Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Multifamily Density Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer seeks two extra units in Copiague downtown project; board keeps record open for final technical confirmations

5810908 · September 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Counsel presented plans for a 29-unit apartment building on an assembled downtown Copiague site and requested a two-unit density variance to help offset the project's 20% affordable unit requirement and assembly costs.

171 Oak Street LLC counsel Nicole Blanda presented a redevelopment plan for five assembled parcels in downtown Copiague to construct a three-story apartment building with 29 units (19 one-bedroom and 10 two-bedroom units). The project proposes 34 parking spaces, meeting the town requirement of 34 spaces, and includes a 20% affordable set-aside (six units) governed by a covenant running with the land, which Blanda said would remain irrespective of future ownership.

Blanda explained the applicant seeks a two-unit density variance (29 units proposed versus 27 units allowed under the zoning as-read) to subsidize construction and the long-term affordable component. The project's traffic consultant provided a trip-generation study concluding a minimal net increase in peak-hour trips, and the fire marshal had no unresolved issues reported in the meeting. Counsel cited a prior downtown Copiague density variance (the Lofts project) that had allowed additional units as precedent.

The board asked about parking sufficiency and unit mix for the affordable component; Blanda said six affordable units would be mixed and scattered throughout the building rather than concentrated. The architect confirmed a flat roof and that mechanical equipment would be small split units centered on the roof.

The hearing was closed and the record kept open for any remaining technical confirmations; the board signaled readiness to consider a motion but left the final administrative steps pending minor outstanding items. The record includes planning and fire-marshal memos, a traffic study by IMEG and site-plan approvals from planning.