ZBA Requests Draw Discussion But Little Controversy

There was little debate and just some short discussions on three residential zoning requests during the recent Babylon Village Zoning Board meeting.

Board members Bruce Humenik, James Bruggia, David Parker, John Conroy, and Jeffrey Weber heard proposals from homeowners seeking variances.

The first application was from homeowner Timothy J. Golub, who presented plans for a home renovation on Overton Place that required variances to reduce side yard and front yard setback, as well as increase height allowances on the building. An application to maintain a shed is also being sought.

The board asked for more detail about the height issue, and Golub responded that the difference of .78 feet was negligible and necessary for the building plans, according to his architect.

Matt Vannick, a neighbor, spoke in favor of Golub's application, noting that "we have no issues with it, nor do other neighbors on the block."

Humenik advised Golub that any variances granted would be in effect for 120 days and if work is not completed in that timeframe, an extension must be requested from the Board of Appeals.

The second application came from Phillip Patti of Smithtown, representing homeowner Pamela Long. Long, a Smith Street resident, is seeking a variance for an existing side yard setback, with an increase of lot coverage, that exceeded the code of the home's zone.

Patti noted he house was originally built on a too small lot, and that the addition, built by previous owners and currently used as a den, had never been approved by the board.

"The house was sold before the market crash," explained Patti, "and the house was allowed to close [with this issue outstanding]."

The third proposal concerned existing structures at a canal front home on Bayview Avenue. David Purdy, of Yonkers, acting on behalf of Florence Seff, asked the board to consider granting variances for side yard setback, lot coverage, maintenance of an existing deck, and setback for air conditioning units.

Board members questioned why the variances were being sought now, years after construction, and Purdy explained that the home is now for sale.

A question was raised about the size of the bulkhead on the property: Humenik wanted to know if it was a legal size, and if not, if the homeowners were pursuing the issue with the proper channels.

A discussion ensued in which board members attempted to decipher if the lot coverage took into account the added area that the bulkhead provided to the property. It was determined that the bulkhead wasn't included, since it's not technically considered part of the homeowner's property, prompting Humenik to note drily that "you can't build on what's not your property, either."

Purdy submitted that perhaps an earlier zoning regulation allowed for a higher percentage of lot use, to which chairman Humenik joked that "twenty-five years ago is like yesterday in this village. Things haven't changed that much."

The board will review the applications and submit decisions to applicants in the mail. The next meeting is slated for October 19 at 7:30 p.m.