[0:05] Ok
[0:08] good evening everyone, welcome
[0:09] to the zoning
[0:12] Board of Appeals for thehe town of
[0:13] Huntington for the meeting
[0:16] of AUGUST the 6th, 2026, please
[0:17] rise for the Pledge of
[0:21] allegiance to our flag. I pledge
[0:22] allegiance to the flag of the
[0:22] United States
[0:25] of America and to the Republic
[0:26] of nation
[0:28] under GOD, indivisible with
[0:29] liberty and justice
[0:33] for all, please be seated.
[0:37] Minutes for. JULY 23rd.
[0:41] Um, I looked at
[0:44] them, they were good, didn't
[0:44] make
[0:46] any corrections, changes or
[0:47] deletions if no one has
[0:50] any changes, deletions or
[0:51] corrections, um, when entertain
[0:51] a
[0:55] motion to accept the minutes for
[0:55] JULY 23rd, 2026. I'll make
[0:59] that motion, MR. McGrath, on the
[1:00] motion, MR. Castania on the
[1:00] second, all
[1:04] in favor, any opposed? Minutes
[1:04] are accepted. Dawn, are the
[1:05] appropriate postings
[1:08] and publications done with the
[1:09] appropriate affidavits to give
[1:13] us jurisdiction for the hearings
[1:13] tonight. All right, thank you.
[1:14] The order
[1:17] for the hearings tonight will be
[1:17] as follows.
[1:20] 2373239 Bunker Hill Drive
[1:24] 237308 Bayview Drive
[1:27] Huntington, 23696.
[1:33] Yeah.
[1:36] 426 Mount Misery Road.
[1:41] 23689.
[1:44] 140 Eaton's Neck Road, and
[1:48] finally 2373816 Wentworth Drive
[1:48] in
[1:51] Dix Hills. Well, the applicant
[1:52] or the representative
[1:55] of the applicant for
[1:58] 2373239 Bunker Hill Drive,
[1:58] please address the court.
[2:02] Actually, the zoning
[2:05] Board of Appeals and not the
[2:05] court. That was
[2:09] that was some kind of mistake
[2:09] from the
[2:12] old days. Good evening, um, I'm
[2:12] Aristotlekjamitros
[2:16] I'm here with my wife, Sarah.
[2:16] We're the owners of the home
[2:19] at uh 39 Bunker Hill Drive.
[2:20] We're seeking a variance for,
[2:20] uh, the
[2:23] swimming pool that is there, um,
[2:23] for the
[2:27] 50-foot setback, as you can see
[2:27] 1 corner of it is
[2:31] um, at 33 ft, uh, that corner
[2:32] right there, um. I
[2:35] didn't even know that was a
[2:35] thing until I applied for to
[2:36] close out the permit
[2:39] that we were in violation, um,
[2:39] you can't see it
[2:43] from this, um Survey, but
[2:46] the, the land is significantly
[2:46] sloped from where the
[2:49] home is to the edge of my
[2:50] property on Bunker Hill. Um, so
[2:50] we
[2:54] placed the pool where it was
[2:55] logical and in the logical spot
[2:55] for it, I
[2:58] will say, when on the street,
[2:59] when you're on Bunker Hill, you
[2:59] cannot see
[3:03] the pool. Um, it is not visible,
[3:04] it is not visible from any of my
[3:04] neighbor's
[3:08] properties on Bunker Hill. It's
[3:08] 1 acre zoning that we have
[3:08] there. There's
[3:12] significant space between, uh,
[3:13] our pool in our house and, and
[3:13] all of our
[3:16] neighbors. Furthermore, being At
[3:17] our, uh, neighbor's homes on
[3:17] Bunker Hill.
[3:21] I, I can't even hear the the
[3:22] pool, obviously I could hear the
[3:22] kids if they,
[3:25] if they're yelling, but, uh,
[3:26] other than that, I don't hear
[3:26] the equipment
[3:30] or anything like that, so we're
[3:31] seeking relief for that to be
[3:31] able to close
[3:35] out, thank you. Is there anyone
[3:35] in the audience that wishes to
[3:35] be heard
[3:39] regarding this matter 23732,
[3:39] Bunker Hill. Noticing that no
[3:40] one wishes to
[3:44] be heard. I know that the, the,
[3:44] it's required to be fenced, your
[3:44] property
[3:48] is fenced, and it also has a lot
[3:49] of trees that have been placed
[3:49] on the,
[3:52] on the roadside of the fence. So
[3:53] your commentary about the fact
[3:53] that you
[3:57] really can't see it from many
[3:58] places accurate, um, noticing
[3:58] that no one
[4:01] wishes to be heard, and, uh,
[4:02] perceiving this to be a de
[4:02] minimis application,
[4:06] I'll entertain a motion to grant
[4:06] motion MR. Cast on the motion.
[4:07] MR. Capadano
[4:11] on the 2nd, all in favor, any
[4:11] opposed, your application is
[4:11] granted, get
[4:15] your pools. Thank you. Well the
[4:16] applicant. With the
[4:16] representative of the applicant
[4:20] for 237308 Bayview Drive in
[4:20] Huntington, please address
[4:25] the board. I'm so jealous of him
[4:25] right now.
[4:28] Honorable CHAIRMAN,
[4:29] distinguished board, Dawn, my
[4:29] Sherpa, thank you
[4:33] I appreciate it, I'm Hank
[4:34] Ludwicki, the owner of 8 Bayview
[4:34] Drive in the
[4:38] Huntington Alps section, also
[4:38] known as No Wood Beach. Um, I'm
[4:42] here asking basically sympathy
[4:43] and relief for 2.
[4:46] 19819 and 19857.
[4:49] I bought a woodpecker. Chipmunk
[4:52] squirrel infested house. That
[4:55] is boarded up. And dilapidated.
[4:58] Would not weed And because I'm
[5:01] a fool, it's a 625
[5:03] square foot bungalow that's
[5:07] a triangle. On a property that's
[5:09] 0.1 acres? And it's so small and
[5:09] on
[5:14] such a steep hill, the area in
[5:14] yellow. Is
[5:17] actually covering half of Laurel
[5:17] Drive. So I'm wondering if I
[5:17] could even
[5:21] put a toll on there at some
[5:21] point. But anyway, what I'm
[5:22] asking for relief
[5:25] is basically, uh, 3 things. The
[5:25] portico, I'm
[5:29] looking to put in the house is
[5:30] in violation of the 20-foot
[5:30] setback. The
[5:34] house is only 14 ft from the
[5:34] street at one ft from the other,
[5:35] so I'm asking for
[5:38] a 45 inch variance for the
[5:38] portico
[5:41] so we don't fall off the slope.
[5:41] Uh, we want a
[5:45] little peekaboo deck so we can
[5:46] see the water. We're asking
[5:50] for 30 inches there. I don't
[5:50] know why the architect did that,
[5:50] that's
[5:54] why he's fired, uh, and then the
[5:54] last
[5:57] 1, 19857. These houses are so
[5:57] close to each
[6:02] other. Um, 5, we have a 6-foot
[6:02] setback, um.
