Town Board continues public hearing on nuisance complaints at 1531 Straight Path in Wyandanch

The Town of Babylon Town Board on April 23 continued a public hearing into allegations that the premises at 1531 Straight Path in Wyandanch, N.Y., constitute a public nuisance and authorized further investigation before deciding whether to order boarding or litigation.

Supervisor Schaffer opened the hearing after Town staff and investigators reported repeated complaints about the site. Town investigator Edwin Salas said staff “receive complaints on a daily basis, specific to the property, 1531 Straight Path,” and that investigators had observed individuals “hanging out, urinating on the property” and activity “conducive of…drug sales and drug usage.” Salas told the board investigators had gathered videos and photos submitted by complainants and town staff.

The property owner’s attorney, Anthony Grandinetti, disputed that the owner had failed to act and said his client had fenced and illuminated the property, installed a multi-camera surveillance system and repeatedly called Suffolk County police. Grandinetti said his client had solicited help from five neighboring businesses and found only one willing to add exterior cameras; he said estimates for hiring a security firm were prohibitively expensive. Grandinetti gave the board a written estimate and said a security firm quoted $125 per hour per guard and that “the expenses would amount to a total of $57,400 per month, excluding taxes and additional insurance.” He also described an alternate six‑month mobile camera-and-lighting option at $15,900.

Grandinetti said his client had collected a petition of community support and presented it to the board. He described the petition as having “over a hundred signatures” and later said he had added another 87 names; he told the board that “close to 200 people” had signed in support of the business.

Town attorney Rosario and other board members said the town has met the statutory threshold for proceeding under the town nuisance code and asked for more evidence documenting the alleged activity. Board members said they had earlier received arrests and incident reports (Rosario noted arrests submitted at a prior hearing on April 9) and asked the property owner’s representatives to provide access to videos, photos and on-site visits so staff could verify patterns of conduct on the parcel.

Several board members pressed for cooperation between the owner, neighboring businesses and Suffolk County police. Grandinetti said he had requested data from Inspector Forte of the First Precinct and that the police had not provided a statistical report for the board but had asked the owner to provide video when needed.

After extended discussion, the board agreed to continue fact‑finding and to reconvene. The board first proposed an adjournment date of May 21; an amendment was made on the record and the public hearing was adjourned to June 4 at 3 p.m. for additional evidence collection, visits at different hours and a new record for the June meeting.

The hearing remains in progress; the board has not yet made a determination about boarding the premises, commencing litigation, or any other enforcement action.