
in the area thought it was a
good idea
to fix it up. I wouldn't like to
compliment you on one thing,
this, this
might be the very first time
that I've ever heard someone ask
for a variance
in inches, so sometimes it
actually is more impressive than
2.1 ft or something
like that, so it's crazy, it's
understand that, but, uh, but
it's the same as
if it was a 2 2.5 ft is 30
inches, that's what
it is. So anyway, uh. Having
listened
to your application and
observing that no one wishes to
be heard, and in
fact the neighbors are in favor
of your request
uh, I will entertain a motion to
grant the
application motion, thank you.
Thank you MR. Campandao MR.
White
on the second, all and all
in favor, any opposed
The applications granted, good
luck with your continued
construction.
The applicant or the
representative of the applicant
for 23696 that's 426 Mount
Misery Road, please address the
board. Yeah.
Sure.
So my architect is supposed to
be here and uh.
Understands exactly what we're
trying to do here, but I'll do
my
best in explaining, so I believe
that, uh, the slope that
we're building, uh, the full
cabana, uh, seasonal structure,
non-habitable.
Um, it's, it's near slope, so I
think that was, that was an
issue that was
brought to my attention. And we
were also looking to do, uh, a
basement.
For the pool house, for, for,
uh, storage. And also by the way
the grade
is on the property, it'd be
another way to get down to the
second grade
because, uh, there's like
there's 2 grades to the
property. And, uh, that's
my understanding, uh, what we're
seeking for. All right, would,
will you,
uh, being represented by MR.
Gray, I confirmed with him
yesterday, um, I
was texting him when I got here
because I didn't see him. I
don't know,
but maybe something happened,
I'm not sure. Ok, are you the
builder or the
potential owner the, or do you
own the property? I own the
property and
I'm also the builder on the
property. Ok, so the, the only
thing we were
a little bit concerned about was
the height of the basement area
that you're
using for storage at the, at the
east end of the pool that, uh,
you know,
whether or not you could do it
with 8 ft or 7 ft rather than 9,
but if 9
ft is the, if 9 ft is it, well,
It looks like the, uh, the
cavalry arrived,
can I, can I cut in and
introduce myself, we just got,
we just got an application
with respect to it and
indicating that it's really just
for the, the cabana
at the east end of the property,
which is very, very heavily
sloped, and
uh, and obviously the look all
our cabana applications are
no habitable features of, of any
kind. There's several conditions
on it,
and, uh, we're just Discussing
whether or not you needed a
9-foot Basement,
whether or not you could, you
could Get by with 8 ft or 7 ft.
MAY I
shall I introduce myself? Sure,
for the, for the record
Chris Gray, architect, 2401
Capri Place
North Belmore, New York,
representing Damian Lazarus
at 426 Mount Missouri Road. Ok
we got that out of the way. Ok,
so.
What do you have, do you have a
uh, a response to my inquiry,
well
uh, like, you know, like to, to
start off with, uh, you know,
just
the, um, there has been a, an
in-ground pool with that that
has been I've
seen it, it looks like it's, you
know, the already mostly dug out
already, right
so that, that has been permitted
construction has started
and the position of this cabana
is at the, the far end of this
with like a
nice, a nice spot to look at.
The pool and that happens to be
right where the steep slope
starts on the property you can
see
on the on the plot plan looks
half of the property is in a
steep slope and
it's about like a 45 ft drop
from top to bottom. And
uh, we thought that that would
be an ideal place to put this
cabana
and also take advantage of that
slope and providing that
uh, the basement below to store
recreational vehicles
uh, like lawn equipment and
lawn, uh, outdoor furniture and
all that stuff
to keep it all nice and stowed
away, so that, that was the,
that's
the concept of the, of the
structure. Um, I do have an, an
aerial photo that I that I took
off of Google if I MAY hand
it in, just to show the lay of
the land, well, you do, I guess
you do have a
an aerial, do you have a
pictorial aerial we'll take your
word for it. I've
seen the site, I've been there a
couple of times and I know what
you're
talking about, and it is a very
steep slope, there's no doubt
about it,
and then also I just want to
point out there's the, uh, a
neighbor, um,
I believe that's probably, it
could be to the east, um, that
has an. Restructure
in the back of their property
too, something looks fairly
substantial, uh,
this is a very large piece of
property, so it's a 2-acre zone.