[6:05] 5 ft, my house is 6 ft. Um, my
[6:05] wife is hot
[6:08] and she wants an air
[6:09] conditioner, the house never had
[6:09] an air conditioner for
[6:12] 50 years. So, I bought the
[6:13] smallest 1, 32
[6:17] inches, and we're asking for a
[6:17] 28 inch variance for that.
[6:21] I got letters of recommendation.
[6:22] I have 2 streets and
[6:26] 1 neighbor, I got letters from
[6:26] every single neighbor. They love
[6:30] that I fixed up this dilapidated
[6:31] house and I got it from the
[6:31] neighbor that
[6:35] is affected, Scott Martin, great
[6:35] guy. That's what I'm asking for.
[6:39] Ok, thank you for your
[6:39] presentation. Is
[6:44] there anyone in the audience
[6:44] that wishes to be heard
[6:45] regarding this application.
[6:48] All right. Noticing that no one
[6:49] wishes to be heard, and also um
[6:53] On the record, I noticed that
[6:53] you did have letters of
[6:57] uh, recommendation and approval
[6:58] from several of your neighbors,
[6:58] and maybe
[7:02] there's 1 or 2 that came in and
[7:02] the, at the last minute as well,
[7:03] so it was pretty
[7:06] obvious that the people who live
[7:07] in the area thought it was a
[7:07] good idea
[7:11] to fix it up. I wouldn't like to
[7:11] compliment you on one thing,
[7:11] this, this
[7:15] might be the very first time
[7:16] that I've ever heard someone ask
[7:16] for a variance
[7:20] in inches, so sometimes it
[7:20] actually is more impressive than
[7:20] 2.1 ft or something
[7:24] like that, so it's crazy, it's
[7:25] understand that, but, uh, but
[7:25] it's the same as
[7:29] if it was a 2 2.5 ft is 30
[7:29] inches, that's what
[7:33] it is. So anyway, uh. Having
[7:34] listened
[7:36] to your application and
[7:37] observing that no one wishes to
[7:37] be heard, and in
[7:41] fact the neighbors are in favor
[7:41] of your request
[7:44] uh, I will entertain a motion to
[7:45] grant the
[7:48] application motion, thank you.
[7:48] Thank you MR. Campandao MR.
[7:48] White
[7:51] on the second, all and all
[7:54] in favor, any opposed
[8:01] The applications granted, good
[8:02] luck with your continued
[8:02] construction.
[8:05] The applicant or the
[8:06] representative of the applicant
[8:09] for 23696 that's 426 Mount
[8:12] Misery Road, please address the
[8:13] board. Yeah.
[8:18] Sure.
[8:23] So my architect is supposed to
[8:25] be here and uh.
[8:28] Understands exactly what we're
[8:28] trying to do here, but I'll do
[8:28] my
[8:32] best in explaining, so I believe
[8:32] that, uh, the slope that
[8:36] we're building, uh, the full
[8:37] cabana, uh, seasonal structure,
[8:37] non-habitable.
[8:41] Um, it's, it's near slope, so I
[8:41] think that was, that was an
[8:42] issue that was
[8:45] brought to my attention. And we
[8:46] were also looking to do, uh, a
[8:46] basement.
[8:50] For the pool house, for, for,
[8:51] uh, storage. And also by the way
[8:51] the grade
[8:54] is on the property, it'd be
[8:55] another way to get down to the
[8:55] second grade
[8:59] because, uh, there's like
[8:59] there's 2 grades to the
[9:00] property. And, uh, that's
[9:03] my understanding, uh, what we're
[9:04] seeking for. All right, would,
[9:04] will you,
[9:08] uh, being represented by MR.
[9:08] Gray, I confirmed with him
[9:08] yesterday, um, I
[9:12] was texting him when I got here
[9:13] because I didn't see him. I
[9:13] don't know,
[9:17] but maybe something happened,
[9:18] I'm not sure. Ok, are you the
[9:18] builder or the
[9:21] potential owner the, or do you
[9:22] own the property? I own the
[9:22] property and
[9:26] I'm also the builder on the
[9:26] property. Ok, so the, the only
[9:26] thing we were
[9:30] a little bit concerned about was
[9:31] the height of the basement area
[9:31] that you're
[9:35] using for storage at the, at the
[9:35] east end of the pool that, uh,
[9:35] you know,
[9:39] whether or not you could do it
[9:40] with 8 ft or 7 ft rather than 9,
[9:40] but if 9
[9:44] ft is the, if 9 ft is it, well,
[9:44] It looks like the, uh, the
[9:45] cavalry arrived,
[9:48] can I, can I cut in and
[9:49] introduce myself, we just got,
[9:49] we just got an application
[9:53] with respect to it and
[9:53] indicating that it's really just
[9:53] for the, the cabana
[9:57] at the east end of the property,
[9:58] which is very, very heavily
[9:58] sloped, and
[10:02] uh, and obviously the look all
[10:02] our cabana applications are
[10:07] no habitable features of, of any
[10:08] kind. There's several conditions
[10:08] on it,
[10:11] and, uh, we're just Discussing
[10:12] whether or not you needed a
[10:12] 9-foot Basement,
[10:16] whether or not you could, you
[10:17] could Get by with 8 ft or 7 ft.
[10:17] MAY I
[10:22] shall I introduce myself? Sure,
[10:22] for the, for the record
[10:24] Chris Gray, architect, 2401
[10:24] Capri Place
[10:27] North Belmore, New York,
[10:28] representing Damian Lazarus
[10:31] at 426 Mount Missouri Road. Ok
[10:34] we got that out of the way. Ok,
[10:34] so.
[10:38] What do you have, do you have a
[10:40] uh, a response to my inquiry,
[10:41] well
[10:45] uh, like, you know, like to, to
[10:45] start off with, uh, you know,
[10:45] just
[10:49] the, um, there has been a, an
[10:50] in-ground pool with that that
[10:50] has been I've
[10:53] seen it, it looks like it's, you
[10:54] know, the already mostly dug out
[10:54] already, right
[10:58] so that, that has been permitted
[10:59] construction has started
[11:03] and the position of this cabana
[11:03] is at the, the far end of this
[11:03] with like a
[11:07] nice, a nice spot to look at.
[11:08] The pool and that happens to be
[11:12] right where the steep slope
[11:12] starts on the property you can
[11:12] see
[11:16] on the on the plot plan looks
[11:17] half of the property is in a
[11:17] steep slope and
[11:21] it's about like a 45 ft drop
[11:21] from top to bottom. And
[11:25] uh, we thought that that would
[11:25] be an ideal place to put this
[11:26] cabana
[11:30] and also take advantage of that
[11:30] slope and providing that
[11:34] uh, the basement below to store
[11:35] recreational vehicles
[11:39] uh, like lawn equipment and
[11:39] lawn, uh, outdoor furniture and
[11:40] all that stuff
[11:43] to keep it all nice and stowed
[11:44] away, so that, that was the,
[11:44] that's
[11:48] the concept of the, of the
[11:48] structure. Um, I do have an, an
[11:52] aerial photo that I that I took
[11:53] off of Google if I MAY hand
[11:57] it in, just to show the lay of
[11:57] the land, well, you do, I guess
[11:57] you do have a
[12:01] an aerial, do you have a
[12:02] pictorial aerial we'll take your
[12:02] word for it. I've
[12:06] seen the site, I've been there a
[12:06] couple of times and I know what
[12:06] you're
[12:10] talking about, and it is a very
[12:11] steep slope, there's no doubt
[12:11] about it,
[12:15] and then also I just want to
[12:15] point out there's the, uh, a
[12:15] neighbor, um,
[12:19] I believe that's probably, it
[12:20] could be to the east, um, that
[12:20] has an. Restructure
[12:24] in the back of their property
[12:24] too, something looks fairly
[12:24] substantial, uh,
[12:28] this is a very large piece of
[12:29] property, so it's a 2-acre zone.
