The Town of Huntington board voted to extend the time to decide on a zoning change request for the Green Meadow Estates property, delaying action after dozens of residents urged the board to deny the rezoning.

Supporters of preserving the property and nearby residents packed the public portion of the meeting to oppose changing the parcel on the west side of Lake Road from an R-40 residence district (one-acre lots) to R-20 (half-acre lots). The board adopted a resolution extending the time to make a determination on the proposed local law; the measure passed 4 yeas to 1 nay, with Councilwoman Lupinacci voting against the extension.

The extension matters because it gives the town and the applicant time to complete a full environmental impact assessment, a step several speakers said was necessary after concerns were raised about wildlife, drainage and tree cover. David Steinberg, who said he lives directly across from the parcel, told the board the proposed rezoning "directly conflicts with the goals" of Huntington27s comprehensive plan to "preserve and protect environmentally sensitive land," and warned rezoning would "increase impervious surface area, stormwater runoff and destroy the mature trees and existing wildlife." He also said a protest petition had been submitted that, if validated, would require a supermajority vote to approve rezoning.

Multiple speakers echoed environmental concerns and alleged inaccuracies in the applicant27s earlier environmental assessment. James Baraka said a Change.org petition opposing the project had collected more than 1,400 signatures and called for the town or county to consider buying the land as open space. Baraka and others raised a specific claim that an osprey nest on the property had not been properly reported to the board earlier in the review process.

Supervisor Ed Smith explained the board27s rationale for granting the extension: the applicant agreed to a full environmental assessment, which Smith said would provide a more complete record for the town, planning department and the public. Smith added the extension was intended to allow that study to be completed and made public before a final decision.

Residents who opposed rezoning said they were skeptical the environmental review would be adequate and asked that the board deny any change that would allow denser development. Supporters of proceeding with additional study said the formal impact work would allow more defensible decision-making. The board did not vote on the rezoning itself; it only voted to extend the statutory decision deadline on the local law associated with zone-change application 2024ZM480.

The extension resolution passed with a recorded result of "4 yeas, 1 negative; Councilwoman Lupinacci in the negative." No other roll-call votes on the rezoning were taken at the meeting. The board indicated the subsequent environmental assessment materials would be circulated and made available to the public when submitted by the applicant.

Residents seeking updates were told the environmental review process and any new submissions would be posted with the planning department and become part of the public record.