Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, welcome to the town of Bablin Planning Board. Uh today we do have uh one public hearing. So we will begin this meeting with the pledge of allegiance. Let's see. Could you lead us in the pledge, please? To the flag of the United States of America,

Julian Nolan, present. Gerald O'Neal, present. Edwin, present. Daniel Tukan, president, Frank Santos, Nimiko Healey, Greg Axiola, Mattis Espazito, and Rich Casey. So, we have a quorum. And again, for the record, today is the 1st of December, 2025. Public hearing job 2513B.

Okay. Before we start the public hearing, I'm required to read. Sorry. We're ready.

It's not just because you're a female attorney. So, I'll remember it's the pink one first. Okay. The planning board shall have the right to rely on any information that is presented by the applicant. If any such information is later found to be inaccurate or incorrect, the planning board may determine that any approvals, building permits, or other actions previously granted in connection with the application or null and void. Who's here on behalf of the applicant? Please state your name and address. Okay. Could you announce the public hearing?

Job 2513B. John Fuchia proposes to subdivide four parcels into three parcels in order to erect a new two-story single family dwelling on lot number two and legally maintain the existing dwellings on lot number one and three. The cottage on lot number one is to be removed. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Nicole Bland. I'm an attorney at Bazelle Bllanda and Viscanti with offices at 535 Broad Hollow Road in Melville. Have you I had the opportunity to review the memorandum regarding this application from planning commissioners dated November 24th, 2025.

Yes, I have. Are there any issues, any concerns, any matters that you'd like to bring to our attention? Sure.

That are part of this memo. So, there's only one um that I'm going to bring up during my presentation and that's the uh there's one covenant no or actually it's owner occupied um on lots one and lot three where there's existing homes um and it is such an oversized parcel which I'll get into. I would respectfully request that we not put an owner occupied covenant on it. Um it's just something I'm asking the board. Obviously, we want the subdivision. So, at the end of the day, it's at the board's discretion, but I'll explain why I'm asking for that in particular. Um, but for the new home, we would have no problem owner occupied and all the other covenants. Um, and as far as any of the other covenants and conditions, we consent to all of those.

Okay. So, I'm here tonight on behalf of the property owners in connection with seeking approval of a three lot subdivision of this oversized parcel. Um just at the outset, this application does not require any variances. Each lot will fully comply with all zoning code requirements. Uh the properties are located on the west side of Brookside Avenue in North Babylon. There are four tax lots involved uh in this subdivision that have a combined lot area of 2.47 acres. So that's 159,537 square ft. Um, these properties are zoned residence B, which requires only 10,000 square feet per lot, but we're only seeking to do a three lot subdivision. So, tax lots one and two are presently improved with a one-story dwelling and a detached garage. That property also contains the pond that you see there on the aerial. Um, it will not be affected. Uh, we have DEEC permits. We're not touching that area. Uh tax lots three and four are presently improved with a one-story frame dwelling, a detached garage, a cottage, and a shed. Um as part of this application, the existing cottage would be removed. So that so there would just be the existing dwelling and detached garage remaining on that parcel. Um so the applicant is proposing to reconfigure these four tax lots into three conforming lots. Proposed lot one will have 23,68.01 square feet which is double the lot area required and it will maintain the existing dwelling um and detached garage that is on that property. It will be comprised of a portion of tax lot 4, the

majority of it. Um proposed lot 2 will have a lot area of 13,196.77 square ft. That is the parcel that we are proposing a new two-story single family dwelling. And that will consist of part of tax lot two, all of tax slot three, and then part of tax lot 4. Um, it has an open floor plan, four bedrooms, two and a half baths, internal garage. Again, no variances are required. It was designed that way. Our proposed lot three is the largest. It will have a lot area of 2.82 acres. As you can see on the survey, a majority of it is the pond area, the wetlands area. Um, we're simply seeking to maintain the existing one-story dwelling and detached garage that is currently there. Um, it does have a somewhat circular driveway. A portion of that driveway will be reconfigured to accommodate the new lot that would be to the south. Um, so there would be, you know, a little clip off that driveway. Um, and it'll be reconfigured. Again, no variances are required. Um, we've addressed the departmental comments. We received memos again today. There's a couple of minor comments regarding uh meets and bounds description discrepancies that the surveyor is going to take a look at and fix. But, um, engineering, environmental, traffic, uh, all those comments have been taken care of. Uh, the new proposed home will be between the two existing homes. So, it will not affect any adjacent neighbors. Um again the cottage will be removed as a condition of this approval. So the density sort of evens out. You know there was a cottage that over the years had been rented. It was a non-conforming structure and use um but that will be removed and so you'll have simply a three lot subdivision. Which brings me to the covenants and conditions. Again we would consent to all of them. Um particularly on the new