[12:29] Um, so that's,
[12:33] that's the, uh, the, the basic
[12:33] gist of this. MR. Gray, the
[12:37] CHAIRMAN Asked if, if the lower
[12:38] level can be reduced down to 7
[12:38] or 8 ft though, that
[12:42] was the question I, I, speaking
[12:42] on behalf of the owner, I guess
[12:42] he would
[12:46] mind doing that, that would be
[12:47] helpful, that, and, and, uh,
[12:47] getting some
[12:51] kind of approval, but I'm sure
[12:52] that would be fine, right? Yeah,
[12:52] if that's
[12:55] uh maybe. Yes, I think that
[12:56] would, that would be fine. We
[12:56] have the, let
[13:00] me look at the section here. And
[13:00] the, uh, I proposed it was 9 ft,
[13:00] but 8
[13:04] ft would be, I'm sure, more than
[13:05] adequate. Ok, MR. Gray typically
[13:09] what we've done in the past.
[13:09] Because we usually don't grant
[13:10] above 7 ft in the
[13:13] basement area cause it's mostly
[13:14] for either storage or it's pool
[13:14] equipment.
[13:18] That's right, that's, it's not
[13:18] designed to be living space,
[13:19] it's not designed
[13:22] to be admirable. You've got 9 ft
[13:23] on the main level, you got
[13:23] fairly high
[13:27] ceilings there, so typically
[13:28] down in the basement we do 7 ft
[13:28] or less. I
[13:32] think that'll be fine, right? It
[13:32] is helpful. Yes. We, we can't,
[13:32] we can't
[13:36] do 8 ft. Typically, no. We've
[13:36] never granted 8 ft before.
[13:36] Because you're
[13:40] using it mostly for storage of
[13:41] ATVs and equipment and whatnot.
[13:41] You're not
[13:45] building another garage, you're
[13:45] just storing stuff under your
[13:45] For them.
[13:49] I would think would be wise to
[13:50] go with it. But I suppose. So 7
[13:50] ft it is
[13:54] that would, that could, that
[13:54] could be fine, that solves our
[13:58] our concern that solves our
[13:59] concern, so with the, with the
[13:59] plan being
[14:03] amended, which I'm sure you can
[14:03] do, MR. Gray to, uh, 7
[14:07] ft well, first, I think I asked
[14:08] this question, but now I'm not
[14:08] sure. Is
[14:12] there anyone in the audience
[14:13] that wishes to be heard? You
[14:13] want to be heard,
[14:17] you come on up. What's it. Hear
[14:17] from you. And also these, these
[14:18] drawings
[14:21] are design drawings. We're not,
[14:22] um, you know, uh, assuming they
[14:22] will be
[14:26] approved, so that's why it's,
[14:26] it's still in the alive stage,
[14:26] ok.
[14:30] So I'm not sure, I live at the
[14:30] bottom of the
[14:33] hill of that huge steep, uh,
[14:33] steep
[14:36] incline, and we do have concerns
[14:37] because
[14:39] um, I sent an email today, so if
[14:40] you don't mind, I'm just gonna
[14:40] read that
[14:44] because I'm a little nervous
[14:44] about this, so in regards to
[14:44] this application,
[14:48] we have noted that the applicant
[14:48] has been working on this
[14:49] proposal on the
[14:52] cabana expansion prior to your
[14:53] approval. So he's already built
[14:57] that cabana structural wall that
[14:57] he has already, uh, the app.
[15:01] Applicant removed trees without
[15:02] a permit on SEPTEMBER on
[15:02] Saturday, JULY
[15:06] the 11th. The applicant has been
[15:06] leveling the property to receive
[15:06] the
[15:11] cabana structure as of this day,
[15:11] as of this morning, without your
[15:11] approval.
[15:15] We have called the town of
[15:15] Huntington code enforcement and
[15:16] planning department
[15:19] on JULY 13th to request a review
[15:20] because we weren't sure whether
[15:20] we
[15:24] were making a mistake. They said
[15:24] they could only stop him at a
[15:25] certain
[15:28] point, so we don't, so our
[15:29] concern really is that with that
[15:29] steep
[15:33] slope, we're worried about
[15:33] stormwater as well as soil
[15:38] We have lots of issues of water
[15:38] running off onto our property.
[15:38] We've
[15:42] put in a dry wells and try to
[15:42] mitigate the water that's coming
[15:42] in there
[15:46] but it is like a waterfall
[15:46] feature in that area
[15:51] so we are asking the architect
[15:51] and the applicant to do put.
[15:55] In some kind of plan to stop the
[15:56] water, reduce that water
[16:00] the water doesn't only run onto
[16:00] our property at 87 Old Country
[16:00] Road
[16:04] It also runs onto all country
[16:05] road which has got so
[16:08] and there's a huge curve, the
[16:08] water pools up there in the
[16:08] wintertime
[16:12] it ices up. So I'm asking,
[16:12] please help us with soil
[16:16] and water mitigation how he
[16:16] builds it, what he builds it
[16:20] we're fine with that. He can
[16:21] build the Taj Mahal, we are fine
[16:21] with that,
[16:24] but please help us with that
[16:25] soil and water. It's really
[16:25] ridiculous as to
[16:29] how much water we receive on our
[16:30] property. Ok, so your main issue
[16:30] is
[16:34] the fact that is surface water.
[16:35] That's, that's the main
[16:38] Issue that you have, well, the
[16:39] fact that he's also been
[16:43] building the whole time it's
[16:43] another concern that we have,
[16:43] but the, the
[16:47] house is nearly Completed, so he
[16:48] can't build it without a permit.
[16:48] I'm
[16:51] cabana he's building, he's
[16:52] already building the cabana
[16:52] without your approval. Ok
[16:56] so we're, we're discussing that
[16:56] now, and, and he's willing
[17:01] to amend the plans to a 7 ft,
[17:01] um, basement. So
[17:05] um, but surface water and the
[17:06] all the information that
[17:09] you're talking about, the
[17:10] building department of the town
[17:10] of Huntington
[17:14] before they give out a ceo is
[17:15] gonna be have, have to be
[17:15] satisfied that any
[17:18] of those kinds of issues. Get
[17:19] resolved with the engineering
[17:19] department of
[17:23] the town of Huntington. That's
[17:24] not something that we do. Ok, so
[17:24] I have called them
[17:27] so should I be with this
[17:28] approval of only the design of
[17:32] the cabana maintain some contact
[17:33] with MR. Gray and then the
[17:33] other, if you
[17:36] need help from the town of
[17:37] Huntington, you'll have to be
[17:37] involved with the building
[17:41] and engineering department. Ok.
[17:42] Thank you. Ok, thank you.