Um, so that's,
that's the, uh, the, the basic
gist of this. MR. Gray, the
CHAIRMAN Asked if, if the lower
level can be reduced down to 7
or 8 ft though, that
was the question I, I, speaking
on behalf of the owner, I guess
he would
mind doing that, that would be
helpful, that, and, and, uh,
getting some
kind of approval, but I'm sure
that would be fine, right? Yeah,
if that's
uh maybe. Yes, I think that
would, that would be fine. We
have the, let
me look at the section here. And
the, uh, I proposed it was 9 ft,
but 8
ft would be, I'm sure, more than
adequate. Ok, MR. Gray typically
what we've done in the past.
Because we usually don't grant
above 7 ft in the
basement area cause it's mostly
for either storage or it's pool
equipment.
That's right, that's, it's not
designed to be living space,
it's not designed
to be admirable. You've got 9 ft
on the main level, you got
fairly high
ceilings there, so typically
down in the basement we do 7 ft
or less. I
think that'll be fine, right? It
is helpful. Yes. We, we can't,
we can't
do 8 ft. Typically, no. We've
never granted 8 ft before.
Because you're
using it mostly for storage of
ATVs and equipment and whatnot.
You're not
building another garage, you're
just storing stuff under your
For them.
I would think would be wise to
go with it. But I suppose. So 7
ft it is
that would, that could, that
could be fine, that solves our
our concern that solves our
concern, so with the, with the
plan being
amended, which I'm sure you can
do, MR. Gray to, uh, 7
ft well, first, I think I asked
this question, but now I'm not
sure. Is
there anyone in the audience
that wishes to be heard? You
want to be heard,
you come on up. What's it. Hear
from you. And also these, these
drawings
are design drawings. We're not,
um, you know, uh, assuming they
will be
approved, so that's why it's,
it's still in the alive stage,
ok.
So I'm not sure, I live at the
bottom of the
hill of that huge steep, uh,
steep
incline, and we do have concerns
because
um, I sent an email today, so if
you don't mind, I'm just gonna
read that
because I'm a little nervous
about this, so in regards to
this application,
we have noted that the applicant
has been working on this
proposal on the
cabana expansion prior to your
approval. So he's already built
that cabana structural wall that
he has already, uh, the app.
Applicant removed trees without
a permit on SEPTEMBER on
Saturday, JULY
the 11th. The applicant has been
leveling the property to receive
the
cabana structure as of this day,
as of this morning, without your
approval.
We have called the town of
Huntington code enforcement and
planning department
on JULY 13th to request a review
because we weren't sure whether
we
were making a mistake. They said
they could only stop him at a
certain
point, so we don't, so our
concern really is that with that
steep
slope, we're worried about
stormwater as well as soil
We have lots of issues of water
running off onto our property.
We've
put in a dry wells and try to
mitigate the water that's coming
in there
but it is like a waterfall
feature in that area
so we are asking the architect
and the applicant to do put.
In some kind of plan to stop the
water, reduce that water
the water doesn't only run onto
our property at 87 Old Country
Road
It also runs onto all country
road which has got so
and there's a huge curve, the
water pools up there in the
wintertime
it ices up. So I'm asking,
please help us with soil
and water mitigation how he
builds it, what he builds it
we're fine with that. He can
build the Taj Mahal, we are fine
with that,
but please help us with that
soil and water. It's really
ridiculous as to
how much water we receive on our
property. Ok, so your main issue
is
the fact that is surface water.
That's, that's the main
Issue that you have, well, the
fact that he's also been
building the whole time it's
another concern that we have,
but the, the
house is nearly Completed, so he
can't build it without a permit.
