Full Transcript

Thank you.

Welcome to the Zoning Board's meeting of Thursday, April 23, 2026. Could we stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. When I read up the NFL, they call me tonight. And if you would just make sure that your cell phones are off, we would appreciate it. Heather? Okay, so we have two reserved decisions scheduled for tonight, the first being Appeal Number 2025-032, Bayview Epiconic, LLC, 47 Bayside Avenue, Jamesport, Suffolk County Tax Map Number 600-93-1-4. Okay. Mr. Chairman and the rest of the board, with respect to Appeal Number, 2025-032, STM Number 600-93-1-4, the applicant being Bayview Epiconic, LLC. This is an appeal of the Chief Building Inspector's determination dated July 29, 2025, which rescinded a letter of preexisting use issued on October 13, 2022, for use as a transient rental. Thank you.

under the section that reads on page 10 appeal based upon the record supporting the 2022 application for transient rental use the decision reads as follows based upon the above and based upon the record supporting the 2022 application for transient rental use the zoning board denies the appeal seeking to overturn the chief building inspector's determination dated july 29th 2025 to rescind the letter of pre-existing use issued on october 13th 2022 for use as a transient rental for property located at 47 bay view avenue jamesport new york under the section of the decision that reads appeal based upon the record supporting the 2022 application for transient rental use together with proof submitted and made part of the decision that reads as follows based upon the above and based upon the record supporting the decision that reads on page 10 appeal based upon the above and based upon the section that reads on page 10 appeal based upon the section that reads on page 15 that section continues to read based upon all of the above the zoning board finds that while the record presented is uh voluminous voluminous and even assuming arguendo that the 1959 code did not prohibit dwelling or transient rental in the r1 zoning district the act of the zoning board is not [transcription gap] 2021 to avoid extinguishment of the use as set forth in Chapter Section 301 dash 222 C are insufficient to overturn the chief building inspectors revocation of the letter of pre-existing use dated October 13th 2022 the zoning board finds that the originally issued letter of pre-existing use dated September 15th 2021 was never superseded or overturned by the second letter of pre-existing use and is still valid therefore the property may be used as a single-family dwelling and is still subject to the town of Riverhead rental laws the determination reads as follows the zoning Board of Appeals determines that based upon the foregoing this zoning board denies the application slash request for the application of the zoning board of appeals to the [transcription gap] Second. Somebody make a motion. Second. Okay. Mr. Barnes. Abstain. Okay. Mr. Zaweski. Aye. Mr. Portia. Aye. Mr. Gazillo. I respectfully dissent. I note for the following that having observed the witness on direct as well as cross-examination, the so-called greatest engine for developing the truth, I find the applicant's testimony to be beyond credible. Also, the cold record will not reflect it, but even his appearance, the very nuances are consistent with that. I also note that notwithstanding cross-examination, his testimony stands unrebutted. And also with respect to the remark that from 1962 to 2001 they failed to provide any paperwork, I'm reminded of the fact that it's my understanding the IRS only goes, back seven years. To demand that, I think, was unreasonable. Also, it took 15 pages to overcome what his testimony, I think, that stands there. And lastly, as far as inconsistencies, there's an old attitude that inconsistency is the hallmark of truth. I would expect that when you tell a story that goes on for 60 years, there'd be some inconsistencies. If they were all intact, I would be suspicious, but I find it. Okay. Thank you. That indicates the credibility and respectfully I dissent. Okay. And I vote aye, so the variance has been denied. Heather? The next reserve decision is appeal number 2026-006, North Shore Sprinkler, 1264 West Main Street, Riverhead, Suffolk County, tax map number 600-120-2-2. This was for a special exception.

