Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to enlarged pavilion at 8 Belmont Court; Zoning Board pauses decision
Summary
The Amityville Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned a request to enlarge a backyard pavilion at 8 Belmont Court after neighbors raised concerns about scale, drainage, privacy and an unpermitted structure; the applicant is seeking to increase accessory coverage beyond Code limits.
Chairperson Eric Taylor and the Village of Amityville Zoning Board of Appeals heard opposition June 18 to a proposal to enlarge a rear pavilion at 8 Belmont Court and voted to adjourn the application for further review.
David Sherland, the project architect, said the applicant revised earlier plans and that the latest proposal would cause the property's accessory-structure area to exceed the Village Code limit. Sherland told the board the structure would not be attached to the house and "would never meet the setbacks for an addition to a house (which is 25')." He described the pavilion as an open structure supported on posts rather than a walled addition.
Neighbors said the yard is already densely developed and expressed multiple concerns. Frank Colletti, who lives on Bayview Avenue, said a large portion of the pavilion aligns with his backyard and worried about noise, loss of privacy and drainage. A nearby resident identified in the record as Eric raised similar concerns about precedent because construction began without approvals. Janet Colletti said the structure was large enough that it could function as an addition if enclosed.
Sherland and the chair answered questions about setbacks and runoff, with Sherland saying a granted approval would locate the pavilion so roof runoff would not flow over the rear fence. Board Chair Eric Taylor moved to adjourn the application to allow the board and neighbors more time to consider the revisions; the motion carried without a roll-call challenge.
The adjournment leaves the key open issues in the record: the final pavilion footprint and whether the accessory-area variance will be granted given neighbors' objections about scale, drainage and possible prior unpermitted work. The board did not vote on the variance; no final outcome or new hearing date was recorded in the minutes.