I'm
cabana he's building, he's
already building the cabana
without your approval. Ok
so we're, we're discussing that
now, and, and he's willing
to amend the plans to a 7 ft,
um, basement. So
um, but surface water and the
all the information that
you're talking about, the
building department of the town
of Huntington
before they give out a ceo is
gonna be have, have to be
satisfied that any
of those kinds of issues. Get
resolved with the engineering
department of
the town of Huntington. That's
not something that we do. Ok, so
I have called them
so should I be with this
approval of only the design of
the cabana maintain some contact
with MR. Gray and then the
other, if you
need help from the town of
Huntington, you'll have to be
involved with the building
and engineering department. Ok.
Thank you. Ok, thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes
to be heard regarding the
application.
Ok, MR. Gray. Well
in respect to the, to the
drainage
um, it would matter if there's a
structure there
or not that slope just still
exists. I was there at the
beginning of
the year. Uh, looking at the lay
of the land, and I
see that, you know, it's a lot
of, you know
just dirt and whatnot, so
perhaps once the
the house is finished and then
he starts working on
the grounds, perhaps grass could
be grown on that slope and that
will
help to reduce the amount of
runoff perhaps it can
get absorbed on the way down, so
and also
on the, I did see on the plot
plan, there was
a, a drainage trough. That was,
that was
uh, that was. That wasn't part
of the. Excuse me
that was just all in there by
the other architects just to
just to to to
satisfy uh. The original
gradient issue. Ok, so, but I
did, I did see on
a, on a plot plan for the the
main dwelling, there
was a ok about that. Ok, but,
but, but just for
the record, there was, there's
note that's a swell, a gravel
filled swell I discussed that
with
the inspectors about that. Ok,
but, uh, but see it within my
you know, this concern was
brought to our attention. I did
tell the neighbor
they could just call me if
there's any, once I'm done, if
there's any water
issues, I'll be more than happy
to help. I did tell that to him
in person,
but with that being said, uh,
you know, talking to the town,
uh, they told
me, you know, the ratio has got
to be right, and, uh, to, uh, I
think grass
and we were We got the neighbor
next to us, uh, signed an
affidavit, um
He's willing to meet great with
me, so we're matching the great,
it was
a big valley there, so she's
been having water issues before
I, I bought
the property she had issues with
the neighbors in the, she's
directly behind
the house with the neighbor to
the left of me, you know, facing
the house,
and, uh, so we're actually
filling in that valley, so it'd
be actually more
dirt to absorb more water and,
uh, so we, we are trying to
minimize dirt
and and water and like that that
whole area that where we've
added dirt
that's, all gonna be grass so
that should help keep the soil
down, um, and
then as we go We'll take her, I,
I wanna be a good neighbor and
I'm not
trying to wash nobody out and I
think this problem was existing
before I
bought the property. Ok, so MR.
Gray, can you amend the plans
and, and do
the, uh, basement at 7 ft with a
cabana with no habitable
features, that's
the standard conditions that we
have anytime we grant a cabana,
which would
be at the east end of the pool,
ok, so they, so yes, the, the,
uh, the plan
could be amended for a 7 ft
ceiling below, uh, are there
other features
that are listed here that, uh,
should be removed. As well.
There, there's
several, should I read those
features? Tell me what they are,
um, ok, there
is. Um, The, the interior
stairs. For me going, you know,
from the, from
the grade level and that the
pool and to go down to this, to
this basement
area that sounds ok, that's one
issue. Um, we talk about, uh,
it's a wood
burning fireplace in within the
cabana itself. That's ok. Uh,
ok. What's
that, the stairs of interior
walls and wall coverings to be
nice to sit
in there without looking at a
wood frame, but to have some
kind of clean
finish would be nice. Ok. All
right, so I think we We pretty
much, we covered
all the issues, so the main, the
main concern it seemed to be the
the ceiling
height at that lower level
that's the concern, that's the
big issue, and,
and with all that we, we are,
uh, my client is asking for a
lot but considering
this special circumstance, I say
lowering the ceiling is, is, uh,
quite
reasonable, the things that you,
MR. Gray, yes, do you need
plumbing out
there. No plumbing, no plumbing,
and seasonal use only consistent
with the
pool use, yes, yes, I guess and,
you know, and the, the, the
winter would
be difficult to be in there,
but, uh, 33 seasons for sure.