I have it. Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, with respect to appeal number 2026-006, Suffolk County tax map number 600-120-2-2, the applicant is SRS, Incorporated, located at 1264 West Main Street, LLC, as the owner. The evidence in the record establishes that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent property. Okay. Or of properties in the surrounding area, or impair the value thereof. Use has operated and continued with no adverse effects on neighbors' properties, nor have there been documented complaints dealing with the noise and traffic. The use will not prevent orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in the adjacent districts. The safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience, or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use, and its location, the wholesale use, which is already in operation, is less or similarly impactful upon adjacent properties and past uses, such as a propane facility and the more recent storage and distribution facility. The site is meticulously maintained and does not inhibit neighborhood aesthetics. Site plan review and approval of the proposed use of the site is not an option. Site plan review and approval by the Planning Board will be required wherein the landscaping, paving, outside storage areas, screening, and the like will be addressed. Required inspections prior to the issuance of a certificate will ensure that the property is in compliance with both town code and New York State Building and Fire Code. This special exemption applies to the subject parcel known as 1264 West Main Street, wherein the existing building property and site improvements are for a wholesale sprinkler use. [transcription gap] Motion so made. Second. Thank you. Mr. Barnes. Aye. Mr. Portia. Aye. Mr. Zaweski. Aye. Mr. Gazzazillo. Aye. And I vote aye. So that variance has been granted. Good luck. Moving on to public hearings. The first of the night is appeal number 2025-036, Mohamed Faisal et al., 2041 Osborne Avenue, Riverhead, Suffolk County Tax Map number 600-62-1-15, Agricultural Protection Zoning for a proposed 6-foot fence and 8-foot gate in the front yard. Applicant request variances and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-37A2, where the proposed fence height is 6 feet in the front yard and the proposed driveway gate is 8 feet, maximum allowed height is 4 feet in the front yard. This was adjourned from January 22, 2026. I will note the applicant's representatives did send in a survey showing the gate now proposed at 6 feet instead of 8 feet in height. Okay. Who's here to speak on this? Anybody speak on it? I'm going to speak. But Mr. Litt is supposed to be remote via camera. I don't know if. Yes, he is. He is online. Who are you speaking to? I'm speaking to Mr. Litt. Okay. Excuse me. I'm Mark Develos, real estate expert. Could you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. If you could just introduce yourself for the record, please. Sure. This is Robert Litt, Litt Law Group at 66 North Village Avenue, Rockville Center, New York. And I represent Muhammad Fasil, one of the owners at 2041 Osborne Avenue in Riverhead, and the applicant in the instant application. Are you an attorney, sir? Yes, I am an attorney. Yes, I am. Mr. Litt, did you appear at the January hearing before the zoning board? Actually, we appeared before the zoning board on the November hearing, and the January hearing was adjourned, so we'll be able to complete our proper survey, which is now before you. Okay. Thank you. Sure. My client originally submitted an application seeking an area variance to construct a front yard, six fence, in height and driveway gate, 8 feet. Okay. Thank you. And I was told that the area was 18 feet in height, where 4 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 301-37A2 of the zoning ordinance. The matter was initially presented before the board on a hearing on November 13th, 2025. At the hearing, the board requested that the survey be updated to show all fencing surrounding the property. The survey before the board today has been updated as requested. Additionally, it has been updated to show that while the applicant still seeks advancement, the property has been updated as requested. And has been updated to show that while the applicant has not yet been approved, the property has been updated as requested. variance for the front yard six foot in height the variance request for the gate is now for recessed front gate that is six feet high recess i'm sorry reduced from the original requested eight feet across a 20 foot wide driveway the fence that is being proposed is aluminum see-through and each door of the gate is 10 feet and opens inward the proposed fence and gate are completely in line with the neighborhood and its characteristics multiple properties in the neighborhood have similar fences and there will be no negative impact to the board grant the applicant's request to construct his own similarly situated fence and gate additionally at this at the time of the november hearing the adjacent residential property owner signed the petition in support of the application which was we submitted to the board the application as modified is less burdensome than previously submitted a request for a six foot recess gate as opposed to an eight foot gate and therefore the adjacent neighbor should have no objection to the modified application the other neighboring properties are non-residential and mainly comprised of agricultural properties and farms as well as the waste management site and plumbing and heating facility the proposed fence and gate will have absolutely no impact on the functioning of the properties and businesses operating therein the proposed gate will be positioned such that will not obstruct the any view or interfere with any traffic on osborne avenue and will be safe for all vehicles entering and exiting the subject property furthermore the instant application satisfies the requirements of an area variance the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood the applicant and his brother owns the property together and uses as a secondary home which they visit with their respective families throughout the year the six foot fence will provide the appropriate space for the applicant to use the property as a secondary home which they visit with their respective families throughout the year the six-foot fence will provide safety and security for the families which includes more children and elderly members the proposed fence will fit perfectly well within the neighborhood's overall aesthetic in fact there's a plethora of properties in the neighborhood with similar which contains similar fences therefore granting the requested variance will have no absolutely no negative impact on the surrounding property values based on the foregoing i respectfully request that on behalf of my client that the area variance request be approved at this time i would like to thank the applicant for his support and i would like to introduce mark devela our appraiser to discuss his report which is previously submitted to the board which addresses the subject property surrounding area and area character mark you're not a lawyer are you i'm not an attorney no i'm not okay raise your right hand i do solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth so help me god i do please state your name and address my name is mark devela i reside at 11 buchanan street freeport new york i am an expert real estate witness in the supreme court of nassau suffolk county and many other municipalities where i've testified my background is in real estate valuation i continually serve as an expert witness and content in connection with a myriad of nassau and suffolk county real estate matters including two and not limited to various boards of nassau and suffolk i testify in over 1200 cases in supreme court nassau and suffolk county as to real estate value i'm a licensed residential and commercial real estate broker since 2001. i held a special license for tax grievance as a non-attorney i'm the contracted assessor in two nassau villages i'm titled in the third i additionally hold an appraiser's license i have personal holdings throughout the eastern seaboard my credentials are attached i asked this board to accept me as an expert witness since i have not testified in front of you i got one question i got one question how do you spell your last name develop d-a-v-a-v-i-c-t-o-r-e-l-l-a it's respectfully submitted that the application seeking variance is approved the applicant is seeking variance for a six foot front yard fence and a recessed front gate that is also six feet with that stands across a 20 foot wide driveway chapter 301 section 301-307 subsection a-2 of the zoning limits the property is known as 2041 osborne avenue calverton new york it's shown on the suffolk county tax map down the riverhead district 600 section 62 block 1 lot 15. the subject is 350 000 357 000 square feet plus of total property 8.2 acres it's zoned as a 210 single-family residential home it was originally constructed in 1929. the subject has a front line frontage of approximately 423 linear feet along osborne avenue the survey shows in exhibit c that a six foot front yard fence along with a six foot recessed gate is 30 feet deep into the property the 30-foot recess gate provides significant operational benefits for the property access aligning with standard safety and design practices for handling large vehicles this configuration is effective for managing access of vehicles requiring extra space such as contractors box trucks landscapers with equipment trailers by keeping keeping them entirely off the main roadway an example of the fencing is shown in exhibit l within this presentation in interviewing the owner of the property the expert witness learned that the property had been trespassed on a number of times he was supposed to have submitted some reports to the board i don't know whether or not i have not seen them myself the witness has also been informed that the neighboring properties both residential and commercial have submitted letters in support of the application with no negative letters of the application of this particular application being submitted against the application excuse me yes sir have those letters come in so we didn't get any of the reports we did have i think one letter that came in with the original hearing we didn't get any letters of opposition submitted but we didn't get any additional letters of support and i did receive the report that you're reading from via email i only printed out one copy because i had anticipated there would be hard copies with the board. Read it out orally? I don't want to take up that much of the board's time. I don't want you to do either. That has the exhibits that he's referencing, but it was 37 pages, so I only printed out. I do have a couple of extra copies that I can hand up to the board. No, we'll just pass them. Bring out that couple.

