Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals grants most variance requests at March 12 meeting; several items continued

5045146 · March 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its March 12 session the Town of Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals heard more than three dozen cases and approved the bulk of variance requests, while holding or continuing a small number for follow-up inspections or additional information.

The Town of Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals met March 12 and disposed of more than 30 applications for variances and related relief, approving most requests but continuing a handful for follow-up inspections or additional paperwork.

The board opened with routine attendance and calendaring, then moved through individual property appeals covering requests such as side- and rear-yard variances, approvals to legalize existing structures (sheds, decks, porches, hot tubs), and small additions. Most applicants were represented by permit expediters or architects; neighbors turned out for several matters. In several cases the board accepted additional conditions or asked that approvals be followed by required building-department permits, recordings of covenants when needed, or inspections to clear outstanding enforcement items.

Why it matters: The zoning board’s decisions affect whether property owners can legalize existing nonconforming structures or proceed with modest additions. Many approvals were for older structures built under prior rules; where approvals were granted the board typically noted the structures fit the built pattern in neighborhoods of older bungalows and shore properties. Where inspections or cleanup remain outstanding, the board held matters to ensure public-safety and code issues are addressed before full legalization.

Most significant themes - Legalizing older, pre-code structures: Several parcels in established neighborhoods — particularly shore communities and older inland subdivisions — came before the board to legalize porches, decks, detached garages, and enclosed porches built decades ago. The board frequently noted historical development patterns as context for approvals. - Accessory and basement space on 50-foot lots: The board continued to apply the small‑lot/50‑foot guidance consistently, granting some finished‑basement legalization requests where the parcel history and neighborhood pattern supported relief, and denying or conditioning others where health/departments or occupancy issues remained unresolved. - Follow-up inspections and building‑department coordination: On several grants the board required applicants to secure the necessary building permits, clear law‑department enforcement items, or record covenants with the Suffolk County Clerk when the requested relief could affect future uses.

Votes at a glance (selected items, meeting decisions) - Case 1 (Michael and Nancy Arnold, Miller Place): Approved variance to legalize an existing 6-foot fence atop a retaining wall (type 2 action). Motion carried. - Case 3 (George Alves and Jamie Dockerman, Mastic): Approved variances for an inground pool setback (type 2 action). Motion carried. - Case 4 (James and Barbara Sheehan Family Trust, Ronkonkoma): Granted yard variance to legalize an existing pool heater; motion carried. - Case 5 (Edgar Garcia Nunez, Mastic Beach): Granted variances to legalize a sunroom addition and converted garage (applicant to pursue accessory‑apartment review); motion carried. - Case 6 (Kenneth and Sandra Asletta, Shirley): Board closed the public hearing and held the matter pending follow-up (later granted in work session with clarification about property‑line issues). Motion to close and hold carried; subsequent grant recorded in work session. - Case 7 (Rebecca Tatiana Chauncey Rodriguez, Medford): Granted variance to legalize finished basement on a 50‑foot lot (type 2). Motion carried. - Case 8 (Rafael Santana, Amityville area): Granted variances for new 1‑family dwelling on a smaller lot (type 2). Motion carried. - Case 11 (John and Connie Peterson, Mount Sinai): Granted variances for existing trellis, sheds, and deck at bulkhead (subject to chapter 81); motion carried. - Case 12 (Nicholas Scott, Manorville): Granted variance to legalize a moved/extended porch, with condition to rectify existing summons; motion carried. - Case 13 (Ralph and Julia Caputo, Sound Beach): Granted variances to legalize an addition and shed; chair noted a covenant/recording limiting certain future conversions (type 2). Motion carried. - Case 14 (Matthew Repp King, Cherry Grove): Granted front/rear setback relief for proposed walkway, roof deck and spiral stairs; motion carried. - Case 15 (Samuel Wachsville, Water Island): Granted relief to legalize existing deck/deck roof (type 2); motion carried. - Case 16 (Richard and Christine Ragone, Mount Sinai): Granted limited additional accessory‑apartment square footage and relief for existing shed; motion carried. - Case 18 (YMT Plage LLC, Fire Island): Granted multiple deck/hot tub setbacks and required septic/health approvals; motion carried subject to chapter 81 where noted. - Case 19 (Glen Hannah, Fire Island): Granted variances to legalize porches converted to living space and related deck/shed relief (subject to conditions); motion carried. - Case 20 (Todd and Elizabeth Dover, Fire Island Pines): Granted existing pool deck and accessory relief; motion carried (type 2). - Case 21 (Langley Development LLC, Medford): Granted lot‑size/frontage relief for a new 1‑family dwelling subject to a 70% woodland clearing limit and covenant for Pine Barrens protections; motion carried. - Case 22 (Ralph Vigiani, Sound Beach): Amended application to withdraw pool relief; board later granted relief for garage/attachment with a covenant limiting habitable use of specific garage areas; motion carried with conditions. - Case 23 (Kokazi Home Builders/Dominic Roselli, Shirley): Granted height/size variances for a new 2‑story dwelling; motion carried subject to type‑2 action protocol. - Case 24 (Menileek and Noemi Schneider, Rocky Point): Granted shed/hot tub/fence relief and hot‑tub roof coverage; motion carried. - Case 25 (Thomas Valzoni, East Patchogue): Granted rear‑yard relief to legalize an enclosed heated porch (type 2) after review; motion carried. - Case 26 (Ari Breslin, Center Moriches): Granted several front/side/rear variances and approval to keep an existing front porch encroaching past 6‑foot projection where shown (type 2); motion carried. - Case 28 (Alicia and Simon Bob, Medford): Granted shed and hot tub relief and fence height relief; motion carried. - Case 29 (Cal Hill Corp., Rocky Point): Approved small addition legalization for existing 1‑story residence addition as presented; motion carried (with prior inspection completed). - Case 31 (Triple JP Holding, Middle Island): Board amended the request to confirm the addition will be limited to a home office (nonresidential transient use prohibited) and closed the matter with that condition; motion carried (type 2) and recorded covenant requested. - Case 32 (Daniel Bridal, East Patchogue): Continued to April 9 for a building‑department inspection before final action (applicant to schedule inspection with staff). - Other items: numerous other variances on the agenda were also granted (many type‑2 actions) or continued for revisions/inspections; the board clerk later read a work‑session recap that recorded additional specific grants and conditions.