You absolutely
no habitation in the building
yeah, we, we put that in the as
a condition
of the grant with no habitation,
but, but send us the plans with
the 7-foot and
and we're, and all the other
things that you asked for
are permitted. We'll give that I
amend the plan and just submit
it to the
building department, or you
would, you would submit it to
the zoning Board
of Appeals to the planning
department, ok, submit to the
planning department
so it becomes a part of our
record. I understand. Ok, yes,
all right. All
right, thank you very much, I'll
entertain a motion to grant with
the, with
the conditions that we placed on
the record with the 7 ft and
also the,
uh, the exceptions on the
habitable, um. Conditions that
have been placed
on the record by MR. Gray. MR.
Catano, on the motion. MR.
White, on the
2nd, all in favor, any opposed?
Ok, send it over to us and then
we'll
we'll write up the, uh, decision
for you, and I apologize for
being late, traffic
is very much, glad you were
here, thank you very much, ok.
Well the applicant or the
representative of the
applicant 423,689,140 Eaton's
Neck Road, please address the
board.
Good evening MR. CHAIRMAN and
members of the board, I'm
Gordon Stein, I'm a friend of
Miriam Green, she asked me to
help with this whole variances
here that we're doing. Um, we
are asking for the approval
approval to permit the use of
approximately 170
square feet of space beneath,
beneath an existing
detached garage, and it's only
for storage purposes. The
detached garage
was pre previously approved by
the rezoning board due to the
natural slope
of the property, the garage was
constructed with an area beneath
it.
The entrance is located at the
rear of the garage and cannot be
seen from the street. The home
itself does not have any
basement. Making stores
in the property very limited.
The area beneath the garage is
for use solely
for household storage it will be
not be utilized as living space.
The property 3 parcels away from
this house had the
same situation and the town
granted finished living space
under that newly
constructed garage last year.
The owners respectfully
asked for forgiveness for
beginning work without first
obtaining the necessary
approvals. This request is
modest in scope, it does not
increase the building's
footprint. Change the appearance
of the property or alter the
character
of the surrounding neighborhood.
The property is well maintained
and granted
this application will will allow
the owners to complete the
project, utilize
the space for much needed
storage while preserving the
residential character
site. The owners, owners hope
the board will find in favor of
the application.
And we respectively request
this. Thank you. Ok, thank you.
Is there anyone
in the audience who wishes to be
heard regarding this
application? The garage
is already built, correct? Yes,
and that was the basement is it,
is it there?
It's done. It's, it's, yeah,
it's done, you need to get a ceo
for it, yeah
basically, yes, it's, yeah, it,
and it's approximately what you
said 160, 160 square feet, 170
square feet, yeah, it's, it's 9
by 16 and it's just used for
storage and nothing else, that's
it. Ok, I'll entertain
a motion to grant this
application garage is already
built. There's really
no effect and it has no effect
on the neighborhood at all. It's
already
there. MR. Castagno on the
motion, MS. Whalen on the 2 All
in
favor any opposed? Ok, your
application is granted, get your
co
thank you so much. The applicant
or the representative of the
applicant
for 23738. 16 Wentworth
Drive, Dix Hills, please address
the board.
Good evening, distinguished
board, my name is
Michael Degnen, registered
architect, principal at
Long Island Architecture Studio
located
at 1943 Wantar Avenue
and Wanto, New York, I'm
representing our clients
Michael and Yvonne
Ruppero, they reside at the
subject property
16 Wentworth Drive, uh, we're
here requesting
variances all for proposed work,
a moment about our
clients and their situation,
their houses. Suffered severe
loss in a
fire, Michael and Yvonne have
young children and, uh, public
schools and
uh They wish to enlarge the home
to accommodate their growing
family and, and
uh, they want to build a
beautiful home for themselves
and their family.
