Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors raise safety and parking concerns as ZBA reviews Lindenhurst two‑lot subdivision

Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals · June 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The ZBA heard an attorney for a two‑lot subdivision on 51st Street in Lindenhurst; residents raised traffic, parking and safety concerns. The board left the record open and reserved decision pending additional documentation and departmental review.

Nicole Bland, an attorney with Bazelle Bland Viscanti, presented two related applications proposing to subdivide an oversized lot on 51st Street in Lindenhurst into two lots and to build a new single‑family house on the newly created parcel.

Bland told the board the proposal would create one new owner‑occupied single‑family home and maintain the existing house; the applicant requests variances including reduced lot area and frontage (lot two proposed at about 8,386 sq ft where 10,000 is required), a small rear‑yard variance for the new house and a modest building‑area increase to legalize an existing rear addition on the retained house.

Multiple residents came forward during public comment to oppose the subdivision on neighborhood‑character and safety grounds. Camille Pandola, who said she has lived on the block for 56 years, described heavy parking and cut‑through traffic: "Last night... 27 cars were parked on the block." Francine Magnum told the board the block has seen serious crashes and said traffic and speed are dangerous; Chris Falsiano also cited regular ambulance and emergency traffic.

Bland said the applicants had submitted letters of support, that the existing rear addition has been on the property for at least 25 years, and that covenants would be placed on the sold property to require single‑family, owner‑occupied use with no accessory apartments. The attorney also cited nearby small‑lot approvals and aerial evidence to argue the proposed subdivision would fit neighborhood character.

Board members asked technical questions about lot layout and precedent and directed staff to verify documentation. The board closed the hearing but kept the record open for further information, including confirmation of single‑and‑separate title status and additional building‑department and planning reviews. No final vote was taken at the hearing.