Over here, please. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You're welcome.

Within exhibit I, it's noted that vehicles traveling along Osborne Avenue don't always pay attention to the speed and safety regulations. There's been a number of accidents over the years. They are annotated within the file, and they have happened on high speed. One of them happened on Osborne Avenue. One of them actually happened on the corner of Osborne and Youngs, of which this property is adjacent to. We did put a FOIL request into the township of Riverhead, and we asked for anybody that had applied for front yard fences between 20 and 25 that were residential homes. Within that query, we found that there were 16 applications that came in front of the board. None of them were denied. They are located in exhibits G and H. During my review of those homes, which the photos are provided, as well as the board's review and approval of those fences, I observed other fences adjacent to those other homes. My query was only from 20 to 20-25, so I added those additional homes since they were adjacent to the others in my report as well. In exhibit J, I highlight a pattern of a rear yard, six-foot fencing and gates on properties one and a quarter mile from the subject location. They back onto Osborne Avenue, yet they front Constable. Each one of these five continuous houses has a six-foot gate in the rear of the property adjacent, facing Osborne Avenue. It sets a precedent and a consistency with regards to six-foot fencing and six-foot gates along Osborne Avenue. Approval of this application will not result in a ! loss of neighboring property value. It will not be a disruption to the harmony of the neighborhood. It is not a safety or health hazard to other people within the neighborhood. And the application is not out of character within the township of Riverhead. The application should be approved. As of the writing of this report, there is an open FOIL request on that exhibit that has not yet been returned. In the event it is returned, I ask that the testimony stay open so that we can submit the results of that FOIL request. I don't want to take up any more of the board's time. They have a long night. I thank you for your time. And if you have any questions, I'll answer them now. My first question is directed to both Mr. Litt and Mr. DeVille. With respect to the other houses with similar fences, which is the closest to the most contiguous? Because it seems like they're all over the place. So if you take the five contiguous that are along Constable, facing Constable Avenue, that are on the back of Osborne Avenue, they are within one of the, within, one and a quarter miles of the subject property. The President. Mr. All right. Also, my notes indicate that the, your client had indicated that one of the reasons you wanted it was because of, of, for lack of a better word, harassment, and police had to be called, et cetera, et cetera. Other than you have in your thing, you have a picture of a police car and report of an auto crash. Where was the, your reports of prior police incidents? Mr. I could respond to that question, Mr. Kamen. My client sought to secure as many as he could, but unfortunately there were reports taken, but nothing in writing. He just reached out to them. The President. Mr. Pitt. So you have nothing? Mr. No, I do not have any police reports that were written in formality. Yes, that is correct. So just a few questions. You mentioned traffic safety. Has there ever been a motor vehicle accident that impacted this property? The President. Mr. I believe that the police chase within Exhibit I, which is the third, I believe the third incident along Osborne Avenue, which happened on the corner of Osborne and Young, actually had. The President. My question is, did it impact this property? Mr. I believe, I believe. The President. Mr. Let me ask you, what's the nexus between a police chase and a six-foot fence? Well, there is some stopping power to a fence line. It does, as, as the attorney, as the attorney mentioned, there are. Mr. Who will inspect? Mr. Excuse to do that for a living. I reject that argument. The President. And, and why wouldn't a four-foot fence provide the protection you claim that a six-foot fence would in a police chase? Mr. I believe, I believe it's a better sense of security for the owner of the property, and I believe that it's more in line with the character of the neighborhood. The President. Mr. But that's not, that's not the question. You specifically alluded to the fact that the six-foot fence, would prevent an impact from a car accident. Mr. I did not say that. The President. Mr. Okay. So that is not your statement? Mr. I did not say that. The President. Mr. Okay. Next, is it truly your position that a six-foot fence in the rear yard sets a precedent for a six-foot fence in a front yard? Mr. In this particular case, I do. And the reason I do is you have five, five continuous six-foot fences that span the length longer than what my client's property is, and each one of those six-foot fences has six-foot gates on that fence line. So my client having a six-foot fence line along Osborne Avenue with a recess gate, and those individuals down the road, which I don't know whether they're legal or not at this point, but they are there and there are no violations, and a FOIL was requested. Do exist. As such, it is a precedent that there are six-foot fences with six-foot gates directly on Osborne Avenue within one and a quarter miles of the property. The President. In the rear yard of those properties, correct? Mr. There are vehicles outside of those gates parked on the side of the roadway in one of the photos that you can clearly see, and they are used for access. One of the properties, if I will point out within my presentation, which is the front yard, is the first photos, because there's three of them, which is 122 Constable, actually has a secondary structure on that property, and that dirt driveway is used exclusively for that second structure at the rear of 122 Constable. May I just make one comment, please? In Mark Lavella's report, he does mention in Exhibits G and H that there was approvals of six-foot fences on front yards as well in the town of Riverhead that were all approved, 16 in particular from 2012. Mr. Yes. Mr. And they're all approved from 2020 to 2025. Is that correct, Mark? Mr. Yes, it is. Mr. Were any of them in this neighborhood? Mr. Yes, some of them are in Calvington. That is correct. Mr. Were any of them along Osborne Avenue? Mr. The five that I found are included in this report that are here. They are not on a FOIL request. The FOIL has not been returned. I can't testify positively to that. As I close my presentation, I will be able to provide a statement on the FOIL request, and I will be able to provide a statement on the FOIL request. Mr. Okay. Mr. I will be able to provide a statement on the FOIL request. I will be able to provide a statement on the FOIL request. Mr. Okay. Mr. I said that I'd like to leave testimony open to find out whether or not they're approved. Mr. You are aware we've kept this hearing open since originally the hearing was in November, correct? We are now in November. We have been approved at the end of April. Mr. If all due respects, I think it's fine that based upon the information that you have today, because I would believe that the 16 approvals of several most of them are in front yards, maybe except the five in the back of the backyards, but at least they're within the same neighborhood in the area. They may not be on Osborne in particular, but they are within the town of Riverhead and have been approved by Riverhead at the six-foot fences on front yards. That's our position. Mr. Okay. You know, one of the problems I have with this is, why not closer to the house, which is one of the questions we asked the applicant, and secondarily, why not the entire property? I do know they have a fence. If the concern is for safety, why not the entire property? He is fencing the entire property. On the new survey, the entire property is fenced. I thought the rear end wasn't. No, he's not. I withdraw that. The new survey had indicated that there's a fence that's encompassing the entire property. Okay. At the last hearing, the chairman had asked me to confirm that, and we did. That's why we got a new survey. The previous surveyor, unfortunately, passed away. So the current surveyor went through and confirmed that there is fencing surrounding the entire property, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. I heard enough, anyway.