On this particular site, there
is history of a 1963 zoning
change
for our research, um The house
was originally constructed and
approved cfo under r5 zoning,
it's currently more restrictive
r 10.
The second floor addition to the
home as
its s s s s s r the oveisting walls of the existing
house as it relates to the side
yard setback for the home
we're not decreasing the side
yards as it relates to the home
there
there is an egress well that
we're proposing on one of the
side yards which
will be about 12 inches above
grade with the cover and then 2
small air
conditioning units will also be
on that, on that side yard.
On the, I wanna talk about the
front yard setback relief that
we're requesting, we are
proposing a front porch which I
think everyone
can agree front porches are
aesthetically pleasing and they
encourage social interaction
between neighbors, um, increases
curb appeal, we're proposing a
20.5 front yard setback
where 23 ft is required as the
permitted encroachment of our
front porch is
We did, we did some research as
it relates to previous fo, uh,
previous grantings from
the variance board on Wentworth
Drive, we submitted that exhibit
as part
of our Due diligence, uh, so the
subject property is
16 Wentworth, uh, in 1987, 12
Wentworth, there was side
yard deficiencies granted the
next door house to that
10 Wentworth was, um, approved
with side yard deficiencies in 7
Wentworth across
the street was also, um,
approved with side yard and
front yard deficiencies. Um, I
can, if you
I can continue, I was gonna just
it's fine. Is there anyone in
the audience that wishes to be
heard regarding the application?
MR. Danger, I, I Can tell you
that I know that
there were several letters that
were, uh, sent to the board in
favor of, uh, of your plans and
the thing that I just
wanted to make sure that I
understood was accurate is that
you're using the
existing foundation that I know
the house was destroyed by fire.
I've been
there, I've seen what it looks
like and, and, and the, uh,
proposal that
you're looking to do, looking to
build in its place, but you're
actually
using the same foundation that
gave The gave a ceo for
the house back when it was in an
r5 zone, now it's in an r10
zone, is that
is that accurate? Yes sir, so
you're not really, you're not
expanding the foundation in any
direction, you're, you're just
using what's
already there and building up
that's correct. Ok, we had 1
letter
from the person who is directly
to the west indicating that they
might, you know, if it was
possible to change the
uh, that particular western
side. Yard that, that, that
would be a request
but I, my perception is that
would basically be impossible,
you'd have to do
a whole new foundation and
you're actually just building on
what was already
there, so there's no change from
before the fire. I
can elaborate on that if you
want, or if it's not necessary,
tell me it's
not. I don't think it is. I just
wanted to be certain that I knew
that you
were using the same foundation
that existed at that time and
there was a
lot of damage done to the house
and it, you know, whatever, what
you Going
to do now will obviously be a
tremendous improvement and a
great improvement
for the neighborhood as well.
Thank you so much. All right, so
having said
all that on the record, I would
entertain a motion to grant this
application.
Motion. MR. Caitano, on the
motion. MR. White on the 2nd,
all
in favor, any opposed, your
application is granted. Good
luck with your
construction. You got a lot to
do. Thank you so much.
Appreciate everybody's
help. Sorry. Wasn't so exciting.
Ok, MR. Bennett, do we have some
other
business tonight, MR. CHAIRMAN,
initially on
uh, 23551. We
have a request from MR. Benesso
of Forcellli Deegan. He's
seeking an extension of an
expired grant due to issues
regarding locating
tenants, uh, the fee has been
paid for it, I believe, under
its equitable
powers, the board could grant
the extension request. Sure,
we'll give him
an extension request. Um, we'll
approve it thank you
um, next we have also a request
for a lawful minor encroachment
uh, for property located at 5
Glenhill Court in Dix Hills.
