Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Exception Temporary Quarters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to large addition for Hughes home; board records approval after health‑department caveats
Summary
Neighbors told the Smithtown BZA a proposed 600‑sq‑ft addition and a 600‑sq‑ft secondary unit would block light and devalue nearby property; the board examined plans, noted Department of Health review requirements, and later recorded approval with health‑department documentation outstanding.
During a hearing on an application for a special exception and multiple variances at 293 Bow Drive (Case 19321), neighbors asked the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider the effect of a proposed addition on sight lines and quality of life.
Norman Locke, agent for Thomas and Julia Hughes, told the board that the owners sought a one‑story addition and a separate up to‑600‑square‑foot temporary living quarter for a family member needing home care; Locke said the lot is substandard and that the proposed addition generally matches existing nonconforming setbacks in the neighborhood. Planning staff advised the board that the surrounding area contains other nonconforming lots and that the requested rear‑yard reduction is not out of character.
Neighbor Lisa McDermott said she learned of the application late and argued the addition would directly abut her mother’s kitchen and block light and air. "First of all, we had no notice. No notice," McDermott said, adding the change would interfere with her mother’s sight lines and enjoyment of the property. John Ferreira, speaking as another nearby resident, raised similar concerns about proximity and urged the board to consider alternatives. Locke responded that the proposed addition aligns with the existing house and is not taller than the current ridge; he said a six‑foot vinyl fence currently separates the properties and that the addition’s ridge is no higher than the existing roofline.
Board members and planning staff reviewed site plans and elevations and asked the applicant to provide Department of Health documentation for sanitary/septic adequacy because the house was built before state thresholds that trigger health review. The board did not take final action while that documentation was outstanding; the record indicates the board later recorded an approval (decision recorded at meeting close) but staff asked applicants to submit the health‑department receipt so the board can complete its environmental review and finalize the decision.
What neighbors said: McDermott emphasized lack of timely notice and the effect on an elderly neighbor: "This is my mother's sight line... I'm really against this." The applicant’s agent said the structure is one story, matches existing setbacks and that sight lines will not be materially affected.
The board’s next steps: Planning and environmental staff requested that the applicants supply the Department of Health receipt for file completion; decision letters and any conditions will be mailed to parties of record once planning confirms the documentation.
Provenance: Testimony and neighbor comments began at the public hearing (SEG 973 onward); Planning and staff directions about Department of Health review appear at SEG 1216–1300 and board decisions were recorded later in the meeting minutes.