One of the issues I have is that you can easily... You can easily have a six-foot fence that's even with the front of your house, and then fence the rest of it in to the front yard where the street is with a four-foot fence and meet the code. I don't really see the reason why you need the six-foot fence on the street. I just don't see it. The safety issue, I don't get, because if you have a six-foot fence even with the front of your house, then you have a six-foot fence that's, I guess, providing safety or security to your house. Right. What do you need the six-foot for in the front yard? I mean, what are you protecting against in the front yard? I don't understand it. I guess it's a large property with many acres. You know, putting multiple fences in multiple sections, you know, would, I guess, affect the aesthetics of the property. We understand the board's concern, but we felt that the fence's location would be satisfactory. It did not cause a safety hazard all along Osborne Avenue. And this is their other six-foot fence. It may be the rear or not. It wouldn't be an issue. And that the fact that the gate itself was recessed in significantly would also not be an issue whatsoever if cars or trucks are pulling into the property. Nothing would be on to Osborne Avenue to cause a safety hazard as well before entering the property. We're really looking to make an effort to satisfy as much as we possibly could as to safety issues and concerns with the board, as they indicated at the last meeting back in November. And we made that effort to do so. And we just felt that having multiple fences just didn't make any sense. We wanted to put it at that location. We wanted to put it at that location to really secure the most best part of this property.

I haven't had a chance to review every page of the packet, but are you submitting that all the pictures that are in the exhibit are six-foot fences that have been improved? Yes, I am. I produced this report. And I am testifying to the fact that these fences are, in fact, up and as they stand today. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that they went before the board and asked permission to have a six-foot fence in their front yard? In Exhibit H, absolutely. So in Exhibit H and G, or G and H, okay, you have all of your appeal numbers on these three pages. [transcription gap]

I took a few extra pictures. Exhibit H has got a bunch of pictures of a bunch of properties that we're flipping through. Yes. I'm looking at Exhibit G actually lists the items, in particular the appeal numbers and the properties where the town had approved six-foot fences and such before the board. I mean, obviously there's appeal numbers, and they list various appeal numbers over the last several years for these approvals for six-foot fences. So if I may, I quickly look through some of the photographs you submitted. They don't depict fences in the front yard. Many of those are on the side yard. In addition, pursuant to town code, on through lots and corner lots, those may be deemed with multiple front yards. Such that a six-foot fence may be permitted. But the photographs you depicted and you're asking the zoning board to accept, several, several, are not pictures, depictions of homes with six-foot fences in the front yard. I'm looking at 9 Laurel Gate. That looks like it's a front yard. It looks like the front of the house, doesn't it? I mean, maybe. I didn't write the report. But, Mark, would that be a front yard for 9 Laurel Gate? That's a front yard with a six-foot gate that opens inward on the front of the property. Which item is that? That is the first item in Exhibit H on photos 1 and 2, taken from two separate angles. And that would be the same type of gate that we'd be building for our applicant here, is that correct? Most certainly.