[17:46] Is there anyone else who wishes
[17:47] to be heard regarding the
[17:47] application.
[17:50] Ok, MR. Gray. Well
[17:53] in respect to the, to the
[17:53] drainage
[17:56] um, it would matter if there's a
[17:56] structure there
[17:59] or not that slope just still
[18:02] exists. I was there at the
[18:02] beginning of
[18:05] the year. Uh, looking at the lay
[18:05] of the land, and I
[18:08] see that, you know, it's a lot
[18:08] of, you know
[18:11] just dirt and whatnot, so
[18:11] perhaps once the
[18:15] the house is finished and then
[18:15] he starts working on
[18:19] the grounds, perhaps grass could
[18:20] be grown on that slope and that
[18:20] will
[18:24] help to reduce the amount of
[18:24] runoff perhaps it can
[18:27] get absorbed on the way down, so
[18:27] and also
[18:31] on the, I did see on the plot
[18:31] plan, there was
[18:34] a, a drainage trough. That was,
[18:34] that was
[18:37] uh, that was. That wasn't part
[18:38] of the. Excuse me
[18:42] that was just all in there by
[18:42] the other architects just to
[18:43] just to to to
[18:46] satisfy uh. The original
[18:47] gradient issue. Ok, so, but I
[18:47] did, I did see on
[18:51] a, on a plot plan for the the
[18:51] main dwelling, there
[18:54] was a ok about that. Ok, but,
[18:54] but, but just for
[18:58] the record, there was, there's
[19:00] note that's a swell, a gravel
[19:03] filled swell I discussed that
[19:03] with
[19:07] the inspectors about that. Ok,
[19:07] but, uh, but see it within my
[19:11] you know, this concern was
[19:12] brought to our attention. I did
[19:12] tell the neighbor
[19:16] they could just call me if
[19:16] there's any, once I'm done, if
[19:17] there's any water
[19:20] issues, I'll be more than happy
[19:21] to help. I did tell that to him
[19:21] in person,
[19:25] but with that being said, uh,
[19:25] you know, talking to the town,
[19:25] uh, they told
[19:29] me, you know, the ratio has got
[19:30] to be right, and, uh, to, uh, I
[19:30] think grass
[19:34] and we were We got the neighbor
[19:34] next to us, uh, signed an
[19:34] affidavit, um
[19:38] He's willing to meet great with
[19:39] me, so we're matching the great,
[19:39] it was
[19:43] a big valley there, so she's
[19:43] been having water issues before
[19:43] I, I bought
[19:47] the property she had issues with
[19:48] the neighbors in the, she's
[19:48] directly behind
[19:52] the house with the neighbor to
[19:52] the left of me, you know, facing
[19:52] the house,
[19:56] and, uh, so we're actually
[19:57] filling in that valley, so it'd
[19:57] be actually more
[20:01] dirt to absorb more water and,
[20:01] uh, so we, we are trying to
[20:01] minimize dirt
[20:05] and and water and like that that
[20:06] whole area that where we've
[20:06] added dirt
[20:10] that's, all gonna be grass so
[20:10] that should help keep the soil
[20:11] down, um, and
[20:14] then as we go We'll take her, I,
[20:15] I wanna be a good neighbor and
[20:15] I'm not
[20:19] trying to wash nobody out and I
[20:19] think this problem was existing
[20:20] before I
[20:23] bought the property. Ok, so MR.
[20:24] Gray, can you amend the plans
[20:24] and, and do
[20:28] the, uh, basement at 7 ft with a
[20:28] cabana with no habitable
[20:29] features, that's
[20:32] the standard conditions that we
[20:33] have anytime we grant a cabana,
[20:33] which would
[20:37] be at the east end of the pool,
[20:37] ok, so they, so yes, the, the,
[20:38] uh, the plan
[20:41] could be amended for a 7 ft
[20:42] ceiling below, uh, are there
[20:42] other features
[20:46] that are listed here that, uh,
[20:46] should be removed. As well.
[20:47] There, there's
[20:50] several, should I read those
[20:51] features? Tell me what they are,
[20:51] um, ok, there
[20:55] is. Um, The, the interior
[20:55] stairs. For me going, you know,
[20:56] from the, from
[20:59] the grade level and that the
[21:00] pool and to go down to this, to
[21:00] this basement
[21:04] area that sounds ok, that's one
[21:04] issue. Um, we talk about, uh,
[21:05] it's a wood
[21:08] burning fireplace in within the
[21:09] cabana itself. That's ok. Uh,
[21:09] ok. What's
[21:13] that, the stairs of interior
[21:13] walls and wall coverings to be
[21:13] nice to sit
[21:17] in there without looking at a
[21:18] wood frame, but to have some
[21:18] kind of clean
[21:22] finish would be nice. Ok. All
[21:22] right, so I think we We pretty
[21:23] much, we covered
[21:26] all the issues, so the main, the
[21:27] main concern it seemed to be the
[21:27] the ceiling
[21:31] height at that lower level
[21:31] that's the concern, that's the
[21:32] big issue, and,
[21:35] and with all that we, we are,
[21:36] uh, my client is asking for a
[21:36] lot but considering
[21:40] this special circumstance, I say
[21:40] lowering the ceiling is, is, uh,
[21:41] quite
[21:44] reasonable, the things that you,
[21:45] MR. Gray, yes, do you need
[21:45] plumbing out
[21:49] there. No plumbing, no plumbing,
[21:49] and seasonal use only consistent
[21:50] with the
[21:53] pool use, yes, yes, I guess and,
[21:54] you know, and the, the, the
[21:54] winter would
[21:58] be difficult to be in there,
[21:58] but, uh, 33 seasons for sure.
[21:59] You absolutely
[22:02] no habitation in the building
[22:03] yeah, we, we put that in the as
[22:03] a condition
[22:07] of the grant with no habitation,
[22:07] but, but send us the plans with
[22:08] the 7-foot and
[22:11] and we're, and all the other
[22:12] things that you asked for
[22:16] are permitted. We'll give that I
[22:16] amend the plan and just submit
[22:17] it to the
[22:20] building department, or you
[22:21] would, you would submit it to
[22:21] the zoning Board
[22:25] of Appeals to the planning
[22:25] department, ok, submit to the
[22:26] planning department
[22:29] so it becomes a part of our
[22:30] record. I understand. Ok, yes,
[22:30] all right. All
[22:34] right, thank you very much, I'll
[22:35] entertain a motion to grant with
[22:35] the, with
[22:38] the conditions that we placed on
[22:39] the record with the 7 ft and
[22:39] also the,
[22:43] uh, the exceptions on the
[22:43] habitable, um. Conditions that
[22:44] have been placed
[22:48] on the record by MR. Gray. MR.
[22:48] Catano, on the motion. MR.
[22:48] White, on the
[22:52] 2nd, all in favor, any opposed?
[22:52] Ok, send it over to us and then
[22:53] we'll
[22:56] we'll write up the, uh, decision
[22:57] for you, and I apologize for
[22:57] being late, traffic
[23:01] is very much, glad you were
[23:02] here, thank you very much, ok.
[23:05] Well the applicant or the
[23:06] representative of the
[23:13] applicant 423,689,140 Eaton's
[23:13] Neck Road, please address the
[23:14] board.
