How high is 21-feet? Well, surprisingly, that is a matter of interpretation, and it is a question before the Amityville Zoning Board of Appeals.

An application that came before the board March 16 appeals a decision made by the Amityvillle Village Building inspector who maintains that a rebuilt boat house at 132 Ocean Avenue by Steve Brice, meets the Village's current codes.

But according to local attorney Richard Handler, who represents Brice's neighbors, Robert and Elise Degan, the house, which initially had a certificate of occupancy for storage, is significantly larger and higher than the new building, and is, therefore, subject to current zoning codes. Under current code, the building would require front and rear yard variances.

Gerard Glass, an attorney with offices in BabylonV illage who represented the Amityville Village in Supreme Court on the question, said that Handler's position, while admirable in its support of his client, is simply wrong.

"The Village's position is that the building inspector acted properly and that position was held up by the Supreme Court when it refused to issue a permanent injunction to prevent the construction of the building saying that the likelihood of success on the merits of the case was minimal," said Glass.

Village records show that in April 2005, Brice made an application before the Board of Appeals to enlarge the existing structure. After residents opposed the changes to the building, Brice withdrew the application.

Subsequently Brice submitted an application to the New York Department of Environmental Control (DEC) for approval to do some bulkhead repairs. A site plan approved by the DEC stated that the premises would be back-filled and that the site would be restored to level grade. Brice also applied to the village for permission to rebuild the existing structure and testifying that it would be the same size and height as the existing structure. The building was put up following the phaseout of a temporary injunction by the Supreme Court, said Glass.

While the Degans' do not object to the restoration of the bulkheading, they maintain that the property was raised in the grading process by three feet, ten inches and that it was enclosed by a retaining wall. The building was constructed at a height of 21 feet, approximately 5 feet higher than the original building, they claim.

As a result, Handler said his clients' property is now subject to flooding and rainwater runoff from Brice's property.

"The question before this board is whether height is to be measured from the original grade, by the new grade or by some other standard of measure," said Handler. "That is the question you have to deal with," he told the board in his presentation.

Glass said that in fact the footprint of the building is the same as the old building and that while Handler is measuring the building's size in terms of cubic feet, the Village code takes into account only the length, width and height of the building, which Brice and the Village building inspector maintain has not changed. The additional height added to the building is diminished by the fact that it's 3-feet underground, said Glass.

Handler maintains that there is local precedent supporting his client's case saying that in 1996 and 1998, the zoning board ruled that measurements of height should be from the curb line not from the soil to ridge line, he told the board.