[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

Zoning Board Meeting

Agenda

Transcript