Planning Board reserves decision on 29-unit Oak Street apartment project in Copiague

The Town of Babylon Planning Board on June 30 held a public hearing on a site-plan application by 471 Oak Street LLC to demolish several existing structures and build a three-story, 29-unit apartment building at a consolidated parcel on the north side of Oak Street in the Downtown Copiague zoning district.

The board reserved its decision at the end of the hearing, keeping the record open for written comments and requiring the applicant to address conditions and comments raised by staff and the board before a final vote.

Nicole Blanda, an attorney with Bizzell, Blanda & Visconti representing 471 Oak Street LLC, told the board the applicant assembled five tax lots for a combined lot area of 33,548.82 square feet and proposes a building footprint of 11,225 square feet with 29 apartments (19 one-bedroom and 10 two-bedroom units), a basement for storage and mechanicals, and 34 parking spaces—matching the town parking requirement. "We consent to the covenants and conditions," Blanda said on the record.

Blanda said the project requires one density variance (the zoning allows 27 units; the applicant requests 29) but meets the parking requirement. The developer agreed to merge the tax lots so they cannot be conveyed separately and consented to file a future cross‑access covenant to allow potential vehicle access between this site and the adjacent northerly property if that neighbor later agrees and obtains approvals.

Traffic consultant Rebecca Goldberg of IMEG summarized a trip‑generation assessment prepared under the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) methodology. Goldberg reported typical peak two‑way trips of 12 in the weekday morning, 15 in the weekday afternoon and 12 on Saturday midday, and said the net increase compared with four single‑family homes is 8, 10 and 8 trips during those same periods. She said those trips represent "less than 1% of the existing traffic on Oak Street and Great Neck Road." Goldberg also noted a town condition asking the applicant to contribute toward installation and maintenance of emergency‑vehicle signal preemption equipment and said the traffic reviewer found her letter adequately addressed their concerns.

Board members and members of the public pressed the applicant on several site details. The board asked the applicant to address elevator placement and a reported two‑foot separation between basement floor elevation and the water table; Blanda said architectural revisions were in progress and that elevator and related details would be revised and reflected as a condition of approval. The applicant confirmed rooftop mechanicals and a central HVAC system and that utility meters would be located at the rear of the building; gas service will be provided in addition to electric.

Public commenter Michael Higgins, who identified himself as a Copiague resident, said the site appears generally appropriate for redevelopment but urged the board to consider reducing turning conflicts at the Oak Street driveway during peak hours by making the curb cut right‑turn only. "I would encourage the board to consider if you could make that right turn only," Higgins said. Board members noted Oak Street is a Suffolk County roadway and that final curb‑cut jurisdiction and signal timing changes rest with the Suffolk County Department of Public Works.

The applicant said the site plan provides two on‑site electric vehicle charging spaces and landscaping, that all lighting will be dark‑sky compliant, and that 20% of units (six units) will be set aside as affordable under HUD‑driven affordability targets (the applicant and consultant said the specific income targeting and rent levels are determined under HUD calculations and will vary with area median income). The applicant indicated it is not seeking IDA tax exemptions.

After public comment and board discussion the planning board closed the public hearing and "reserved decision" to allow staff to review requested revisions and conditions; the record was left open for written comments and the board instructed staff to include outstanding clarifications in the decision memo.

The board requested that future materials include the specific affordability target (the HUD income band used to set rents), the finalized elevator/water‑table details, the precise EV charger level if required by the DEC condition, and any documentation of the applicant's contribution toward emergency‑vehicle signal preemption. The board also asked staff to confirm Suffolk County DPW requirements for the curb cut and any right‑turn‑only option.

The planning board meeting record remains open for written comments to the Planning Department (in person at the West Wing of Town Hall, by phone, or the planningcomments contact provided by staff) while the board prepares a decision on the application.