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

Politics & Government

Zoning Board Approves Several Requests

Fences, sheds and walls come under review.

The approved several requests for projects at its meeting Thursday night.

Application #20144

This application was filed by Louis Curatolo on his house at 36 Goodwin Pl.,  Northport. The request was for front yard relief to construct a front porch. The board did not have any questions for Curatolo, who was joined by his architect, Michael Dunn, at the lectern. The application was granted as presented.

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

Application #20175

This application was filed by Glen Grayson of Hoffman Grayson Architects on behalf of Ingo and Amanda Prangenberg of 27 Crossman Road, Centerport. The application was for a front yard variance to extend a roof overhang. It originally included a request to legalize a setback for an existing detached garage, but the matter was resolved before the hearing, so they were only seeking the overhang.

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

Grayson said that there was an architectural and functional reason to construct the overhang. Several additions on the house will cause Hoffman Grayson to modify the angle of the roof on the house. The overhangs will be added to all parts of the roof of the house so they carry across (architectural reasoning) and also to protect the house in bad weather situations (functional reasoning).

The application was granted as presented.

Application #20149

This application was filed by the Morano Expediting Services on behalf of Zimu and Wej Zheng of 27 Fairway Place in Cold Spring Harbor. The application was requesting rear yard relief in order to construct a sunroom on top of a portion of an existing raised deck in the rear of the building.

The board had an issue with wood retaining walls on the north and east portions of the property, as they were unclear whether the retaining walls belonged to the property in question or the property of the neighbors. The application was granted under the condition that this issue was resolved between the property owner in question and their neighbors and that an agreement was reached as to whether or not they would remain. (An alternative solution proposed was to move the walls to a location on the premises of the property in question if an agreement could not be reached.)

Application 20067

This application was filed by James Tuechler of 412 Adams Street in Centerport. He was requesting side yard variance to legalize rear and side decks, a gazebo in the front yard, a finished second-story attic, and a basement apartment. The applicant represented himself.

At the start of the hearing, BZA Chairman Christopher Modelewski clarified that the property listed as a gazebo was not technically a gazebo. They called it a "gazebo-like deck", or a "gazebo anchored to a deck."  (It was shaped like a gazebo but it was not a "stand-alone structure", just a covering over a deck.) The attic, at the moment, was just being used for storage, but Tuechler said he has heating in it and he planned to put flooring in the attic to use it as a rec room or a bedroom. There was confusion over whether Tuechler was granted permission for an accessory apartment in the lower level (he resides on the second floor). The board thought he had already gotten approval in 2008, but that was only a temporary permit.

The board initially tabled the application, but it was granted with conditions after some slight alterations were made by the board.

Application #20045

This application was filed by Edward Okon of 422 Mount Misery Road in Melville. He was seeking accessory structure relief for location of a garage with finished walls and a ceiling. He was also seeking a renewal of an expired permit for a dwelling and garage located on the property, as well as legalization of a 16 ft x 49 ft storage structure (shed).

The ZBA noted that the shed had windows and skylights in it, as well as a security system. Okon, who represented himself, noted that he got the windows from a job site with security tape on them, and that there was no intent to install a security system in the shed.

There was an issue that the shed was too close to the property line, as any shed that is over 200 square feet cannot be closer than two feet from the property line. Okon told the board that he resolved the issue by reducing the size of the shed to 184 square feet, which cut the amount of space it had to be from the property line to two feet (the standard limit for storage spaces under 200 square feet). He had documentation to back up his claim.

There was an apartment in the garage that a complaint was filed against. Okon removed some of the interior walls subdividing the garage as a result of the complaint.

There was some confusion over a "storage area" on the side of the house, which  Modelewski referred to as "the hulking thing." Okon called it the "wood room" (where he stored the interior walls from the garage as firewood) and said it was originally intended as a retaining wall to protect against a change in elevation.

The item that was most important to the case was a letter sent to Okon from Suffolk County, accusing Okon of encroaching onto public park land behind the shed on his property. Okon said that he had to cut down several dying trees behind it, which cleared an area more than three or four feet behind his property. While Modelewski said it wasn't an unusual condition, he recommended that the ZBA adjourn the case until the dispute with the county was solved, and the board agreed.

Application #20145

This application was filed by Stephen and Shari Bender of 16 Peppermill Lane in Dix Hills. The application was a request for modification of yard requirements on a through lot, side yard accessory structure, and retaining walls higher than four feet. This was to maintain a generator (and an AC unit) in the side year, a sports court with a 10-foot-high fence, and a tiered retaining wall higher than ten feet in the side yard.

There were several oddities about the house in question, starting with the positioning of the generator and the AC unit themselves. They were far removed from the house's location in the southeast corner of the property. Ron Goldstein, who was representing the applicants, said that they were there when the applicants bought the house. Goldstein didn't know why they were put there, but he and the board speculated that it was because of the noise they made. Goldstein made it clear that the neighbor had no issue if the generator and AC unit stayed where they were. The generator wasn't shown on the survey when the property was purchased but Goldstein, who handled the purchase, knew it was there.

The sports court built in the southern portion of the property was built without the owner realizing that it intruded within two feet of a 50-foot conservation area on the land that was not supposed to be built in. Goldstein said that the applicant was willing to designate a different section of the property to not be built on to make up for this.

There was also an issue over what Goldstein called "decorative retaining walls."  There were three of them along a staircase, varying in height from .2 feet to 1.3 feet (and totaling 5 feet in height combined). The town code states that if the total height from the base of the lowest wall to the top of the highest wall exceeds four feet (regardless of what stretch it's over), a property owner has to come to the ZBA if any part of it is within 10 feet of the property line. The application was seeking a waiver from this policy.

There was debate over a chain-link fence surrounding the sports court that was encroaching over a property line. The board required that the fence either be moved within the property boundaries or removed. A request from Goldstein to leave the wall up if the neighboring property did not object was denied.

Stephen Bender, the owner of the house, was willing to speak before the board, but Modelewski said it was not necessary since the generator and AC unit were built before he bought the property and since they already had a clear understanding of the situation.

There was also a historic site on the property where an Indian relic was found. An extended buffer area was agreed upon around the historic site.

The application was granted under the conditions that the chain link fence was removed to a conforming area on the site and that the generator would not be tested on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 5p.m. 

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?