Bevilacqua expansion request denied

ZBA attorney Laury Dowd (left), seated next to Peter Ruig, told board members that they don’t have to be so reticent in expressing their views during formal hearings.

Mr. Louis Bevilacqua’s application drew heavy criticism during the November 11 Zoning Board work session, so the board’s denial of the application in the subsequent hearing on the 18th was no surprise. But the board responded more favorably to Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Carrier’s request for a variance to build a covered porch, which was discussed during the November 11 work session and approved on November 18.


BEVILACQUA — HAY BEACH


Louis Bevilacqua was seeking a variance for the renovation and expansion of his non-conforming structure at 65 Dinah Rock Road. The variances are for additions 9.5 feet from the north and 16 feet from the south sideyard lines. The proposed plans involved additions that would increase the size of the house from 3,800 feet to 6,800 feet.


Board member William Johnston III opened the discussion at the November 11 meeting the with his criticisms of the application. “I think it’s a little bit overpowering for the width of the lot,” he said. “I’d like to see if they can maybe downsize it somehow.” Board member Peter Ruig noted that the house already extends beyond its building envelope, and said that the proposed addition is substantially larger than what currently exists. “That’s an issue for me,” he said.


Board member Patricia Shillingburg offered her sentiments, too, saying “It would overwhelm both [neighbors], the one to the left and the one to the right.”


The board received letters of support from Dinah Rock Road neighbors Nick and Donna Marfino and David and Joan Wicks.


But no correspondence was offered by adjacent neighbor Judy Devitt, whom Ms. Shillingburg said would be most strongly impacted by the addition. The board also noted that the Bevilacquas’ home is at a higher elevation than Ms. Devitt’s home, which would make the proposed construction seem even more overwhelming. “This is really going to stand up like a big castle,” said board member William Johnston III.


“I think they can build within their envelope and build a very lovely house,” said Ms. Shillingburg.


At the November 18 hearing, Board attorney Laury Dowd read a letter from engineer Matt Sherman dated November 17 requesting that there be no further discussion or a decision on the application, and that Mr. Bevilacqua’s design team was exploring alternate proposals. Mr. Sherman said that the applicant was hoping to revise the application to make it more acceptable to the board. This would allow him to avoid having to file a new application with all the associated fees if the vote were negative, as he expected it would be.


Ms. Dowd said that because the hearing is closed, no changes to the application could be considered. The board voted to deny the variance. 


Ms. Shillingburg suggested that board members should be more active in expressing their opinions while the hearing is still open, so applicants can get a better feel for how a decision will go and perhaps adjust their application accordingly. “We tend to be a little more reticent [during the hearing] because we don’t want to argue with the applicant,” she said.


Ms. Dowd responded, “You don’t have to be so reticent.”


CARRIER — HEIGHTS


Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Carrier asked for a variance to add a 10- by 25-foot covered porch to replace the existing uncovered deck on the north side of their house at 17 Spring Garden Ave. The porch is 25 feet from the northerly and 16 feet from the easterly frontyard lines.


Much of the discussion at the November 11 work session centered around the idea that the proposed porch would make this house more in character with the Heights community. Most houses in the neighborhood have similar porches, board members said, and, as Ms. Shillingburg noted, many of those porches “are even closer to the property line” than the proposed porch. 


She stated, “I feel very comfortable with it, and it’s going to make the house fit in more with its neighbors, and I think that’s really a wonderful thing.” Mr. Ruig and Mr. Johnston agreed and believed that the house’s appearance would be enhanced by the addition. Mr. Ruig also noted that the final porch plan selected by the Carriers was acceptable to the Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Association.


On the question of whether the requested variance would be considered substantial, Mr. Ruig said that, strictly on a percentage basis (25 feet from a 40-foot setback), it would be. But he went on to explain that all things considered, the “project itself is not substantial.” Ms. Shillingburg added, “It’s really quite small” compared to other non-conforming houses in the neighborhood.


Board members also agreed that the presence of a grass strip that separates the road from Mr. Carrier’s property line creates a buffer that would make a porch feel removed from the street.


At the November 18 session, the board voted to accept the variance, with the condition that the new covered porch could never be enclosed.


LANDRY — HEIGHTS


The Landrys have asked for variances to reconstruct their already non-conforming Zone A residence. They plan to build an attached three-car garage, requiring a 9.9-foot variance from the north sideyard line and 11.6 feet from the south. The patio for the pool they hope to build would require 4.4-foot and 6-foot sideyard variances.


The board decided to postpone their vote on the application because it would not have been able to get the three-vote consensus necessary to approve or deny the variance requests. This is because Mr. Johnston recused himself, board Chairwoman Joann Piccozzi was absent and Mr. Ruig said he wasn’t going to vote the same as the other members. 


Ms. Shillingburg expressed her annoyance with Ms. Piccozzi’s absence: “We do have [Landry architect Mr. Ian McDonald] who came out here just to hear this, who has sick children at home, but came because it’s his duty, and it’s our duty, too. And it’s offensive.”


AMICO — MONTCLAIR


Thomas Amico’s hearing was rescheduled for December 9 after an error was found in the legal notice. This is the second time the hearing has been rescheduled because of legal notice errors.


Mr. Amico wishes to build a deck for his house at 5 Bay Avenue.