[23:17] Good evening MR. CHAIRMAN and
[23:17] members of the board, I'm
[23:21] Gordon Stein, I'm a friend of
[23:22] Miriam Green, she asked me to
[23:26] help with this whole variances
[23:26] here that we're doing. Um, we
[23:30] are asking for the approval
[23:31] approval to permit the use of
[23:31] approximately 170
[23:35] square feet of space beneath,
[23:35] beneath an existing
[23:38] detached garage, and it's only
[23:38] for storage purposes. The
[23:39] detached garage
[23:42] was pre previously approved by
[23:43] the rezoning board due to the
[23:43] natural slope
[23:46] of the property, the garage was
[23:47] constructed with an area beneath
[23:47] it.
[23:50] The entrance is located at the
[23:51] rear of the garage and cannot be
[23:55] seen from the street. The home
[23:55] itself does not have any
[23:56] basement. Making stores
[23:59] in the property very limited.
[24:00] The area beneath the garage is
[24:00] for use solely
[24:04] for household storage it will be
[24:05] not be utilized as living space.
[24:08] The property 3 parcels away from
[24:09] this house had the
[24:13] same situation and the town
[24:13] granted finished living space
[24:14] under that newly
[24:17] constructed garage last year.
[24:18] The owners respectfully
[24:22] asked for forgiveness for
[24:23] beginning work without first
[24:23] obtaining the necessary
[24:26] approvals. This request is
[24:27] modest in scope, it does not
[24:27] increase the building's
[24:31] footprint. Change the appearance
[24:32] of the property or alter the
[24:32] character
[24:35] of the surrounding neighborhood.
[24:36] The property is well maintained
[24:36] and granted
[24:40] this application will will allow
[24:40] the owners to complete the
[24:41] project, utilize
[24:44] the space for much needed
[24:45] storage while preserving the
[24:45] residential character
[24:49] site. The owners, owners hope
[24:50] the board will find in favor of
[24:50] the application.
[24:53] And we respectively request
[24:54] this. Thank you. Ok, thank you.
[24:54] Is there anyone
[24:58] in the audience who wishes to be
[24:58] heard regarding this
[24:59] application? The garage
[25:03] is already built, correct? Yes,
[25:03] and that was the basement is it,
[25:03] is it there?
[25:07] It's done. It's, it's, yeah,
[25:07] it's done, you need to get a ceo
[25:08] for it, yeah
[25:11] basically, yes, it's, yeah, it,
[25:12] and it's approximately what you
[25:16] said 160, 160 square feet, 170
[25:16] square feet, yeah, it's, it's 9
[25:21] by 16 and it's just used for
[25:21] storage and nothing else, that's
[25:22] it. Ok, I'll entertain
[25:25] a motion to grant this
[25:26] application garage is already
[25:26] built. There's really
[25:30] no effect and it has no effect
[25:30] on the neighborhood at all. It's
[25:30] already
[25:34] there. MR. Castagno on the
[25:34] motion, MS. Whalen on the 2 All
[25:34] in
[25:38] favor any opposed? Ok, your
[25:39] application is granted, get your
[25:39] co
[25:43] thank you so much. The applicant
[25:46] or the representative of the
[25:46] applicant
[25:49] for 23738. 16 Wentworth
[25:57] Drive, Dix Hills, please address
[25:58] the board.
[26:01] Good evening, distinguished
[26:01] board, my name is
[26:04] Michael Degnen, registered
[26:05] architect, principal at
[26:08] Long Island Architecture Studio
[26:08] located
[26:10] at 1943 Wantar Avenue
[26:13] and Wanto, New York, I'm
[26:13] representing our clients
[26:16] Michael and Yvonne
[26:19] Ruppero, they reside at the
[26:19] subject property
[26:23] 16 Wentworth Drive, uh, we're
[26:24] here requesting
[26:26] variances all for proposed work,
[26:27] a moment about our
[26:30] clients and their situation,
[26:31] their houses. Suffered severe
[26:31] loss in a
[26:35] fire, Michael and Yvonne have
[26:35] young children and, uh, public
[26:36] schools and
[26:39] uh They wish to enlarge the home
[26:40] to accommodate their growing
[26:40] family and, and
[26:44] uh, they want to build a
[26:44] beautiful home for themselves
[26:45] and their family.
[26:48] On this particular site, there
[26:49] is history of a 1963 zoning
[26:49] change
[26:53] for our research, um The house
[26:53] was originally constructed and
[26:58] approved cfo under r5 zoning,
[26:59] it's currently more restrictive
[26:59] r 10.
[27:02] The second floor addition to the
[27:02] home as
[27:05] its s s s s s r the oveisting walls of the existing
[27:09] house as it relates to the side
[27:09] yard setback for the home
[27:13] we're not decreasing the side
[27:14] yards as it relates to the home
[27:14] there
[27:17] there is an egress well that
[27:18] we're proposing on one of the
[27:18] side yards which
[27:22] will be about 12 inches above
[27:22] grade with the cover and then 2
[27:23] small air
[27:27] conditioning units will also be
[27:27] on that, on that side yard.
[27:31] On the, I wanna talk about the
[27:32] front yard setback relief that
[27:35] we're requesting, we are
[27:36] proposing a front porch which I
[27:36] think everyone
[27:40] can agree front porches are
[27:40] aesthetically pleasing and they
[27:44] encourage social interaction
[27:45] between neighbors, um, increases
[27:49] curb appeal, we're proposing a
[27:49] 20.5 front yard setback
[27:56] where 23 ft is required as the
[27:57] permitted encroachment of our
[27:57] front porch is
[28:01] We did, we did some research as
[28:05] it relates to previous fo, uh,
[28:06] previous grantings from
[28:09] the variance board on Wentworth
[28:10] Drive, we submitted that exhibit
[28:10] as part
[28:14] of our Due diligence, uh, so the
[28:14] subject property is
[28:18] 16 Wentworth, uh, in 1987, 12
[28:19] Wentworth, there was side
[28:22] yard deficiencies granted the
[28:22] next door house to that
[28:25] 10 Wentworth was, um, approved
[28:28] with side yard deficiencies in 7
[28:28] Wentworth across
[28:32] the street was also, um,
[28:32] approved with side yard and
[28:36] front yard deficiencies. Um, I
[28:36] can, if you
[28:39] I can continue, I was gonna just
[28:40] it's fine. Is there anyone in
[28:43] the audience that wishes to be
[28:44] heard regarding the application?
[28:47] MR. Danger, I, I Can tell you
[28:48] that I know that
[28:52] there were several letters that
[28:52] were, uh, sent to the board in
[28:57] favor of, uh, of your plans and
[28:57] the thing that I just
[29:01] wanted to make sure that I
[29:01] understood was accurate is that
[29:02] you're using the
[29:06] existing foundation that I know
[29:06] the house was destroyed by fire.
