Zoning Notebook: More Space for the Hummer, An Antenna in the Steeple And More

The following actions were taken at the Town of Huntington Zoning Appeals Board's most recent meeting Thursday, Jan. 6.

Application 20135,

This application proposes the installation of a wireless-communication antenna in a  steeple behind church.

T-Mobile was represented at the meeting by Robert Gaudioso of the law firm of Snyder and Snyder. He reminded the board that it already approved the construction of a Verizon tower in the same location several years earlier.

That existing steeple would be extended north by nine feet to make room for the new T-Mobile tower. Gaudioso added that emissions from the tower would be less than .2% of the allowed 100% limitation at ground level, rising to .5% when combined with the existing Verizon tower.

Evelyn Campfield, a resident of Wood Sorrel Lane in East Northport, addressed the ZBA with concerns about the health risks from the tower. She said she didn’t understand why the second tower needed to be installed; she was told by the board that different carriers need different towers to operate.

She asked the board members how they would feel if the cell phone tower was installed near their homes. Vice Chairman Scott Frayler did not answer the question, but board member Robert Slingo stated that he lived near the tower and that he would have no problem having his family live near the tower.

The ZBA added that the adverse health effects were secondary to their evaluation to the aesthetics of the structure being built, prompting the resident to wonder why that was the case.

The motion was granted as presented.

Application 20179:  CGI Baseball Training Facility, 75A East 2nd Street in Huntington Station.

This application was filed by Rob Steinert, owner of the training facility. Its being moved from its current location at 732 Larkfield Road, East Northport due to problems with plumbing and sprinklers.

The application was to request a special-use permit to operate the new baseball training facility at 175A East 2nd Street in Huntington Station.

He is also requesting a parking variance for room to park a trailer in the front of the building and vending machines inside.

According to Robert J. Flynn, the attorney representing Steinert's company, the property is occupied mostly by manufacturing lots. This adds an additional benefit to the location of the facility, as these manufacturing businesses would leave by 4pm on weekdays and not report at all on weekends. Steinart's facility requested hours from 3pm-10pm Sunday through Thursday and from 8am-11pm on Saturday.

Wayne Muller of RMS Engineering was consulted for an opinion as a traffic expert. He stated that it would be better if the trailers were parked in the rear of the building, between four dumpster containers. He recommended that this would have no impact on traffic in the area.

The application was granted, with several conditions. One was that the facility would have no video game room, another approved the hours of operation requested, and another prohibited on-site food preparation. The equipment trailer was also required to park in the rear of the facility, between the four storage containers.

Application 20153, Future Realty Corp. 2090 Jericho Turnpike:
The applicant requested a special-use permit to legalize an extension to an existing building at 2090 Jericho Turnpike.

The request was to construct an extension to the southwest corner of the building. According to real estate expert John Breslin, who was called to speak on behalf of the case, the extension would be used for whatever the applicant could find, noting that there was interest from an off-site catering company.

The application was granted as presented.

Application 20052, 102 E 2nd St., Huntington, NY 11743
This application, on behalf of Frank Montero of Bay Shore, was submitted asking for relief for an accessory apartment, but was changed at the hearing to ask for relief for the intrusion into the setback from the rear of the tenant's garage and also relief from the excessive footage for accessory structures.

The goal of the applicant was to maintain a garage and a shed that was already constructed as part a single-family residence.

Nolan Briggs, the counsel representing the applicant, wanted to legalize the garage as it was currently constructed. He said that the only thing unaccounted for in the square footage was an awning butting up against the property line.

The ZBA questioned the use of the garage, noting that it had many components of an apartment.

Briggs confirmed that the garage included electrical service, a small bathroom, and heating, but noted that a bedroom was removed to get over a violation on the house where there were found to be 13 bedrooms in a house with eight tenants.

The ZBA denied the application.

Application 20184, Luxury Cars of Huntington, 359 West Jericho Turnpike , Huntington:

They requested a special-use permit to modify amended site plans and a prior special-use permit in order to construct an on-site elevator, transformer, and modifications to the floor plans requiring parking relief.

According to Attorney Joseph F. Buzzell, who was speaking on behalf of the company, the elevator’s purpose was to lower cars from the showroom into the basement once operating hours were completed. Part of the basement would have to be converted from storing company records to storing the cars. A motor for the elevator would be located in the north part of the building.

