Islip Zoning Board grants most variances, denies fence relief and defers controversial Kismet build after neighbor objections

The Islip Zoning Board of Appeals met on January 1, 2026, and heard more than two dozen variance applications, approving most but carving out several denials and conditions after public testimony and planning and engineering feedback. The board denied a fence variance tied to sight‑triangle safety, required engineering sign‑offs for several after‑the‑fact constructions, and deferred further action on a consolidated Kismet lot proposal after sustained neighborhood opposition.

Neighbors and commenters pressed safety and process issues throughout the evening. John Tivera, who lives behind an applicant seeking an in‑ground pool setback (Application 376‑26), told the board it was “a safety concern” and said the retaining wall and pool had been installed without prior design plans or a proper structural tie‑back, warning that a wall failure would send groundwater and pool water onto his property. Planning staff and the board said a post‑construction “as‑built” filing exists and that the board could make approval conditional on engineering review.

Several applicants presented routine setback and FAR requests that drew little opposition and were granted after planning staff said they either complied with neighborhood patterns or could be addressed by modest revisions. For example, a second‑story deck relief (Application 378‑26) was approved with no public objections. The board also granted legalization requests for preexisting structures where evidence showed long‑standing installations.

A handful of contentious items drew the most debate:

- Fence denied, garage granted (Application 385‑26): Residents around a corner lot objected to retaining a six‑foot fence near a driveway sight triangle. The board split the request, denying the fence variance on safety and sight‑line grounds while granting the garage reconstruction variance after discussion.

- Claros deli expansion (Application 390‑26): The owners of a neighborhood deli said the site has functioned as a convenience store for decades and that on‑site seating has been modest; they supplied affidavits and live witnesses attesting to long‑standing use. Board members flagged that adding a full kitchen or seating could constitute a change of use and would trigger health‑department review. The applicant said they would coordinate with health and fire agencies.

- Montalk medical redevelopment (Application 313‑24, adjourned from May 2024): The proposed medical office redevelopment on Montalk Highway prompted divided reaction. Developers said design changes added buffering and improved streetscape; community groups questioned traffic and sight impacts. Traffic consultant Wayne Mueller said engineering reviews and town consultant comments supported the project’s parking and access strategy, but resident groups requested more time and information about traffic patterns.

- Kismet consolidated build deferred (Application 394‑26): By far the longest exchange involved a proposed new two‑story house on a consolidated Kismet lot with elevated decks and above‑grade leaching fields. Neighbors, represented by attorney Michael McCarthy and civil engineer Wayne Mueller, argued the combination of elevated second‑story decks and large leaching‑field footprints would create visual intrusion and could enable a seven‑bedroom house because of the sanitary design. Engineer Matthew Elward from R&M Engineering explained how bedroom count and health‑department requirements drive leaching‑field sizing. After technical exchanges and requests for clearer plans and verified site data (survey, final sanitary design and exact deck heights), the applicant agreed to return with revised, fully documented plans; the board adjourned the matter to allow applicants, planning and engineering to consult further.

Votes at a glance (selected outcomes): - Application 377‑26 (deck setback, Beayshore): Granted. - Application 379‑26 (pools, window wells, fence): Granted after discussion. - Application 385‑26 (garage + six‑foot fence): Garage granted; fence variance denied (sight‑triangle concerns). - Application 386‑26 (accessory apartment): Granted for three years (residency verification satisfied). - Application 392‑26 (gas station non‑conforming convenience use): Granted based on historical use affidavits and testimony. - Application 394‑26 (Kismet consolidated lot, decks & septic): Deferred for more information and revised plans.

What comes next: The board conditioned several approvals on engineering sign‑offs and, in at least one case, requested the applicant file for proper permits where work may have been done after construction. The Kismet application will return with a clarified sanitary design and survey data; the Montalk Highway redevelopment remains under planning‑board/engineering review with continued community scrutiny.

The board closed the meeting after handling remaining subdivision and garage cases and recording votes. The full transcript shows each application’s discussion and the public commenters who spoke for or against applications.

The board’s decisions frequently relied on planning and engineering input; several approvals were granted subject to engineering clearance or final permitting by town departments.