There's a request for
an approval by a lawful minor
encroachment for a detached
accessory structure, a cabana
and a pool house with an
existing setback
of 9.9 ft where 10 ft is
required. I believe the
board could determine that this
would constitute a
lawful minor encroachment. I
would say that's minor, so we'll
agree to that. Um, next, under
23321, we have
a Gorton, uh, for this is
property
located at 364 Maplewood Road in
Evans Court
um, the building department is
apparently
seeking direction from the zba
regarding additional relief for
structures
that appeared on the plans when
the application was submitted
um, but they were apparently not
marked for leaf by the building
department. Um
I believe all of the plans and
submissions have been submitted
by Mr
Garton at the time of
application. They're all
contained within the record
the decision reflects their
existence, and I believe the
board could forward
correspondence to the building
department that they
can move forward with the
issuance of building permits so
they can construction
can be continued or concluded at
the property. Let's do that next
under 23519. We have an ex uh
request for Property located at
12
Fairview Place, uh, for an
extension of a non-expired grant
due
to weather conditions and some
gas line relocation delays, uh,
fee
has been paid. I believe the
board could consider approving
the extension. Ok
let's do that too, um, next for
a vote, we have 4
matters on, uh, 2 are both
interrelated, 1
is zba 23226 by Christina Fry
Fry for property
at 194 Catay Drive. South and
East
Northport and the other is an
application under 23439 by
attorney Alison Corb. Uh, on
behalf of
MR. Ali, also for property at
194 Catay Drive, um, under
the application filed by MISS
Um, MISS Fry, they were seeking
uh, side yard and combined side
yard
relief and accessorybuilding
relief to legalize a
one-story addition and accessory
storage with, with
habitable features, I believe on
that score they
were requesting, um, in the r
20 zone, minimum side you had
setback of 20
ft in minimum combined yard
width of 40 ft, the
existing minimum side yard to
the 1st 10 by 20 edition. Is
14.5 ft from the southerly line
where 20 ft is
required and the existing
minimum combined width of the
side yours is
38.7 ft where 40 ft is required,
I believe the
board could consider a grant of
the dimensional relief
however, relative to the
structure on the premises, there
is apparently a 10 by 20 side
yard addition in back of
the dwelling that uh has a door.
Communicating in the yard, but
no
communication with the dwelling
itself and contains sheetrock
walls, I believe the, the board
could consider granting all the
relief sought except perhaps
relative to the, the inclusion
of the sheetrock
as habitable conditions, I
believe that should be denied,
but I think based
on the record the board could
consider a grant of the
mathematical relief
that sought. All right, let's do
this one at a time, uh, this
this 23226 is quite old and we,
and it's been It's been
on our agenda for a long time,
partly because it's been the
subject
matter of many, um,
investigations by
code enforcement and in each
each time we've
had some information from code
enforcement they've given
us some Representations that the
the building is being used for
more than
2 families, um, and, and that
uh, you know, there have been
complaints from the, from the
neighbors and
it has been a reason that we
have continued not to
make a decision on this
particular application, I know
that's
the subject matter of another
application, which is 23439
which we'll deal with tonight as
well, but with respect to this 2
3226, they really just looking
for
mathematical variances on the,
on the
uh, on the, on the structure,
and, um, to
that end. Just repeating what
I've, what we all
know, and that is, while, while
cases are pending before the
zoning Board
of Appeals, uh, there is a stay
for any type
of code enforcement violations
so while, while these cases are
pending before
our board code enforcement has
no jurisdiction to
to give any tickets if they
believe that some type of an
ordinance violation has taken
place, so it would behoove us
to.
Uh, make a decision on these
matters and get them off our
agenda
so with respect to 23226
um, my understanding is that
they're looking for a variance
a side yard variance of
approximately 20 ft, something
like that, and
a combined with some odd feat as
well
for the structure that's
actually attached to the house,
correct, Mr
CHAIRMAN? Yes, yes, all right,
and
uh, and With, with your
recommendation
to the board does that include
that
that particular structure should
not
have habitable features it does,
MR. CHAIRMAN, my
recommendation to the board is
that the, the grant as to the
arithmetic
relief be, be approved, but
relative to the habitable
feature, namely the
sheetrock on this structure at
the back of the building that
that portion
of the application be denied and
the sheetrock be removed. Ok,
I'd like
to have the board take your
recommendation on that and grant
this
particular one subject to the
conditions that you just placed
on the record.
