Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Apartment Owner Occupancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town of Babylon reserves decision on accessory apartment at 22 Jean Drive after neighbors allege non‑occupancy
Summary
The Town of Babylon board reserved decision on an accessory-apartment permit for 22 Jean Drive after multiple neighbors testified the house appeared vacant and had hosted multiple renters; the applicant acknowledged a past error and said she now lives at the property. The board said it will investigate further before making a final determination.
The Town of Babylon board reserved its decision Tuesday on an accessory-apartment permit for 22 Jean Drive in North Babylon after neighbors testified the home was vacant and had hosted multiple renters while the applicant said she now lives there.
The board's action followed about an hour of public testimony from neighbors who said the house was not owner‑occupied and had created safety and nuisance concerns, and from applicant Tanisha Chhabra, who acknowledged prior violations and said she has been trying to move into the property.
The accessory apartment at 22 Jean Drive is on the second floor and contains two bedrooms, according to the application and testimony. The board recorded that an affidavit of posting was submitted and that the property was inspected on 03/25/25.
Neighborhood testimony centered on whether Chhabra actually lives at the house. Neighbor Vincent Verney said, “I don't believe you're being told the truth. I live directly next door. … I can see out my front window that the house is vacant.” Lillian Bergson told the board, “We're a very family oriented block,” and said repeated turnover and strangers living in the house made children afraid to play outside. Anelle Olivas, a parent active in her elementary school's PTA, said she had heard reports of mattresses on the floor and that some children who attended a neighborhood school were transiently housed there.
Chhabra, introduced to the board as the applicant, acknowledged errors in the past and described personal circumstances she said affected her ability to live continually at the address. “I made a mistake, and I accept that,” she told the board, and later said, “I live there. That's my house.” She said she moved some belongings into the house on Feb. 17 after tenants left and that she and her family have been deep‑cleaning the property because her husband has severe allergies. She also told the board she listed the house for sale in March while evaluating options.
Board members asked for specifics about occupancy and listing dates; neighbors gave varying time frames. The board did not accept the application that night. Board member Sabra moved to reserve decision; the motion was seconded by board member Carolyn and approved by voice vote. The chair told the applicant the board would undertake further investigation before issuing a final ruling.
The record shows the applicant submitted identity and utility documentation and a sworn affidavit of posting. Neighbors pointed to a prior town eviction of occupants and said the property was placed on the market immediately after that enforcement action. The applicant said her husband has moved in and out because of caregiving responsibilities and allergic reactions and that she shares a car with a family member, which she said affects whether neighbors see a vehicle at the home.
Next steps: the board said it will investigate the allegations and the applicant's documentation and will return the matter to the board for a subsequent decision. The board did not set a date on the record for that follow-up.