Why is the picture? Because it's a picture of the not permitted fence in here. What's that statement? 39. It's on the second page of Exhibit H. It wasn't within the foil. It's an eight-foot fence in a residential. It's got signage on it. It's not see-through. It's closed off. And it's across the street from 38 Alperdy, which does have a six-foot electronic gate on the front of it. So, as I said, there are things within the character of the neighborhood that I'm showing. In the picture on 38 Alperdy, I see brick, like brick pillars or brick stanchions. I don't see the gate. The gate recedes behind and then comes across the driveway. Where is 38 Alperdy located? On a cul-de-sac that is in Riverhead. I don't know. It's in the... That's the rear of the property. Jamesport. That's not considered the front of the property. That's Jamesport? I believe so. Yes. I'm also seeing 556 Soundshore. So, Dan, that's the rear of the property? Yeah. Which is the front as well. If I may, 38 Alperdy was approved, 301-37-82, six-foot fence in the front yard, maximum was four, and a 12-foot privacy wall. Permitted. Approved. They were. But the picture you have is the rear of the property. It's a flag lot that goes down about three... A third of a mile. The nearest neighbor has five acres. There's nothing else there. Okay. But he's got a six-foot front yard fence that is approved, and his neighbor across the street also has an eight-foot gate and an eight-foot fence. But it's not situated along a road, and it was just described as three-quarters of a mile back. How far? A third of a mile. But it's a non-town-owned road. Thank you. Well, that's what I just read earlier from the code. Can I bring the board's attention to 556 Soundshore? It looks like to me, based upon the pictures here, that seems to be a front yard or recess gate as well. Again, what we were seeking here, that also was approved. Is that correct, Mark? Which one was that, sir? 556 Soundshore. Okay. How far is that? Mark, how far is that? I didn't do a distance map on it. I haven't done all of these since they were spread out throughout the township of Riverhead. They spread out throughout the township. I don't think that's persuasive. Well, again, I go back to the exhibit down the road of J&K, whereas we have Osborne Avenue, and you have five continuous fences with five continuous gates along Osborne Avenue with no violations. And that foil was handed in well over a week and a half ago. Are those agricultural parcels? They are part of the AP zone. No. Is the use agricultural? No, they're residential homes. They're 210 class, single family residential homes. They are specifically... And those homes received approval for a six foot fence in the front yard? I didn't testify to that. I said that there was a foil... I'm asking you, do they, those homes that you're referring to, do they have approval for a six foot fence? I'm waiting on the return of the foil, which was submitted over a week and a half ago. 122 Constable, specifically. Again, the zoning board has kept this matter open for months at council's request to specifically respond to proof that within this neighborhood, this area of Osborne, proof of residential homes with six foot fences. And that's the only thing that's been done. We appreciate the fact that the board kept the... In addition, pursuant to council's request... I'm sorry, I apologize. I'm so sorry, I apologize. Pursuant to council's request, they were to submit proof of the police reports reflecting the alleged incidents of criminal trespass, and we've received nothing. My client had indicated that he had the police reports. He said, and when I followed up, he said, he had the police reports. He said, he had the police reports. I followed up with him afterwards. He said that, no, they were not police reports. I apologize if I had misspoke, but I was basing it upon my client's information and belief provided me by my client. But I don't think that's relevant here based upon the discussion today. And the fact is that we had shown that the town of Riverhead has approved six foot fences along the frontage of properties. As for the six foot fences that run along Osborne Avenue, yes, we sought to get information to confirm that. But obviously, you know, we're beholden to the FOIL request and such, and we were trying to get everything done in a timely fashion. And we do appreciate the fact that the board went bent over backwards to work with us regarding gathering information. A lot of it had to do with the fact that our surveyor had passed away. We had to get a new surveyor, and it took a little time to get it. It was during the winter, a very tough, cold winter to get a surveyor out there to do the work. So, again, we apologize for that aspect of it. I also say thank you very much to the board for giving us additional time to try to resolve this because we did start in November, but we did have a tough winter to try to get the surveyor done on a huge piece of property that's many acres. It's not a single acre. It's a very simple task to do here, and we were trying to get everything done. So we're hoping that the information that we provided today, the information that we've given to the board, is persuasive enough to know that they have approved six-foot fences in the past. There's no issues regarding safety at this property. The way it's being put is it's going to be built properly and in a fashion that fits well within the community. We provided information from my expert indicating that it's not going to affect values whatsoever. Yes, we were also trying to maximize the safety aspect of it. We were trying to maximize the safety aspect of it by keeping it as far as we could from the house and protect as much of the property. And again, I do thank the board for their efforts here in trying to resolve this and thank your team over there because we were working with them the last several months. And they were extremely helpful and very pleasant through this process. I do want to make that very known. Your whole team over there at the board was very, very pleasant. Thank you. Anything else? No, sir. Hi, Mr. Chair. In respect to my move regarding the appeal number 2025-36. There's 036. I move that the appeal of Mohamed Faisal et al. 2041 Osborne-Avon Riverhead SCTM number 600-62-1-15, agriculture protection zoning APZ zoning for variance and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-37A subdivision 2 would propose is not allowed, be denied respectfully because the grounds alleged are insufficient. Specifically, I find that among other reasons, for instance, the photographs supplied as precedents, I find not controlling. Are they not? For various reasons. Not on all fours, factually or otherwise. Secondarily, I specifically, the applicant affirmatively indicated that one of the reasons that they required it was because there had been a series of police incidents. And he was specifically directed to the suppliers, which I understand, it's been said that there's been no record, it's been unable to produce any record. But what we have instead is a photograph of a police car and an indication of a crash, a collision, which I'm dissatisfied there's any nexus between that, that collision and the need for offense. Therefore, I move respectfully that the application be denied. Second. Okay. Mr. Barnes. Aye. Mr. Porsche. Aye. Mrs. Ziloweski. Aye. Mrs. Gazillo. Aye. And I vote aye. So the variance has been denied. Good luck. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Before we move on, can I just have a copy of that report from the file, please? Yes. You surveyed it, right? Yes.