All right, to that end on e
entertain a motion to grant the
application for the mathematical
requirements
under 23226, which goes all the
way back to 2024. I'll make
a motion to grant forvariances,
uh, with the condition that
there's no,
uh, sheetrock. Uh, in the
structure. Thank you, MR.
McGrath. MR. Castagno on
the second. All in favor? Any
opposed? All right
we have that one off the agenda.
Um, MR. MR. Bennett
I'll just uh, take 2,2439 kind
of quickly and, um, and ask
for your edification and
corrections if If I'm, if I
uh, misrepresent something, my
understanding here
is that the accessory apartment
review board held a
hearing regarding the, uh,
request for
a permission for an adu at
this very same address. And
was denied the reason for
the denial, uh, on the record
was that the, uh, persons who
were living
in the dwelling were not owners.
So if
it wasn't owner occupied, you
couldn't have
an adu, it would, that wouldn't
be possible
however, after that hearing had
been completed and
the denial was given by
MISTER Nitkowitz that the that
the appeal was made. To our
board in NOVEMBER
of 2025, and at that time there
was documentary evidence that
indicated that the person who
was living
on the premises did become an
owner and, and was, uh Not they
the exclusive owner but was a
part owner for at
least 10% of the equity of the,
of
the property, and
and therefore, um, the reason
for the denial was that it
wasn't owner-occupied, but now
the hearing in NOVEMBER of
2025 indicated that the
that it was owner-occupied
and therefore the appeal was
sent
to us to overturn the decision.
Ah, so far, am I doing ok
Correct, MR. CHAIRMAN, you are.
Ok
so therefore, with respect to
the decision on
this particular application, it
would be
my recommendation that we
um, remand the, uh, matter back
to the accessory department
review board and back
to MR. Nitkowitz to conduct
another
hearing or perhaps to grant the
adu whatever their decision
might be.
Rather than have us do that,
send it back to them
because it's also my
understanding that there were
some allegations
there was that the, um, That the
structure was being used for
more than
2 families, and of course,
that's not allowed either, and
um, and so this, By sending it
back to the
accessory department review for
another hearing or for a
decision
based on the fact that it is
owner occupied, puts it in
their hands to make a judgment
whether or not the adu would be
granted
now that owner occupied has been
proven. So it would
be my recommendation that we
would, um, We
would grant the appeal to us and
that we
uh, place on the record that we
now agree that
it's, and we're satisfied that
it's
owner occupied and remanded back
to the accessory apartment
review board for a decision. We,
we can do that
can't we? Yes, MR. Jim, we
absolutely, yes, ok, so
that's So let me take that in
the form of a motion
for the decision on on
application for
23439. I'll make a motion to
remand it back to the MR.
Capadano on
the motion for the remand, MS.
Whalen on
the 2nd, all in favor, any
opposed
ok, that. Takes care of
Cay Drive in East Northport
And now we have, uh, we have
2 other matters that are
actually under, uh, 2,
2 separate, uh, numbers
23699 and 23701
So MR. Bennett, would you tell
us about
those 2 those are 2 applications
brought by Mr
McCarthy, uh, for premises on
or rather location on La Rue
Drive
um, relative to 2
3,699. They are seeking
some relief, it's an r10 zone
uh, proposed minimum lot width
of
the parcel, parcel b is 78.94
ft, where
100 ft is required, and the
proposed minimum
Long Street side yard setback of
parcel b is 12 ft from
the northerly line along the
undeveloped private right of
way, known
as Waller Court with 30 ft is
required
um, relative to the application
under 23, um.
