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.
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.