Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Jefferson ZBA hears 100 Roosevelt pool variance request; fencing variances withdrawn, hearing held open
Summary
The Port Jefferson Zoning Board of Appeals heard a request for multiple variances for a proposed 12×24 inground pool at 100 Roosevelt Ave on July 24. The applicant withdrew fence-height variances and the board held the hearing open for updated lot-coverage calculations and a revised survey, scheduling the matter for Sept. 25.
The Port Jefferson Zoning Board of Appeals on July 24 took public testimony and technical evidence on a multi-variance application for 100 Roosevelt Avenue, a corner lot where the applicant proposes a 12-by-24 inground pool that requires relief from several zoning rules.
Agent Andrew Malua, sworn in for the applicant, told the board the owner will bring all fencing into compliance and agreed to withdraw fence-height variances previously requested. "All fencing will be put to code when and if the pool is built," Malua said. The board and staff, however, retained review of a previously un-noticed front-yard fence-height variance (variance no. 9) because relief from the village standard for front-yard fences remains required for the proposed layout.
Why it matters: the application seeks relief from multiple sections of the village code (read into the record by staff and citing, among other provisions, §250-11 and §250-28) including rear-yard and front-yard setbacks for a pool, minimum distance from the principal structure, accessory-structure setbacks, and placement of pool equipment. A decision will affect how corner lots in RB2 residential settings may site small pools while meeting frontage and fence standards.
Board and staff questions focused on alternatives and missing documentation. Daniel Gross, senior planner for the village, told the board that coverage calculations were not included with the application and recommended holding the hearing until the applicant submits an updated survey and area/coverage figures. Board members asked whether the pool could be moved farther from the house to eliminate the house-setback variance; the applicant said moving it closer to the house would be more practical and that an engineer will certify foundation safety if approved.
Public comment highlighted neighbor concerns about pump noise and stormwater. Mr. Darling, a nearby resident who was sworn in, said the proposed pool equipment would sit near his property line and raised worries that pump noise and flooding during heavy rains could affect bedrooms on his side of the house. The applicant and staff responded that existing vegetation would screen the equipment and that siting toward Old Post Road reduces direct impacts.
Outcome and next steps: the board voted to hold the hearing open and requested an updated survey, lot-coverage calculations and further staff review; the matter was scheduled for the Sept. 25 meeting. No final variances were granted for 100 Roosevelt at this session.