home I guess just from doing this for so many years. You know, normally when you see an existing home remaining and especially because these are not substandard, we're not asking for variances here. I don't see why um if we put single family and no accessory apartment, I think that should do it to say it has to be owner occupied. I mean, perhaps um this this couple, they're an older couple. Um you know, they might want to keep it as an investment property or maybe someone in the future. you have a lot of residential around it um that are on smaller parcels and they don't have that right taken away. I mean they're not prohibited from being able to rent their home if they want to. So it was just something I wanted to ask the board if they would consider it. Um so you know that that's really my um reason for asking mostly because we're not asking for variances and these are particularly um you know lot three being 2 point something 2.4 acres. I I just don't see the harm in allowing it to not be owner occupied. That's not to say that the property owners aren't necessarily seeking to sell these homes. Obviously, they can't live in all of them. Um, but it's just something that kind of struck me that I just remember over the years that when you have existing homes to remain on conforming lots, we normally didn't put as many covenants on those properties. Um if we take a look at the surrounding area, it is residential. Um across Brookside to the east are resident Cz zone properties. So smaller properties improved with dwellings. To the south are more residence B properties developed with homes as well. To the west is Belmont State Park. That's actually zoned residence A. And then to the northeast as we head around the curve on Brookside um are more residents Bzoned properties all developed with homes. as you can see on the map there. Um, so again, you know, pretty straightforward. No variances required.

Um, if the board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Uh, the project site is located near the wetlands. Did the applicant receive a New York State DC freshwater wetland permit? Yes. question.

Yes. question. I want to ask you if you know whether we were somehow change the possibly. Right. So if if they decided to move into one of the homes right now, my understanding is so on one deed is um John and Susan Porsche and on the other deed for the other home is just John Porsche and my understanding is they might be living separately. So, we have we do have owner occupancy on both lots currently, but because of some estate planning and things of that nature, it would be a nice option for them to have the ability to perhaps rent out one of the properties or if they decided to move in together and rent out one of the properties and not have to sell both if that makes but I understand what you're saying. We could have it that if they were ever to deed it out at that point, there's a covenant. Um, if that's what you're suggesting,

I'd have to find out which property. Um, um, lot two would be the new home. So, that we would have no problem putting the u no rental on it. On proposed lot two. Yeah. All right. May I May I ask a follow-up question? Can you go back to the map with all the houses there? Uh, so where we see the That's uh number 85. That is the existing property. That's an existing property. Uh over here number 70. Uh that's not on that's not part of this. Uh but are they limited to owner occupied? Is that is that only an owner occupied or could they rent that?

Lot 70. I haven't done a covenants and restriction search on them so I wouldn't know. 72. What about any of these houses over here? Hold on. This is my question. The point I'm driving at is the point that you made, which is that is typically not a requirement. That was never a requirement for homes that I'm aware of back when these areas were developed. When they were developed, yes. Clearly, this that property was uh there before this large subdivision. [snorts] It would seem to me that's the case. I don't know how old is that. Is that your understanding that that large parcel?

Yes. was there long before all this was developed? Yes, it dates back. So your your request so we're clear is that the old the oldest house there that's there the house that's there that is currently owner occupied. Um shouldn't be treated any differently than the typical homes in the subdivisions would you say? Yes. question.

Okay. Any other questions? Very good. Um, thank you. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to address the board? There's no one here from the public. would like to address the board. So we will take I will request a motion from the board to close the hearing and to reserve decision. Let's see. Motion by second. All in favor this hearing is closed. Thank you. Have a good night everybody. [clears throat]

Thank you. So the decision has take care. Decision has been reserved in order us in order for us to review any of the issues that came up or any site plan issues and the record will remain open for written comments. If anyone's interested in following up on the status of the application or submit written comments, you can do that to the planning board a number of different ways in person. Planning is located on the west wing or by phone 631-957 3103 or at planning comments town of Babliny.gov. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, that is our last public hearing.