Oh thank you.

that has not yet happened so this will need to be adjourned to a later date and re-noticed based upon the additional relief. We have to adjourn this? It's just gone right? So we're gonna adjourn it without a date and requirement when there is a submission it will have to go through the entire notice proceeding again. Including the post are they don't have to refile they'll update the end. With respect to appeal number 2026-002 Maria Salgurno 178 Main Road Aquila, Ocasio-Cortez County Tax Map number 600-85-2-2 Rural Corridor RLC Zoning. Thank you. So we have a motion to legalize amendment in addition to dwelling. I recommend that we offer an adjournment until such time that a revised plan for a due or a revised request seeking additional relief for other outstanding items that have since been found is issued. Can we put a cap on this? Dale says something. I'd like to add not to exceed the Mr. Zawiski? Aye. Mr. Gazillo? Aye. And I vote aye. So that has been adjourned with no date. Bill number 2026-005, Charles Agis, 167 Pierre Avenue, Jamesport. The applicant has redesigned their project to no longer require a variance, and we did receive correspondence from Megan Carrick, who is the representative, withdrawing the zoning board application. So there's nothing required there, right? Good. Let's move on. Go ahead, Heather. This is appeal number 2026-009, Marie Andrews, Hulse Landing Road, Wading River, Suffolk County tax map number 600-50-2-12.3, residence B80 zoning for a minor subdivision proposed lot 1. Applicant report appearances and a relief from town code chapter 301-31, where total impervious surface coverage is 19.2 percent, maximum permitted is 15 percent, and town code chapter 301-238, where temporary greenhouse is 16.2 feet from side property line, minimum required is 30 feet. We did receive the affidavit, the posting and mailing, and the certified mailing results. Hi, Mr. Cuddy, how are you? Please state your name and address. Charles Cuddy, 445 Griffin Avenue, Riverhead, New York. I'm here with members of the Andrews family. The Andrews have a three-lot subdivision based upon the number of residents. I'm here with members of the Andrews family, and I'm here with members of the Andrews family. The Andrews family has been working on years ago, development rights being sold. They're looking to get one lot so they can use a residence on it. This is somewhat unique in my experience because this very map was approved by the town board in 2005. And if I may, I'll hand up the resolution from the town board.

Thank you. So the 16 feet that one of the greenhouses shows now instead of 30 feet was before the town board. Mr. Danczewski moved it and Mr. Blass seconded it, and they approved exactly what's before you. Unfortunately, over time, things haven't changed. And in order to ensure what was done, we're asking now that this board grant the variance for that different type of land, for instance, 16 to 30 feet. So it's been once before the town board, they approved it, and days gone by, the town board approved site plans. I don't think there can be any impact on the neighbors because the neighbor is the Andrew family. So no one gets hurt by it. Certainly, there's no environmental aspect to it. The greenhouses have been here for years. They're used by the Andrews family on a continuous basis. There really is no alternative because the greenhouses are there. They can't be moved very easily. So I think all things be considered that the variance for the distance should not be a problem. The same is true, I think, with the impervious surface. The impervious surface, instead of being 20, is 15. I'm sorry. It's 20 now and it was 15 then. And it should be granted on the same basis. That is the only thing that's changed. The lot has been there. Nothing has changed. No one is affected by it. And effectively, this is the very map that was approved 21 years ago. Mr. Cutting, do you have any objection if the zoning board was to require a covenant on the property, properties, state, or the property's ownership was no longer united in interest, that the encroachment of the greenhouses would be removed and remedied? That's fairly significant for them to do. I proposed something similar I know before. That would be up to the Andrews. I don't want to say that they can move them that easily. I think that's a good point. I think... Ann Marie, can I bring Mr. Cutty the map to show him? I have the map. Okay. It's the... It's...I think it's... This is what she's referring to...that... You're not talking to the 16-foot greenhouse, the one that's 16 foot back, or are you talking the small one? I'm just talking about the encroaching greenhouse. It's just the encroachment. I'm not talking about... Okay. Just the encroachment. The end users are here. Maybe they could step up. Want to take a look at it and see?

You've got to come up here, sir.

If you're both going to speak, we need to swear, right? I just want them to look first. Okay, so go ahead. I'll stand on that. Can I just clarify it so I can make sure? Because what Heather's showing me is one thing. Is that sure?

