Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals approves several variances, holds multiple cases for April 30

The Town of Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals met April 9 and approved multiple area variances for homeowners and developers while adjourning several land‑division and contested cases for further review.

Most votes were routine approvals of single‑family additions, accessory buildings and lot‑line matters; several matters were continued so applicants can provide additional plans or to allow staff and departments to complete reviews. No councilmember or staffer proposed new townwide rules during the meeting.

Why it matters: The board’s approvals allow property owners to legalize existing structures, add living area or build replacement houses on lots that do not meet current A‑1 or B‑1 lot standards. Several approvals also relied on the town’s small‑lot standards (section 85‑83 of the Town Code) or conditions set by town staff. Important land‑division and larger parcel questions were held over to give planning, highway and historic‑district reviewers time to comment.

Most important actions (high‑level) - Grant: A number of case decisions approved variances to legalize existing sheds, cellar entrances and rooftop/deck work, and to allow modest additions to single‑family homes. Several approvals were conditioned on specified mitigation (screening plantings, Chapter 81 compliance, or submission of revised plans), and were recorded as Type‑2 actions under SEQRA (no significant environmental impact anticipated). - Hold: Multiple land‑division and contested cases — including a set of four complex splits and several applications where the board requested additional traffic, highway or historic‑district information — were adjourned to the board’s April 30 meeting so applicants can supply revised surveys, correspondence or certifications. - Procedure: The board followed a standard practice of amending applications where applicants reduced requested relief in response to questions (for example, side‑yard requests reduced from 10ft to 8ft). When applicants withdrew requests mid‑hearing, the board recorded the withdrawal and adjusted the remaining agenda item accordingly.

Votes at a glance (selected cases decided April 9) - Case 17 (Diego Horaca Astudillo & Pilar Berman Aguerdo, 507 Post Ave., Bellport): Board amended the side‑yard request to 8 feet and granted the amended application (Type 2 action). Motion to amend carried; motion to grant amended application carried. - Case 3 (Christina Froebessen & Andrew Margolis / Woodhill Expediting — artist studio conversion, East Setauket): Application closed and held for follow‑up; board asked applicant to return with additional interior photos and, if needed, a compromise on fixtures that could make the studio non‑habitable. Motion to close and hold carried. - Case 5 (Stephen Gomes / Andrew Malbonaro — garage, deck and dock work, Port Jefferson): Board granted the application with a condition that the approval be subject to Chapter 81 requirements. Motion carried. - Case 6 (Wall 2 Management LLC — new dwelling, Medford): Board granted the application subject to a 60% clearing limit recommended by STEP to protect Pine Barrens habitat. Motion carried. - Case 8 (Gabriela and Max Haspel — elevated deck/addition, Point O'Woods / Fire Island): Board granted the requested rear‑yard variances (Type 2 action). Motion carried. - Case 9 (Franklin Arguetta & Crystal Castillo — in‑ground pool, Medford): Applicant amended to change setbacks to 8 feet; board closed and held the application to allow the applicant to supply additional detail and consider alternate pool siting. Motion to amend and to hold carried. - Case 10 (Darren and Sharon Zena — above‑ground pool, Port Jefferson Station): Board closed and held the application for additional information; the applicant agreed to explore shifting the pool to meet a 10‑foot side yard if possible. Motion carried. - Case 12 (Jason & Meredith Balacek / Andrew Malgonara — two‑story additions, Fort Jefferson): Board granted the application (Type 2). Motion carried. - Case 13 (Charles & Kathleen Damiani — existing outdoor fireplace, Center Reach): Board granted variance to legalize existing fireplace, noting required setback relief (Type 2). Motion carried. - Case 19 (Neptali Amador Lopez): Applicant amended and withdrew one requested variance (for a finished basement on a 50‑ft lot); board granted the amended application to legalize a cellar entrance (Type 2). Motion carried. - Case 21 (Audra & Richard Gleason — second‑floor addition and pool, Holtsville): Board granted the addition and required that a nonconforming shed be moved to comply with setbacks; motion carried (Type 2). - Case 23 & 24 (BDR Management LLC — Sunset Road parcels): Board granted relief from Town Law §288 (access from a private road/right‑of‑way) for two separate parcels after confirming similar relief had been granted for adjacent lots; motions carried (Type 2). - Case 28 (Albert & Patricia Bertolone — front entry platform, Farmingville): Board granted the variance conditioned on removal/closure of a separate open pool violation noted in building records. Motion carried (Type 2). - Case 31 (Manuel & Karen Martinez — 2 sheds): Board granted the prior 2021 approval but substituted tree screening language: eight evergreen screen trees from the Town recommended list, ~6ft high planted 5ft on center. Motion carried. - Case 32 (Randy Matriano / JL Stewart — shed height 12.15ft, Mastic Beach): Board granted variance to legalize a shed 0.15 ft over the permitted height (Type 2). Motion carried. - Case 33 (Colette Ransom / Woodhill — exterior cellar door): Board granted variance to legalize a Bilco door that encroaches beyond the 5‑foot limit by 2 feet (Type 2). Motion carried. - Case 34 (Maria Romero Recano — roof over patio and exterior cellar entrance): Board granted relief to legalize the roof‑over and cellar access (Type 2). Motion carried.

Held to April 30 for more information or additional documentation (selected) - Case set including several land‑division matters and contested developments (Aruba Holdings cases; broader land‑division cases cited in the record). The board repeatedly adjourned items to April 30 to allow applicants to supply planning/highway/historic‑district comments and to let staff circulate additional correspondence.

What the board requested most often - Revised lot surveys or building plans with clearer dimensions and elevations. - Additional information from highway/traffic staff where driveway access or off‑site impacts were possible. - Screening (planting) plans when applicants sought to legalize metal storage buildings or other features in rear yards.

Meeting context - Attendance: Chair Howard Bergson presided; board roll call included Jeffrey Lanzette, Kevin Casey, Aaron Sedaris, Charles Lazaro, Ronald Lindsey and Deputy Chair Acuna. Town staff present during the meeting included planning staff (Reed) and building‑department staff, and the meeting used the standard public‑hearing format (applicant presentation, public comment, board questions, motion/vote). - Engagement level: Moderate — many routine single‑house requests and accessory‑structure legalizations; a smaller number of more complex land‑division cases that the board set for follow‑up.

Next steps and public follow‑up - Applicants whose cases were held were directed to provide revised surveys, additional photos, traffic/highway or historic‑district comments, and compliance documentation (for CEUs or Chapter 81) before the April 30 hearing. - Decisions and final grant letters will be posted to the Town of Brookhaven meeting page and provided to applicants per the board’s usual timeline (7–10 business days for written decisions in some instances; other items are decided at the next hearing).