[29:06] I've been
[29:10] there, I've seen what it looks
[29:11] like and, and, and the, uh,
[29:11] proposal that
[29:14] you're looking to do, looking to
[29:15] build in its place, but you're
[29:15] actually
[29:19] using the same foundation that
[29:19] gave The gave a ceo for
[29:23] the house back when it was in an
[29:24] r5 zone, now it's in an r10
[29:24] zone, is that
[29:28] is that accurate? Yes sir, so
[29:29] you're not really, you're not
[29:33] expanding the foundation in any
[29:33] direction, you're, you're just
[29:33] using what's
[29:37] already there and building up
[29:38] that's correct. Ok, we had 1
[29:38] letter
[29:42] from the person who is directly
[29:42] to the west indicating that they
[29:46] might, you know, if it was
[29:46] possible to change the
[29:49] uh, that particular western
[29:50] side. Yard that, that, that
[29:50] would be a request
[29:53] but I, my perception is that
[29:54] would basically be impossible,
[29:54] you'd have to do
[29:58] a whole new foundation and
[29:58] you're actually just building on
[29:58] what was already
[30:02] there, so there's no change from
[30:02] before the fire. I
[30:06] can elaborate on that if you
[30:07] want, or if it's not necessary,
[30:07] tell me it's
[30:11] not. I don't think it is. I just
[30:11] wanted to be certain that I knew
[30:11] that you
[30:15] were using the same foundation
[30:16] that existed at that time and
[30:16] there was a
[30:20] lot of damage done to the house
[30:20] and it, you know, whatever, what
[30:21] you Going
[30:24] to do now will obviously be a
[30:25] tremendous improvement and a
[30:25] great improvement
[30:29] for the neighborhood as well.
[30:29] Thank you so much. All right, so
[30:30] having said
[30:33] all that on the record, I would
[30:34] entertain a motion to grant this
[30:34] application.
[30:38] Motion. MR. Caitano, on the
[30:38] motion. MR. White on the 2nd,
[30:38] all
[30:42] in favor, any opposed, your
[30:43] application is granted. Good
[30:43] luck with your
[30:47] construction. You got a lot to
[30:47] do. Thank you so much.
[30:47] Appreciate everybody's
[30:52] help. Sorry. Wasn't so exciting.
[30:56] Ok, MR. Bennett, do we have some
[30:56] other
[30:59] business tonight, MR. CHAIRMAN,
[30:59] initially on
[31:02] uh, 23551. We
[31:05] have a request from MR. Benesso
[31:08] of Forcellli Deegan. He's
[31:08] seeking an extension of an
[31:12] expired grant due to issues
[31:12] regarding locating
[31:16] tenants, uh, the fee has been
[31:17] paid for it, I believe, under
[31:17] its equitable
[31:21] powers, the board could grant
[31:21] the extension request. Sure,
[31:21] we'll give him
[31:25] an extension request. Um, we'll
[31:25] approve it thank you
[31:30] um, next we have also a request
[31:30] for a lawful minor encroachment
[31:34] uh, for property located at 5
[31:35] Glenhill Court in Dix Hills.
[31:35] There's a request for
[31:39] an approval by a lawful minor
[31:39] encroachment for a detached
[31:42] accessory structure, a cabana
[31:43] and a pool house with an
[31:43] existing setback
[31:46] of 9.9 ft where 10 ft is
[31:47] required. I believe the
[31:50] board could determine that this
[31:50] would constitute a
[31:54] lawful minor encroachment. I
[31:55] would say that's minor, so we'll
[31:59] agree to that. Um, next, under
[31:59] 23321, we have
[32:03] a Gorton, uh, for this is
[32:03] property
[32:06] located at 364 Maplewood Road in
[32:06] Evans Court
[32:10] um, the building department is
[32:10] apparently
[32:13] seeking direction from the zba
[32:14] regarding additional relief for
[32:14] structures
[32:17] that appeared on the plans when
[32:18] the application was submitted
[32:22] um, but they were apparently not
[32:22] marked for leaf by the building
[32:23] department. Um
[32:26] I believe all of the plans and
[32:27] submissions have been submitted
[32:27] by Mr
[32:30] Garton at the time of
[32:31] application. They're all
[32:31] contained within the record
[32:35] the decision reflects their
[32:35] existence, and I believe the
[32:39] board could forward
[32:40] correspondence to the building
[32:40] department that they
[32:44] can move forward with the
[32:44] issuance of building permits so
[32:45] they can construction
[32:49] can be continued or concluded at
[32:49] the property. Let's do that next
[32:53] under 23519. We have an ex uh
[32:53] request for Property located at
[32:53] 12
[32:58] Fairview Place, uh, for an
[32:58] extension of a non-expired grant
[32:58] due
[33:02] to weather conditions and some
[33:02] gas line relocation delays, uh,
[33:02] fee
[33:06] has been paid. I believe the
[33:07] board could consider approving
[33:07] the extension. Ok
[33:11] let's do that too, um, next for
[33:11] a vote, we have 4
[33:15] matters on, uh, 2 are both
[33:16] interrelated, 1
[33:19] is zba 23226 by Christina Fry
[33:19] Fry for property
[33:22] at 194 Catay Drive. South and
[33:22] East
[33:25] Northport and the other is an
[33:29] application under 23439 by
[33:31] attorney Alison Corb. Uh, on
[33:32] behalf of
[33:34] MR. Ali, also for property at
[33:38] 194 Catay Drive, um, under
[33:41] the application filed by MISS
[33:43] Um, MISS Fry, they were seeking
[33:47] uh, side yard and combined side
[33:47] yard
[33:50] relief and accessorybuilding
[33:50] relief to legalize a
[33:54] one-story addition and accessory
[33:54] storage with, with
[33:57] habitable features, I believe on
[33:57] that score they
[34:00] were requesting, um, in the r
[34:03] 20 zone, minimum side you had
[34:03] setback of 20
[34:07] ft in minimum combined yard
[34:07] width of 40 ft, the
[34:12] existing minimum side yard to
[34:12] the 1st 10 by 20 edition. Is
[34:16] 14.5 ft from the southerly line
[34:17] where 20 ft is
[34:21] required and the existing
[34:21] minimum combined width of the
[34:21] side yours is
[34:25] 38.7 ft where 40 ft is required,
[34:26] I believe the
[34:30] board could consider a grant of
[34:30] the dimensional relief
[34:34] however, relative to the
[34:35] structure on the premises, there
[34:39] is apparently a 10 by 20 side
[34:39] yard addition in back of
[34:43] the dwelling that uh has a door.