There's two small greenhouses that are a little bit over the line. Is that the ones you're talking about? Not that. There's a tiny little triangular corner. Okay. It's over. Yes, okay. Right. Can you move that? It's only if the properties, the covenant would read, if the properties were no longer under the same ownership and you transferred, let's say you sold the property. With the family or without? Yeah. Listen, if your family's willing to keep it, that's great. But if you sell the property. Hold on. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? Yes. Please state your name and address. Andrews Junior, 1038 Sound Avenue, Cabotton, New York, 1 1 9. Did you want to speak also? I don't know, but just in case. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. Please state your name and address. Robin Trepani, 43 Annandale Road in Comac, New York. Okay. Go right ahead now, please. Okay. If it was sold within the family and the family's all agreeable, it's fine to stay like that. Correct? Miss Pretendi, right? Yes. Okay. So I'm going to be very candid. This application, if approved by the zoning board, is still going to require subdivision approval. In the subdivision process, I am very confident that the zoning board will approve the application. Okay. I am confident that the planning board will not approve a lot division, wherein improvements of one lot are encroaching on another lot. Okay. And I think it's a simple, straightforward, effective way not to have to, if the zoning board is inclined, to approve it tonight without having, to move any of the structures. Correct. And so what you're saying is that if it's sold to a stranger. Correct. Then they would move it. Correct. That's agreeable. I'm agreeable. Yeah, the title company would require it as well. Yeah. If there was going to be title insurance. So it probably would be resolved before the closing. The answer is yes. Okay. Correct. Okay, good. And so, Mr. Cuddy, I would ask, the zoning board, if the zoning board were to grant this application, that myself, as zoning board counsel, work with Mr. Cuddy and come up with a covenant that is consistent with the proceedings tonight. That's agreeable to the applicant. Right. And it would only be that one greenhouse, that we're talking about. Okay. We're all in agreement with that, I think. You know, I can't represent if the planning board during the subdivision process would require something else, but I believe the planning board would accept the actions of the zoning board. We are hopeful, yes. I'm confident. Confident, too. Hope springs eternal. Okay. That's the end of our presentation. Okay. Is anybody on Zoom that wants to talk about this variance? Apparently not. Only Leroy. Okay. Who's got this? I do. Let's go. Mr. Chairman, with respect to appeal number 2026-009, I move that the appeal of the Mary L. Andrews Revocable Living Trust on Hulse Landing Road and Wading River, Suffolk County Tax Act, number 600-58-2-12.3, residents B80 or B80 zoning for variances and or relief of Town Code Chapter 301-31, where total impervious surface coverage is 19.2% and maximum permitted is 15%, Chapter 301-238, where temporary greenhouse is 16.2 feet from side property line, minimum required is 30 feet, be granted. Subject to planning board approval of site plan. And covenant to be approved by ZBA Council requiring removal of greenhouse encroachment. If title and interest in the lots are no longer unified, aka the same ownership, the encroachment be removed. In accordance with the applications and sketches with the amendments, there are two, if any, as filed with the building inspector. Second. And the only thing, you know, I will work with Mr. Cuddy. We can do that. We can add the family language without objection. Right. Okay. I second again. I guess that's a voice. Somehow specified, is that one greenhouse somewhere along the line in the language, okay? Right. It's the only one that's encroaching. I don't understand which greenhouse it is. Yeah, it's the only portion that's encroaching, Mr. Andrews. That's all right. Okay, moved and seconded. Mr. Barnes. Okay, thank you. Aye. Thank you, you're welcome. Mr. Portia. Aye. Mr. Weske. Aye. Mr. Gazzazillo. Aye. And I vote aye. So, the variance has been granted. Good luck. Good night, Mr. Cuddy. Thank you. It's always a pleasure. Yes, Mr. Cuddy. Thank you. That's the appeal of the evening. Appeal number 2026-010, Robert Broke, 451 Northside Road, Weeding River. Suffolk County Tax Net number 600-36-2-12. Residents B, C, and D. Zoning. For a proposed single family dwelling. Applicant request variances and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-31. Where proposed front yard setback is 35.2 feet. The minimum required is 60 feet. And I will note that we received the affidavit of post new mailing and the certified mailing receipts. We have an attorney here. Party two. Okay, okay. We need to swear both of you in if you're going to talk. Please raise your right hand. I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help me God. Please state your name and address. My name is Robert Stanzial, 316 Lincroft Road, New Rochelle, New York. Thank you, and you sir? Robert Broke, number 109 Patton Drive, Yonkers, New York. Thank you. Go ahead. Did you want to leave these plans out? Yeah. Right up here. Justin, if we're able to get the ceiling carried out. Okay. I think I have these oriented correctly. That's the ones we have, right, Mr. Stanzial? The same ones you have, yeah. Okay. I brought them just in case. Oh, yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, Robert Stanzial, architect here with Bob Roque, who's the owner of 451 Northside Road. Please stand. Okay. Thank you. And I'll just say a quick comment on the Bayonne River. 451 Northside Road is an existing, not conforming residential lot located in a Bayonne Zone district. Bob's family and his wife's family has actually owned this lot and the two adjoining lots for over 60 years. They've resided in either residence on the left hand side or right hand side for that many years. This particular property, there was a building that was built in 1902 or something like that, and it has been in use since 1902 or something like that. building permit granted approximately 1959 to build a single family house on this site. And the foundation was started but never completed, but it's still there and Bob has maintained it over the years, hoping to build someday, and that's why we're here. So we have a – the issue is that the house was approved with a front yard setback of – it was built with a front yard setback of 35.2 feet, and that's where we're proposing to build this new building. Now the zoning requires a 60-foot setback in the zone, so that's where our DILM is here. If you look at the site plan, you can see – maybe better on your plan – outlined in red at the end in front is where the existing foundation is and where it's going to be part of the new structure, which is going to be built towards the back. The property drops off towards the back, slopes off, so there'll be access actually from a small basement level to the rear yard as well. The house is going to be a – it's a two-story building. It's a two-story building. It's a two-story building with three bedrooms, two on the first floor and just a large bedroom up on the second floor where there's mostly dorm space. It's also going to be an accessory garage in the rear yard, two-car garage in the back, just with a driveway giving access to it. numerous dwellings actually on north side road just immediately next to it and also on north wading river road that actually have similar shorter setbacks so we don't think we're building something that's out of character with with the neighborhood here uh again this is going to be residents for bob he's going to retire here he actually owned the residence to the left of this for many years he rebuilt that house uh and sold it a few years ago but uh wants to do that and retire here so he knows the area very well still has family out here and this is uh being here this evening uh i could go through the area variance test if you like but i think you have it there in your report so i'll ask you one question with all this property that's behind it the garage is far away why wouldn't this house be moved back into the lot further well permanently because we're hoping to use a foundation that's six inches square field they're already there and we think with respect to the house adjoining it which really has the same setback as this house would it might look at a character in between the three houses step back along the road which might look awkward so we feel it would be better actually we're proposing it on the existing foundation so the intent would be it looks like the the existing foundation the uh i guess it's the west the rear wall the back wall um stopped so you would basically be taking out that back wall and then trying to continue on if you can save the other three walls yeah we're gonna actually keep that wall oh okay yeah we're gonna keep all four walls and then add foundation wall to the rear of that for the balance of the house okay yes so the footprint of the foundation that's right there right now from an encroachment standpoint would not get any encroach anymore that's correct yes one other question i just i'm just looking at the thing here so the i i guess it's the parcel to let's say the right i guess it would be the north here where it's got existing slate patio and stuff like that that all seems like it's part of on this property yeah it's being again one family owned property things sort of shipped around but that's going to be removed that's okay so that's not it will be removed from this property so it'll be okay is that the same with the concrete driveway is that gonna on the north side that's all going yes okay that's going to be replaced the driveway in front of this house immediately to the left it will have uh permeable pavers and the rest will be gravel to the back of the house okay so when the plans were submitted to the building department did the chief building inspector approve utilizing the existing foundation he did yes yes we gave him a letter uh that gave and they said it was structurally sound we did inspections of it great so they did an inspection and gave approval for and so the plans that you're submitting does not include a foundation permit uh no well it'll the whole building permit will have the existing foundation will be part of the whole permit package because we're adding foundation to this existing foundation so okay yes okay anybody else is there anyone else to be heard anyone else have any questions