Um, I'm sorry, that was 23701,
relative to the application
of the 23699. Uh, it's also in
our 10 zone
They are seeking required
minimum lot width of
uh, 91.93
ft where 100 ft is required. Um
the parcels under consideration
date back
many years to several
subdivisions, the
subdivision that MR. McCarthy is
dealing dealing with is
one whereby his client has
purchased the property
subsequent to
a zoning Board of Appeals
subdivision in either 1992
or 1994. Um, prior thererere too,
there had been a
subdivision in 1974. It's
unrelated to the
the present application for 13
acres that
MR. Keene owns that is adjacent
to this
particular parcel that was
subject to
the 1992 and 1993 Zoning Board
of Appeals
um, subdivision approval. This,
this
board is looking at the
situation whereby what Mr
McCarthy is attempting to do is
it's attempting to change the
lot lines internally on these
parcels, there has already been
subdivision
approval granted. Approximately
30 years ago. This board is not
being asked
to grant subdivision approval,
we don't have jurisdiction to do
so or 10
parcels require 10,000 square
feet. These 2 parcels
respectively contain 13,945 ft
and
11,474 square feet. They are
both buildable lots. They both
exceed the required
square footage. They are
proposing to remove a
2-car garage on 1 parcel,
replace it with a 1-car garage.
And square off
the lot line somewhat, uh,
relative to Long Street side
yard
relief. They're seeking 12 ft
where the code
requires 30, however, that part
of the application is adjacent
to a a
paper street, which MAY or MAY
not be developed, but in any
case, the
Paper Street is 50 ft wide, so
if the street were opened, it
would never
be closer than 20 ft to any
other affected residents
basically they're seeking to clo
to to clean up the building
envelope. Uh, we
are not granting subdivision
approval. Any way if the boy
votes this affirmatively
He he still must go to planning,
relative to the lot line change
all we're doing is granting that
the board is so inclined to do
so
so some relatively minor, uh,
mathematical relief regarding
lot
line changes. Ok, thank you for
that explanation, it
seems as though, um, really the
the main focus of the
application for each one
of these applications is to
square up the
uh, square up the lot lines and
the building plots so that
they're more
uh, more appropriately
mathematically configured, and
that's essentially what they're,
what they're asking us
to do on this because as you
pointed out Ah, they've already
got permission for the
subdivision, which we don't have
appro approval for
that either what we're really
doing is granting that
elimination of the
garage in the back and the, um
And the, um, 12
ft side yard for the building
envelope on one of the plots
is that basically it, that's it
that's correct, MR. CHAIRMAN,
yes
ok, um. Just a quick
clarification question for Mr
Bennett, um, you said creating 2
buildable lots, I, I think
the applicant, I know the
applicant on the record said
they're keeping the
existing house. It's the other
lot that would be the buildable
lot
that's correct that's correct,
MR. McGreg. They, they, they
could, even
if they did not come before this
board, they have the right to
build on
these lots right now. So, uh my
understanding is they're gonna
maintain
the one structure on the lot.
They're reducing the size of the
garage from
a 2-car garage to 1 car garage
in order to adjust the internal
lot line,
uh, but you're absolutely
correct. They already have
approval. These, these
are already 2 buildable lots.
They're just moving, proposing
to move the
lines a little bit to, uh,
square off the square off the
lots basically,
yeah. All right, thank you.
Anything else that any board
member wants to
ask or make a statement about?
All right, I'll entertain a
motion to, uh,
grant the application for zba
number 23699. I'll
make the motion MS. Whalen on
the motion. Mr
Castagno on the 2nd, all in
favor
Any opposed? Ok, uh, that's
passed, and
then I am also entertain a
motion
for the application for 23701
um, and for the
for the same Information that
MR. Bennett's placed
on MS. Whalen, on the motion. Mr
Castagna on the second. All in
favor
any opposed, and that one is
passed as well
uh, do we have any other
business? After what we've
conducted
tonight, MR. Bennett, I don't
believe so, MR. CHAIRMAN. Ok,
thank you very much
Thank everyone for their
participation in our hearings
and in our other
business for tonight, uh, we'll
see you next week here