Counsel made it clear to the BZA that there would be no second showroom on the lower level, and that no work would be done on the vehicles in the basement.

The application was granted under the conditions that the basement was used for storing cars and records only. No customers would be allowed in the storage areas. The applicant was also prohibited from seeking a waiver of building code conditions.

Application 20138:

This application was filed by the architectural company Mark Anthony Associates on behalf of Francis and Shayne Puntolillo of 133 Ryder Avenue.

They requested to demolish an existing garage and replace it with a significantly bigger garage. No counsel was present; a representative from Mark Anthony Associates spoke on behalf of the Puntotillos, with Francis also in attendance.

Francis was later asked to speak on his own behalf; he stated that he wanted to build the new garage in order to fit a Hummer in it.

Two problems arose with the application. One was that the new proposed garage, coupled with two sheds on the property, one of which is a cabana with an illegally constructed bathroom, would put the property more than one-third over the maximum square footage for storage.

Additionally, the height of the garage was deemed to be excessive. Besides fitting the Hummer, the garage was going to be designed to fit a second story for additional storage area on the property. Puntotillo noted that he needed the storage since he did not have a basement.

The motion was granted with an amendment that required the height of the garage to be reduced by four feet.

Application 20141, Single-Family Home, 324 Bread and Cheese Hollow Road in Northport:

This application was filed on behalf of Dan Jo Holdings at 305-2 Knickerbocker Avenue in Bohemia, and was in reference to the Bread and Cheese Hollow Road property. The purpose of the application was to legalize a retaining wall constructed at the property that was not built in accordance with the original site plan.

The wall was build higher on the southwest and west sides than originally planned after field conditions were assessed. The wall was increased from 16 to 26 feet in the southwest, and was increased in two separate sections in the west, from 12 feet to 20 feet and from 13 feet to 18 ½ feet.

Victor Bert, who spoke on behalf of Nelson & Pope Engineers and Surveyors, said that the changes were made because the original plans for the wall were not adjusted properly for the topography. The wall was also moved back ten feet further on the property than originally anticipated because the residents wanted to install a swimming pool.

Breslin was asked to speak on behalf of the application. He stated that when the developers moved the wall back ten feet, they effectively moved back into an empty, wooded area. He also had no problem with the modification of the size of the wall, saying that they should have been permitted to modify it due to the field conditions. He added that there was no restriction on the vertical part of the wall and that less retaining wall was built in total.

The only requirement was that the retaining wall was constructed 10 feet from the property line, and it was.

Local resident Nigel Lee spoke, but stated that his only concern was if there was going to be more construction in the area as a result of the application. Once he realized there won't be, he said he had no issue with it.

The motion was granted as presented.

Application 20151,  Joseph Negri, 53 Tower Street, Huntington Station: Negri requested frontage variance on his residence in order to apply for an Accessory Apartment. The applicant had the minimum square feet required to do this but was short on the width needed.

The Zoning Board of Appeals noted that an application to make part of the home into an apartment was denied in 2004. David Mirabella, the counsel representing Negri, said that the applicant was not aware of this at the time of purchase (last year) but he was aware that he was purchasing a one-family home when he purchased it.

There was concern from the ZBA that the applicant was considering using the garage as the apartment. Negri was called to speak on his own behalf and explained that the second floor of the house would be used as the apartment, while he would occupy the first floor. Negri estimated that the garage could hold four to five cars. He was reminded by the ZBA that only three cars could legally be stored in a garage in the Town of Huntington.

After Mirabella was through, Nicholas Wieland, a member of the Citizens for Code Enforcement in the Town of Huntington, came up to speak against the application. He reported that there were two electrical meters on the house and that the house needed to be reported to code enforcement. He provided a map to the ZBA with his findings.

The application was tabled until the end of the meeting, when it was granted with several conditions; that the garage would never be used as an apartment,  that the garage could only hold a maximum of three cars, and that one of the meters on the house would be removed and the other made permanent.

Application 20139, Eugene St., Melville, NY 11747:
The application was presented at two separate times. The applicant was not represented at the meeting, and the case was dismissed.