[34:44] Communicating in the yard, but
[34:44] no
[34:48] communication with the dwelling
[34:49] itself and contains sheetrock
[34:52] walls, I believe the, the board
[34:53] could consider granting all the
[34:57] relief sought except perhaps
[34:57] relative to the, the inclusion
[34:58] of the sheetrock
[35:01] as habitable conditions, I
[35:02] believe that should be denied,
[35:02] but I think based
[35:06] on the record the board could
[35:06] consider a grant of the
[35:07] mathematical relief
[35:10] that sought. All right, let's do
[35:11] this one at a time, uh, this
[35:15] this 23226 is quite old and we,
[35:15] and it's been It's been
[35:19] on our agenda for a long time,
[35:20] partly because it's been the
[35:20] subject
[35:24] matter of many, um,
[35:24] investigations by
[35:27] code enforcement and in each
[35:27] each time we've
[35:31] had some information from code
[35:31] enforcement they've given
[35:35] us some Representations that the
[35:38] the building is being used for
[35:38] more than
[35:42] 2 families, um, and, and that
[35:45] uh, you know, there have been
[35:45] complaints from the, from the
[35:46] neighbors and
[35:49] it has been a reason that we
[35:49] have continued not to
[35:53] make a decision on this
[35:53] particular application, I know
[35:54] that's
[35:58] the subject matter of another
[35:58] application, which is 23439
[36:02] which we'll deal with tonight as
[36:03] well, but with respect to this 2
[36:07] 3226, they really just looking
[36:07] for
[36:09] mathematical variances on the,
[36:09] on the
[36:13] uh, on the, on the structure,
[36:14] and, um, to
[36:18] that end. Just repeating what
[36:18] I've, what we all
[36:21] know, and that is, while, while
[36:22] cases are pending before the
[36:22] zoning Board
[36:25] of Appeals, uh, there is a stay
[36:26] for any type
[36:29] of code enforcement violations
[36:32] so while, while these cases are
[36:32] pending before
[36:36] our board code enforcement has
[36:36] no jurisdiction to
[36:40] to give any tickets if they
[36:41] believe that some type of an
[36:45] ordinance violation has taken
[36:46] place, so it would behoove us
[36:46] to.
[36:49] Uh, make a decision on these
[36:50] matters and get them off our
[36:50] agenda
[36:54] so with respect to 23226
[36:56] um, my understanding is that
[36:57] they're looking for a variance
[37:01] a side yard variance of
[37:01] approximately 20 ft, something
[37:01] like that, and
[37:05] a combined with some odd feat as
[37:05] well
[37:08] for the structure that's
[37:09] actually attached to the house,
[37:09] correct, Mr
[37:12] CHAIRMAN? Yes, yes, all right,
[37:12] and
[37:15] uh, and With, with your
[37:15] recommendation
[37:18] to the board does that include
[37:19] that
[37:21] that particular structure should
[37:21] not
[37:25] have habitable features it does,
[37:26] MR. CHAIRMAN, my
[37:30] recommendation to the board is
[37:30] that the, the grant as to the
[37:31] arithmetic
[37:34] relief be, be approved, but
[37:35] relative to the habitable
[37:35] feature, namely the
[37:39] sheetrock on this structure at
[37:40] the back of the building that
[37:40] that portion
[37:43] of the application be denied and
[37:44] the sheetrock be removed. Ok,
[37:44] I'd like
[37:48] to have the board take your
[37:48] recommendation on that and grant
[37:48] this
[37:52] particular one subject to the
[37:53] conditions that you just placed
[37:53] on the record.
[37:57] All right, to that end on e
[37:57] entertain a motion to grant the
[38:01] application for the mathematical
[38:02] requirements
[38:06] under 23226, which goes all the
[38:06] way back to 2024. I'll make
[38:10] a motion to grant forvariances,
[38:11] uh, with the condition that
[38:11] there's no,
[38:15] uh, sheetrock. Uh, in the
[38:15] structure. Thank you, MR.
[38:16] McGrath. MR. Castagno on
[38:19] the second. All in favor? Any
[38:20] opposed? All right
[38:24] we have that one off the agenda.
[38:24] Um, MR. MR. Bennett
[38:28] I'll just uh, take 2,2439 kind
[38:31] of quickly and, um, and ask
[38:33] for your edification and
[38:36] corrections if If I'm, if I
[38:40] uh, misrepresent something, my
[38:40] understanding here
[38:43] is that the accessory apartment
[38:43] review board held a
[38:46] hearing regarding the, uh,
[38:47] request for
[38:49] a permission for an adu at
[38:52] this very same address. And
[38:55] was denied the reason for
[38:58] the denial, uh, on the record
[39:01] was that the, uh, persons who
[39:01] were living
[39:04] in the dwelling were not owners.
[39:04] So if
[39:07] it wasn't owner occupied, you
[39:07] couldn't have
[39:11] an adu, it would, that wouldn't
[39:11] be possible
[39:14] however, after that hearing had
[39:14] been completed and
[39:18] the denial was given by
[39:20] MISTER Nitkowitz that the that
[39:23] the appeal was made. To our
[39:23] board in NOVEMBER
[39:27] of 2025, and at that time there
[39:29] was documentary evidence that
[39:32] indicated that the person who
[39:32] was living
[39:36] on the premises did become an
[39:38] owner and, and was, uh Not they
[39:41] the exclusive owner but was a
[39:41] part owner for at
[39:45] least 10% of the equity of the,
[39:45] of
[39:47] the property, and
[39:50] and therefore, um, the reason
[39:51] for the denial was that it
[39:54] wasn't owner-occupied, but now
[39:56] the hearing in NOVEMBER of
[39:59] 2025 indicated that the
[40:02] that it was owner-occupied
[40:04] and therefore the appeal was
[40:04] sent
[40:08] to us to overturn the decision.
[40:10] Ah, so far, am I doing ok
[40:13] Correct, MR. CHAIRMAN, you are.
[40:13] Ok
[40:16] so therefore, with respect to
[40:17] the decision on
[40:21] this particular application, it
[40:21] would be
[40:24] my recommendation that we
[40:28] um, remand the, uh, matter back
[40:30] to the accessory department
[40:31] review board and back
[40:34] to MR. Nitkowitz to conduct
[40:35] another
[40:38] hearing or perhaps to grant the
[40:38] adu whatever their decision
[40:38] might be.
[40:42] Rather than have us do that,
[40:42] send it back to them
[40:46] because it's also my
[40:46] understanding that there were
[40:46] some allegations
[40:50] there was that the, um, That the
[40:51] structure was being used for
[40:51] more than
[40:55] 2 families, and of course,
[40:55] that's not allowed either, and
[40:59] um, and so this, By sending it
[40:59] back to the
[41:02] accessory department review for
[41:03] another hearing or for a
[41:03] decision
[41:06] based on the fact that it is
[41:07] owner occupied, puts it in
[41:11] their hands to make a judgment
[41:11] whether or not the adu would be
[41:11] granted
[41:15] now that owner occupied has been
[41:15] proven. So it would
[41:20] be my recommendation that we
[41:20] would, um, We
[41:24] would grant the appeal to us and
[41:24] that we
[41:27] uh, place on the record that we
[41:27] now agree that
[41:31] it's, and we're satisfied that
[41:31] it's
[41:33] owner occupied and remanded back
[41:34] to the accessory apartment
[41:37] review board for a decision. We,
[41:38] we can do that
[41:42] can't we? Yes, MR. Jim, we
[41:43] absolutely, yes, ok, so
[41:47] that's So let me take that in
[41:47] the form of a motion
[41:51] for the decision on on
[41:51] application for
[41:54] 23439. I'll make a motion to
[41:54] remand it back to the MR.
[41:55] Capadano on
[41:58] the motion for the remand, MS.
