This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Debate Over Two-Family Status on Barrow Court Dominates ZBA

Applications for area variances and for lot width relief were also heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Numerous Barrow Court residents participated in a heated public hearing over an application seeking to grant legal two-family status to a home on their block at the most recent meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The application (#20197), which sought area relief to legalize two-family use at 32 Barrow Court, generated nearly an hour and a half of discussion at the March 17 meeting. It was ultimately adjourned by the board, who wanted the application's attorney, Herbert J. Haas, to search for a similar ruling made within New York State to serve as a guide for the board.

The biggest issue the zoning board had with the application was over the fact that there did not appear to be continuous use of the home for even one family over the past two years. The counsel speaking on behalf of the application, including Haas and real estate expert John Breslin, countered by saying that it was not relevant to the application, as it did not need to be proven in order for the case to be granted.

Find out what's happening in Huntingtonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Included in the parade of testimonies heard by the ZBA were seven current and former Barrow Court residents who spoke about the project. Four of the testimonies were in favor of the application, while three were against. The debate over the application took on an old guard versus new guard feel, as the residents speaking in favor of the application tended to be older and residents with longer tenures on the block.

Haas, the counsel for applicant Alfred V. Sforza, presented his client's case by having both the applicant and his father, Alfred A. Sforza (the owner) verify the house as a functional two-family home by tracing the home's residential history as far back as 1933, when the elder Alfred Sforza would visit his future wife (Lena, neé Bifulco) at the home. Sforza and his wife lived there together during two separate periods (from 1936 to 1940 and from 1966 to 2008, when Lena passed away). During the majority of that time, the house was a two-family home, as both Sforzas confirmed for Haas as he traced the home's tenant history.

Find out what's happening in Huntingtonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The Sforzas also had real estate expert John Breslin in their camp. Breslin testified that the residence was located mostly in a R7 zoning district, which permitted homes to be designated as either one-family or two-family homes. He also noted that the fact that the house was set up as a two-family home for years, complete with two doors and two electric meters, should be taken into account. He concluded by saying that the designation as a two-family home would not change anything about the culture of the area.

What was not made clear during any of the supporting witness testimony, however, was the recent residence status of the home. Several Barrow Court residents, led by Kay Smoot, pointed out to the board that the house was mostly vacant over the past year and a half. They also noted that it had not been regularly used as a two-family home for at least six years. 

When asked to defend this later, Haas revealed that the elder Alfred Sforza mostly lived with his son following a heart attack suffered in 2008. He still made occasional visits to the home, but did not stay more than a couple of nights in a row. It was also revealed that the current second-family tenant, Sforza's granddaughter, lived in California and only used the second home when she visited for holidays. This caused board vice chairman Scott Frayler to question why the house needed two-family status to begin with; Haas responded that the applicant's plan was to rent out the house as separate apartments, something that prompted a violation notice in the first place.

A similar case, Application #18572, heard nearly five years ago to the date, was denied by the zoning board, but later overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. When Haas pointed this out to the zoning board, the board countered that this was a special case where the house had two tenants not living there full-time. The zoning board asked Haas to search New York State legal records for similar applications elsewhere to see if a precedent was set on a similar case. The case will be adjourned until Haas returns with that information.

Other Applications:

Application #20196: This case was filed by Leiann McGrory, who resides with her husband Robert at 73 Upland Drive in East Northport. The McGrorys were seeking an area variance to construct several additions to the front and rear of their home in order to legalize a 1,333-square-foot accessory apartment on the first floor. Speaking on behalf of the McGrorys was David James of John Bracco Architect.

Before James could even present the application, the board cautioned him that a project of that size had never been approved by the board. James countered by saying that it needed to be that size in order to accommodate two handicapped tenants, who were present at the meeting. James, who has experience designing handicapped facilities, said that the square footage, which included a handicapped-accessible kitchen, was the absolute minimum needed to construct the apartment.

The board suggested to James that a way around this problem would be to convert the existing first-floor kitchen into a handicapped-accessible kitchen. When James responded that the proposed tenants, who were related to the main tenants, would prefer privacy, chairman Modelewski responded that "people don't sleep in kitchens."

James also did not come to the hearing with a real estate expert. He originally planned to proceed with the application without one, but was persuaded to take an adjournment by the board until he could find one.

Application #20218: This application was filed by William Carry, of 75 West 10th Street in Deer Park. He was requesting side yard and lot width relief as part of a plan to build an entirely new dwelling and garage on his lot (destroying the existing one once construction was completed). He was also seeking a building permit for a separate three-car garage. 

The zoning board was quick to question the purpose of a separate two-car garage if a three-car garage was already constructed, saying they would not permit more than three cars being stored in a garage for a dwelling. Carry said that he needed the additional garage to store classic cars, but the board reaffirmed its stance. They also noted that side relief would not be granted as the 70 ft (length) by 50 ft (width) house would not be viewed as an odd house.

The request for lot width relief was granted, but the request for side yard relief was denied. Carry was told that he needs to re-work the rest of the plan.

Application #20198: This application was filed by Chris Garten, the resident at 680 Larkfield Road in East Northport. He was requesting side yard variance to construct a two-car garage detached from the main dwelling. He also sought to relocate a shed to a conforming location on the lot.

When asked by the board why he was putting the garage five feet from the property line, Garten said he needed to in order to provide a buffer from a bagel shop on the other side of his property.  Modelewski said that the logic was sound, and that it would not disturb the bagel store at that spot on the property.

Garten was in the process of converting an garage attached to the dwelling into a living space. The garage door on that portion of the property was removed. His application was granted pending an additional submission proving that.

Application #20168: This application was filed by Charles Ludemann on behalf of his family's residence at 5 Pumpkin Street. Ludemann was seeking side yard variance in order to construct a 380-square-foot detached garage and a new recreation room in the front of the house. He also wanted to convert an existing attached garage into a bedroom.

The board didn't see why Ludemann couldn't move the garage to a conforming location, and didn't accept Ludemann's reasoning that he needed the room between the different proposed structures on the property (the new garage, the dwelling and an above-ground pool). When architect Victor Cunio spoke to defend the project. board member Carol Gaughran pointed out that if the current location of the garage was permitted, there would be only a one-foot distance from the end of the garage to the end of the driveway. The board didn't want to set this precedent. They also noted that a proposed 18-foot setback on the north side could be cut back two feet, which would allow the garage to move to a conforming location.

The application was denied.

The Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals hears applications every Thursday night at 6pm, excluding holidays. A schedule of applications can be found on the Town of Huntington website.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?