i don't think this one all right okay nobody else we're good okay mr chairman and the rest of the board with respect to appeal number two zero two six dash zero one i respectfully moved at the appeal of robert roque 451 north side road waiting river stm number 600-36-2-12 residents b80 rba80 zoning for variances and their relief from the town code chapter 301-31 we have proposed front yard setback is 35.2 feet the minimum required is 60 feet be granted in accordance with the applications and sketches with the amendments there too if any as filed with the building inspector second okay mr barnes aye mr porsche hi this is a west high gazello right and i vote on it so your variance has been granted good luck good job very much appreciate your your time good luck thank you

to add if I could that in 1957 my in-laws bought right out of the war they came out of the war and they came out here and they purchased those properties all three of them and over the years my mother-in-law owned one my aunt owned the second one and the third one was my uncle so what happened was the uh the middle property was belonged to an aunt her name was Susie when that prop when she had that property she had both foundations my father-in-law and Susie's foundations done at the same time they're in line with each other and my father-in-law built on his so and Susie passed away when she died it was left to her son when her son died literally 30 days later he the property went to the daughter the daughter sold the property to my mother-in-law I've maintained all these properties for years I bought the uncle's house on the left and I I built uh Bob was the architect for that house 30 years ago and he's the architect for this house and 30 years later 32 years later and uh what happened was the uh the land my mother-in-law owned it and my mother-in-law died and she left it in probate to nine different nieces and nephews so for the last year and a half I've had to buy those properties back those pieces of the property back so that I could build my retirement home so uh it's been going back and forth I've I've obtained everything a topography or survey a topographical a survey a soil sample the waste management the water I've done everything possible this should be hopefully the last house that I built because I want to retire there I love waiting River I sold the house that I built because of financial reasons like my son went to college my little son had a medical condition so I sold it so now I have the property back and I have the opportunity to build my retirement home so I could stop and I'd like to do that I like weight I love waiting River I hate to ask this question how much did you follow the pay for each letter how much did he pay for the house the lots when he was alive back then I do have the deeds just answer the questions down yeah uh i i think it was about three thousand dollars a lot for a lot no no well three lots four and a half acres all together okay sorry and i have the smallest piece now and they live in tents in the backyard where they were building i know my in-laws did the same thing in rocky point i'm thinking they bought it for forty dollars i'm at the asian i have to sign good night good luck good luck good job thank you thank you thank you for your runoff we do we're not going to run up we have minutes march 26 of 2026. i have a motion still move to approve okay all in favor all right all right thank you next meeting date is may 14th 2026. so move all in favor all right all right mr barnes justin wants to yes sir are you having good travel yes i am sir good way i'll be home monday can we expect your arrival in the north fork can you hear me mr barnes he said april let's have a motion to close the motion to close motion so moved all right all right all right hey listen there's only one guy that makes them head

you