[41:58] Whalen on
[42:01] the 2nd, all in favor, any
[42:01] opposed
[42:05] ok, that. Takes care of
[42:07] Cay Drive in East Northport
[42:10] And now we have, uh, we have
[42:12] 2 other matters that are
[42:13] actually under, uh, 2,
[42:16] 2 separate, uh, numbers
[42:19] 23699 and 23701
[42:22] So MR. Bennett, would you tell
[42:23] us about
[42:26] those 2 those are 2 applications
[42:26] brought by Mr
[42:29] McCarthy, uh, for premises on
[42:32] or rather location on La Rue
[42:32] Drive
[42:36] um, relative to 2
[42:38] 3,699. They are seeking
[42:41] some relief, it's an r10 zone
[42:45] uh, proposed minimum lot width
[42:45] of
[42:48] the parcel, parcel b is 78.94
[42:48] ft, where
[42:52] 100 ft is required, and the
[42:52] proposed minimum
[42:56] Long Street side yard setback of
[42:57] parcel b is 12 ft from
[43:01] the northerly line along the
[43:01] undeveloped private right of
[43:02] way, known
[43:05] as Waller Court with 30 ft is
[43:05] required
[43:08] um, relative to the application
[43:09] under 23, um.
[43:12] Um, I'm sorry, that was 23701,
[43:13] relative to the application
[43:16] of the 23699. Uh, it's also in
[43:17] our 10 zone
[43:19] They are seeking required
[43:20] minimum lot width of
[43:23] uh, 91.93
[43:26] ft where 100 ft is required. Um
[43:30] the parcels under consideration
[43:30] date back
[43:33] many years to several
[43:33] subdivisions, the
[43:37] subdivision that MR. McCarthy is
[43:37] dealing dealing with is
[43:41] one whereby his client has
[43:42] purchased the property
[43:42] subsequent to
[43:46] a zoning Board of Appeals
[43:46] subdivision in either 1992
[43:50] or 1994. Um, prior thererere too,
[43:50] there had been a
[43:53] subdivision in 1974. It's
[43:54] unrelated to the
[43:57] the present application for 13
[43:57] acres that
[44:00] MR. Keene owns that is adjacent
[44:00] to this
[44:04] particular parcel that was
[44:04] subject to
[44:07] the 1992 and 1993 Zoning Board
[44:07] of Appeals
[44:10] um, subdivision approval. This,
[44:11] this
[44:13] board is looking at the
[44:14] situation whereby what Mr
[44:17] McCarthy is attempting to do is
[44:18] it's attempting to change the
[44:22] lot lines internally on these
[44:22] parcels, there has already been
[44:23] subdivision
[44:26] approval granted. Approximately
[44:27] 30 years ago. This board is not
[44:27] being asked
[44:31] to grant subdivision approval,
[44:31] we don't have jurisdiction to do
[44:32] so or 10
[44:35] parcels require 10,000 square
[44:36] feet. These 2 parcels
[44:39] respectively contain 13,945 ft
[44:39] and
[44:42] 11,474 square feet. They are
[44:45] both buildable lots. They both
[44:45] exceed the required
[44:49] square footage. They are
[44:49] proposing to remove a
[44:52] 2-car garage on 1 parcel,
[44:53] replace it with a 1-car garage.
[44:53] And square off
[44:56] the lot line somewhat, uh,
[44:57] relative to Long Street side
[44:57] yard
[45:00] relief. They're seeking 12 ft
[45:00] where the code
[45:03] requires 30, however, that part
[45:04] of the application is adjacent
[45:04] to a a
[45:07] paper street, which MAY or MAY
[45:08] not be developed, but in any
[45:08] case, the
[45:11] Paper Street is 50 ft wide, so
[45:12] if the street were opened, it
[45:12] would never
[45:16] be closer than 20 ft to any
[45:16] other affected residents
[45:19] basically they're seeking to clo
[45:20] to to clean up the building
[45:20] envelope. Uh, we
[45:25] are not granting subdivision
[45:25] approval. Any way if the boy
[45:26] votes this affirmatively
[45:30] He he still must go to planning,
[45:30] relative to the lot line change
[45:34] all we're doing is granting that
[45:34] the board is so inclined to do
[45:34] so
[45:38] so some relatively minor, uh,
[45:39] mathematical relief regarding
[45:39] lot
[45:43] line changes. Ok, thank you for
[45:43] that explanation, it
[45:47] seems as though, um, really the
[45:50] the main focus of the
[45:50] application for each one
[45:54] of these applications is to
[45:54] square up the
[45:57] uh, square up the lot lines and
[46:01] the building plots so that
[46:01] they're more
[46:04] uh, more appropriately
[46:04] mathematically configured, and
[46:08] that's essentially what they're,
[46:08] what they're asking us
[46:12] to do on this because as you
[46:13] pointed out Ah, they've already
[46:16] got permission for the
[46:17] subdivision, which we don't have
[46:17] appro approval for
[46:21] that either what we're really
[46:21] doing is granting that
[46:22] elimination of the
[46:26] garage in the back and the, um
[46:26] And the, um, 12
[46:30] ft side yard for the building
[46:31] envelope on one of the plots
[46:35] is that basically it, that's it
[46:35] that's correct, MR. CHAIRMAN,
[46:35] yes
[46:39] ok, um. Just a quick
[46:40] clarification question for Mr
[46:44] Bennett, um, you said creating 2
[46:44] buildable lots, I, I think
[46:48] the applicant, I know the
[46:48] applicant on the record said
[46:49] they're keeping the
[46:53] existing house. It's the other
[46:53] lot that would be the buildable
[46:53] lot
[46:57] that's correct that's correct,
[46:58] MR. McGreg. They, they, they
[46:58] could, even
[47:02] if they did not come before this
[47:02] board, they have the right to
[47:02] build on
[47:06] these lots right now. So, uh my
[47:07] understanding is they're gonna
[47:07] maintain
[47:11] the one structure on the lot.
[47:11] They're reducing the size of the
[47:12] garage from
[47:15] a 2-car garage to 1 car garage
[47:16] in order to adjust the internal
[47:16] lot line,
[47:19] uh, but you're absolutely
[47:20] correct. They already have
[47:20] approval. These, these
[47:24] are already 2 buildable lots.
[47:25] They're just moving, proposing
[47:25] to move the
[47:29] lines a little bit to, uh,
[47:29] square off the square off the
[47:29] lots basically,
[47:33] yeah. All right, thank you.
[47:34] Anything else that any board
[47:34] member wants to
[47:38] ask or make a statement about?
[47:38] All right, I'll entertain a
[47:38] motion to, uh,
[47:42] grant the application for zba
[47:43] number 23699. I'll
[47:45] make the motion MS. Whalen on
[47:46] the motion. Mr
[47:49] Castagno on the 2nd, all in
[47:49] favor
[47:52] Any opposed? Ok, uh, that's
[47:52] passed, and
[47:55] then I am also entertain a
[47:56] motion
[47:59] for the application for 23701
[48:02] um, and for the
[48:05] for the same Information that
[48:05] MR. Bennett's placed
[48:09] on MS. Whalen, on the motion. Mr
[48:12] Castagna on the second. All in
[48:12] favor
[48:16] any opposed, and that one is
[48:16] passed as well
[48:20] uh, do we have any other
[48:21] business? After what we've
[48:21] conducted
[48:25] tonight, MR. Bennett, I don't
[48:25] believe so, MR. CHAIRMAN. Ok,
[48:26] thank you very much
[48:29] Thank everyone for their
[48:30] participation in our hearings
[48:30] and in our other
[48:34] business for tonight, uh, we'll
[48:34] see you next week here