Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – July 16, 2026
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – July 16, 2026
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington met on July 16, 2026, to consider several applications for area variances and other relief. The board approved the minutes from the July 9, 2026 meeting, adjourned two public hearings without date, and granted relief for five applications after hearing presentations and public comment. The board also addressed a request for clarification on a prior approval for a minor encroachment.
Consent Calendar
- The minutes of the July 9, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Janet Austrian (11 Birch Avenue) spoke during the public hearing for 30 Tulip Street (ZBA 23721). She expressed concern about the history of illegal apartments at the adjacent property (16 Derby Avenue) and argued that the lot line change could enable future subdivision or noncompliance. She asked the board to impose a condition preventing any future building on the transferred parcel. The chair responded that code enforcement matters are outside the board's jurisdiction and that they cannot restrict future applications, but noted that any future application would be considered on its own merits.
Discussion Items
- 1 Pioneer Boulevard, Huntington Station (ZBA 23724): The applicant, represented by Ryan Brown, requested relief to legalize an existing deck in the front yard and a fence atop a retaining wall located 7 inches from the property line. The property had received similar relief in 2007 but never perfected the permit. No public comments were heard. The board granted the application.
- 22 Wendover Drive, Huntington (ZBA 23723): Steven Kennaugh, co-owner, requested relief to legalize a 15' x 13' wood deck in the front yard that had been built without permits approximately 50 years ago. The deck is low-lying and screened by shrubs. No public comments were heard. The board granted the application.
- 18 Vidoni Place, Huntington Station (ZBA 23719): Represented by Mary Ellen Curtis, the applicants sought to legalize a 16' x 14' chicken coop. The coop has a 6.25-foot side setback and a 2.33-foot rear setback, whereas 25 feet is required. The chickens are kept as pets, and neighbors submitted letters of support. The board granted the application with the condition that no roosters be kept.
- 232 Clay Pitts Road, East Northport (ZBA 23660): Paul Curcio, project manager, presented. The applicants requested side yard and aggregate side yard setback relief for a proposed second-story addition and cellar entry, as well as to legalize an existing 923 square feet of retaining walls (188 square feet over the allowable 735) and correct a detached garage foundation that was built 9 feet from the property line instead of the required 10 feet. No public comments were heard, but the board noted a letter expressing concern about a possible business being run from the property. The chair stated that such matters are not related to the variance request. The board granted the application.
- 30 Tulip Street, Huntington Station (ZBA 23721): Attorney Thomas Abbate represented the applicant. The request was for lot frontage and lot width relief to facilitate a lot line change that would transfer 3,700 square feet from the adjacent Derby Avenue parcel to the Tulip Street parcel. The change would create a through lot, resulting in two front yards and a frontage of only 37.3 feet (40 feet required). The chair questioned whether the applicant intended to later seek a variance for a building on the new frontage; the attorney confirmed there are no such plans. The board granted the application after hearing public comment.
- Other Business – ZBA 23471 (Meridian Place): The board considered a request from the building department for clarification on a prior approval for a front porch. The approved setback was 14.2 feet, but the constructed setback is 13.7 feet. The board agreed to issue a memorandum to the building department deeming the 0.5-foot discrepancy a de minimis or lawful minor encroachment so the permit process can proceed.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes of July 9, 2026 approved unanimously.
- Public Hearings 23684 (6 Coptor Court) and 23716 (59 Villanova Lane) were adjourned without date.
- Applications 23724 (1 Pioneer Blvd), 23723 (22 Wendover Dr), 23719 (18 Vidoni Pl), 23660 (232 Clay Pitts Rd), and 23721 (30 Tulip St) were all granted.
- For ZBA 23471 (Meridian Place), the board directed staff to send a letter to the building department confirming the encroachment is de minimis and allowing the permit to move forward.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, good evening, everyone, and welcome to the zoning board of appeals of the town of Huntington for the meeting of July 16th, 2026. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. I pledge allegiance by public. Please be seated. I have the minutes for July 9, 2026. I've been through them and uh didn't find any additions, deletions, or corrections to make. So if no one has any of those, I will entertain a motion to accept the minutes with July 9th, 2026. Mr. Basso on the motion. Mr. Capadano on the second, all in favor. Any opposed minutes are accepted. Um Dawn, are all the appropriate postings and publications done with the affidavit forms that they have been completed to give us jurisdiction for hearings tonight? Thank you. This is six Copter Court. It's being adjourned without a date. If you're here for six Copter Court, it is being adjourned, it'll be republished. 23716 also is adjourned without a date. That's 59 Villanova Lane in Dix Hills. If you're here for that, it'll be republished. So the first one on the calendar tonight will be 23724. That's one Pioneer Boulevard in Huntington Station. Then it'll be 23723, 22 Wendover Drive in Huntington. 23719, 18 Vidoni Place in Huntington. 2366 0. That is 232 Clay Pitts Road, East Northport. And finally, uh 23721 30 Tulip Street in Huntington. So will the applicant or the representative of the applicant for 23724, that's one Pioneer Boulevard, Huntington Station, please address the board. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For Rocco and Anita Barbudo, I'm Ryan Brown, Breslin Brown PC, 44 Elm Street, Suite 5 Huntington, New York, 11743. We are tonight seeking relief in order to legalize an existing deck and an existing fence atop a retaining wall. Relief will be necessary under section 198-59D for the deck that sits between the dwelling in the street and under section 198-59 D3 for the fence atop a retaining wall that's seven inches from the property line where two feet are required. Subject property is an approximately 0.2 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pioneer Boulevard and Melville Road. It's in an R10 zone. The Barbudos have owned the property since 1990. The property was previously before the board in 1961 under ZBA 2847, where relief was granted for lot area, lot width, side and front yard setbacks. And the Barbudos themselves were actually in front of the board in 2007 under ZBA 19104, where they received relief for the same deck we're seeking relief for tonight, as well as an above-ground pool and a shed that existed at that time between the dwelling and the street line. That's why they went to the zoning board. They got the relief for the uh deck at that time. Unfortunately, they never moved forward and did the addition, so they never filed a permit and never perfected that grant. So we're back here tonight asking for that same relief. The six-foot vinyl fence sits seven inches from the property line, as any attorney would advise their clients to do with the fence to keep, make sure it's within a foot so you don't wind up in title company nightmares with the transaction. However, there's a uh retaining wall about a foot in from where the fence is, so the building department interprets this to be a fence atop a retaining wall and now considers it to be more than six feet above grade, so it will require relief from the board. Um granting the request of relief shouldn't create any negative impacts for the neighborhood as the board stated itself in the grant from 2007. Structures existed without any uh devaluation of the surrounding properties or altering the pattern of development of the community and no desirable undesirable change would be uh resulting from a grant of the requested relief for the fence. This is relief that the board often grants for fences atop retaining walls too close to a boundary line. I included a table of such grants with my written report. It's no reasonable alternative other than removal of the structures, which would be an undue hardship to the Barbudos. Um there's no expected physical or environmental impact because the structures already exist uh based upon the foregoing and respectfully request that the board grant the relief we're seeking.
openpublica.com