Kwik Lube of Carolina LLC, operating as Take 5, presented a re‑noticed special‑exception application Dec. 9 to convert the existing motor‑vehicle repair site at 3270 Sunrise Highway in Wantagh into a fluids‑only drive‑through oil‑change facility.

Attorney Garrett Gray (Weber Law Group) said the project would demolish the existing building and construct a smaller 1‑story, 1,732‑sq.‑ft. facility with three drive‑through bays, relocate the structure farther from adjacent residences, add landscaping and shielded lighting, remove two access points to improve safety and obtain New York State DOT approval for the Sunrise Highway entrance. He said Take 5 operates about 40 locations and that this would be the brand’s first New York store; the company will limit services to fluid changes, filters and wiper replacement, and avoid engine, brakes or tire work.

Residents who live adjacent to or near the property raised questions during public comment. Chris Lauderback (2002 Beach St.) said he received a certified return‑receipt notice but that his canvass of neighbors showed many said they were not notified; he displayed a photo of the site from his rear yard and voiced concerns about noise, light spill, oil pollution and the proposed 7 a.m. opening. Another resident asked about hiring practices and whether the developer would provide community outreach and local hiring preferences.

Applicant and consultants answered technical questions: the proposed building will be moved roughly 50 feet farther from some residential lines; lighting will be dark‑sky compliant, perimeter shields will direct light onto site fixtures, and the applicant said it submitted affidavits of mailing and return cards. Engineering consultant Joseph Colucci described 18‑foot shielded lighting aimed at the site to prevent spillover to adjacent bedroom windows, and the applicant said landscaping maintenance would be weekly from April 1 through October and that the site would be regularly cleaned the rest of the year.

After presentations and public comment, the board moved to close the public hearing and consider the item; roll call recorded unanimous 'Aye' votes. The record shows the application was re‑noticed following a prior hearing with possible mailing irregularities and that the applicant incorporated the prior hearing into the record. The board did not issue a final decision on Dec. 9 and directed staff to continue required reviews and follow up with residents and councilmembers about implementation details and any required permits.