Wall or shed? Usually an easy question. Not anymore.
In April, Rudy Adler, who owns both 73 and 75 Cove Hollow Road, received a building permit for a 75-foot-long, 15-foot-high, five-foot-wide “accessory structure.”
David Del Monte and his wife, Dede, own 5 Blueberry Lane, which shares a property line with both of Mr. Adler’s properties. To them, the proposed structure will “obviously” act as a wall.
They appeared before the zoning board of appeals to overturn the issuance of the building permit, but last week their appeal was unanimously denied. During the review, the Building Department read the application as an accessory building, not a wall.
“It does not meet the intent of a wall in our code,” Richard Normoyle, the town’s chief building inspector, told the Z.B.A. at a public hearing on the appeal in August. “There’s nothing in our code that says this applicant is not allowed to build the shed to these dimensions. . . . This is a case of creative architecture.”
“So, for the record, you’re just stating it’s consistent with the town code and meets all the zoning regulations?” asked Denise Savarese, chairwoman of the Z.B.A.
Yes, Mr. Normoyle said. Since the structure measured under 600 square feet, and met setback requirements, he approved it, asking for no input from either the architectural review board or the Z.B.A.
Ed Johann, the zoning board’s vice chairman, asked Mr. Normoyle if he was in a position to look “subjectively” at the application and decide its “intent.”
“I am not,” said Mr. Normoyle.
“Even if I think somebody intends to build something, I cannot deny them a building permit for something they might do in the future,” he continued. “As an example, if I believe someone intends to build a house with a finished basement, but they don’t show it on the plans, I cannot deny them a permit because they might finish the basement, even if it’s set up in a way where I think it’s probable that they will.”
When asked if artificial intelligence was used in the review, Patrick Derenze, the town’s public information officer, said no. The structure was approved in house, he said, not by a contracted outside firm.
Walls are specifically discouraged in the town code.
“While these structures often provide a means for the property on which they are located to achieve privacy, the benefits achieved are often outweighed by the public harm done,” reads the code. Walls, it goes on, “diminish the visual attributes of the town . . . creating a walled-in urban look.”
In fact, walls over six feet high must be referred to the A.R.B., and require its approval. The absolute maximum height for a wall the A.R.B. may approve is 10 feet. Yet, the “structure” at 75 Cove Hollow Road will be 15 feet high.
“It’s going to look like the back of the CVS,” Ms. Del Monte said in a phone call.
Her husband agreed. “It’s not a concrete wall, but if you were trying to imitate one, the architect did a good job,” he said. “It’s kind of like having a warehouse 20 feet from your property line. We’re doing the best we can to screen it.”
As it turns out, Mr. Adler’s property at 73 Cove Hollow Road already contains a privacy wall, built in around 2003, before he purchased the property. The Del Montes estimate they’ve spent over $60,000 on screening that first wall and on legal fees to appeal the second.
“We called the Building Department after Mr. Adler shared his plans with us,” said Mr. Del Monte. “We were told privacy walls are not allowed and that it would never happen.”
At the Aug. 18 public hearing, their attorney, John Huber, argued that the building inspector should have used more discretion in his decision.
“The town code should not be circumvented by nomenclature,” he said, arguing that just because the structure was called an “accessory building” in its application and a “storage shed” on the survey, didn’t mean it wasn’t what it appeared to be — a wall.
“The Z.B.A. should examine what this structure actually is, what it actually does, and the impact the code was enacted to regulate. Dimensions alone should cause the Z.B.A. to scrutinize the permit. This is not a conventional shed,” Mr. Huber said. “It’s intended to create a substantial continuous visual barrier.”
“A 375-square-foot building only tells part of the story. Those 375 square feet have been configured into an extraordinary 75-to-five-foot length-to-depth ratio. That configuration is central to this appeal. The structure should not escape restrictions against walls just because five feet of depth have been added and it’s called storage.”
Indeed, Mr. Huber pointed out, Mr. Adler himself has referred to the structure as a wall. In a March 28, 2025, email to Mr. Del Monte, about bamboo removal and trees along their shared property line, Mr. Adler asked his neighbor to write a letter of support to the A.R.B., “about a wall that our architect wants to build on our side. He got approval last time for the same wall (you can see it on our property), but it couldn’t hurt. This wall would give your property and ours more privacy.”
“I request that the Z.B.A. evaluate the structure according to its objective configuration and actual screening function, not merely the category selected on the permit,” said Mr. Huber.
While a few of the Z.B.A. members expressed sympathy for the Del Montes, they ultimately upheld Mr. Normoyle’s decision, concluding that a code change is what’s needed, but that such a change would be up to the town board, not the Z.B.A.
“Bad idea or not, it did not require any variances, it did not require any special attention,” said Mr. Johann.
Jaine Mehring, a zoning board member, mentioned the email that outright called the “structure” a wall.
“I also do think that if a building inspector looks at an application and wanted to question something that looked unusual, they have the ability to do that,” she said. “But the code is sort of the code, and whether we like it or not, the accessory structure code only talks about overall size, square footage, and height.”
Theresa Berger, a board member, asked Charlie Collins, the Z.B.A. attorney, if the Z.B.A. could send an “advisory opinion” to the town board.
He told her that was outside their jurisdiction.
