Residents urge board to cut density of proposed 16‑unit Beayshore subdivision; decision reserved

The Islip Planning Board closed the public hearing and reserved decision on an application to rezone and subdivide a nearly 3‑acre property on East Third Avenue in Bay Shore into 16 semi‑detached ownership units, after residents raised persistent concerns about density, traffic and safety.

J.R. Dissio, attorney for the applicant LNP Beayshore, told the board the proposal would change the site to Residence CA and create eight duplex structures (16 ownership units), four of which would be offered as affordable units under the bonus‑density rules. He described the units as two‑story, three‑bedroom homes with a 670 ft² footprint and about 1,400 ft² of living area, each with a one‑car garage and driveway parking. Dissio said the layout generally mirrors a prior approval for the property and that the New York State DEC has issued wetlands-related approvals for portions of the site.

But more than a dozen residents who live near the site urged the board to reject the requested density. “That’s too much,” said Melanie Swan, who asked the board to respect the neighborhood’s existing design and safety needs. Neighbors repeatedly cited chronic speeding on East Third and Brook avenues, lack of sidewalks, a nearby school crossing guard’s near‑misses and frequent collisions. “We don’t need more housing — we need space for our children to be safe,” a teacher and long‑time resident, Miriam Joseph, said during the public comment period.

Several commenters questioned the size and livability of 1,400 ft² three‑bedroom units and warned that ownership units could later be converted to rentals. Kenneth Barnes told the board the proposed unit sizes are smaller than local three‑bedroom norms and argued that limited lot widths and 12‑foot driveway widths would produce on‑street overflow parking. Chris Gavin, a nearby resident, asserted many proposed lots as drawn would not meet current CA lot‑width or setback standards and said some neighbors received no certified notice of the hearing.

Planning staff summarized the site’s regulatory context: the property is a long‑standing, partially built subdivision originally approved in the early 2000s; freshwater wetlands along the southern edge limit the as‑of‑right yield to 14 lots, and the applicant is proposing two additional lots via the CA bonus for affordable units. Staff recommended reserving decision to allow time to address the range of neighbor concerns, verify notice mailings, and explore traffic and design alternatives.

Board members echoed the concerns heard in the room and asked the applicant to consider lower‑density alternatives and clarified that several lots as proposed would likely need variances for setbacks (relief under "F") if the zone change is approved. The applicant’s team said it would review driveway width and parking layouts, consider a covenant to secure long‑term ownership rather than rental use, and provide requested documentation to staff.

Motion and next steps: Mr. Brown moved to close the public hearing and reserve decision; the motion was seconded and carried. No final approvals were granted. Planning staff will verify certified‑mail return receipts for the 200‑foot notice list, follow up with engineering on driveway/parking and wetlands issues, and the applicant will work with staff on potential lower‑density options and supplemental documentation. The item will return to the board for a later decision.

The board did not set a new hearing date at the meeting.