What happens next: Applicants that received conditional grants must secure required building permits and resolve any law‑department or health‑department issues (septic/sanitary approvals where required). In at least two matters the board asked applicants to record covenants in the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office to limit future habitable conversion of certain accessory spaces. The board also asked several applicants to repair structures and arrange building‑department inspections before final legalization.

Meeting context: The session reflected the board’s continuing role balancing long‑standing, pre‑code development patterns in Brookhaven’s older neighborhoods with modern public‑safety and sanitary rules. Neighbors’ concerns — especially about habitability, trash, and wildlife attractors near unmaintained structures — prompted the board to require inspections or remediation before fully legalizing some structures.

Votes at a glance (summary count) - Total agenda items heard (call of the calendar and 2PM/4PM combined): 36+ matters documented in this transcript. - Items approved (granted) at the meeting or work session: majority of matters heard (see list above for selected cases). - Items continued/held pending inspection or additional paperwork: several (including Case 6 at one point; Case 32 continued to April 9 for inspection; Case 33 required follow‑up, etc.).

Officials and representatives - Board chair: Howard Bergson (Chair) presided; board members present included Jeffrey Lanzette, Kevin Casey, Aaron Sedaris, Charles Lazarue and Ronald Lindsey. Several applicants were represented by permit expediters and architects (examples noted below). The building department and law‑department enforcement were cited on multiple items.

Selected filings and authorities cited at hearing - Town of Brookhaven code (chapter 81) was referenced repeatedly for waterfront/bulkhead and roofs/decks approvals. - Small‑lot and other town zoning standards were referenced for 50‑foot lots and accessory‑apartment rules.

Speakers (relevant) - Board members: Chairman Howard Bergson; Jeffrey Lanzette; Kevin Casey; Aaron Sedaris; Charles Lazarue; Ronald Lindsey. - Frequent representatives/agents and applicants: Amy DeVito (Woodhull Expediting); Jennifer Leeds (permits); Diane Laspiso / Moreno Expediting; Kathleen McHenry / Long Island Permits; Larry Davis (attorney/agent); Michael Strauss (architect); Julia Riggs (Integrity Expediting); Tracy Rivera (Tracy’s Permits); others listed in the transcript.

Ending: The board closed the meeting after disposition of the calendar and a brief work‑session recap. Decisions recorded in the board’s minutes will be followed by the building‑department permits and any required filings with the Suffolk County Clerk where the board requested covenants.

Lede/nutgraf/structure notes: This report summarizes the outcomes from the board’s March 12 session, highlighting approvals, continuations and conditions the board attached to grants. For the official record and complete findings, the town will post written decisions and minutes on the Town of Brookhaven meeting page once filings are completed.