The Town of Babylon Town Board on Aug. 6 held a public hearing on an application by Pinello Estates 109 LLC to rezone a portion of 404 Route 109 from Industry G to Multiple Residence so the property could be subdivided and developed as seven duplex buildings (14 three‑bedroom condominium units). Supervisor Schaffer said the board would reserve its decision after hearing public comment and additional reviews.

The rezoning petition matters to neighbors because the site fronts on Route 109 and East Drive, abuts Santa Pogue (Santopog) Creek and wetlands, and is adjacent to established single‑family neighborhoods in West Babylon and the village of Lindenhurst. The applicant told the board the project would be for sale units (not rental), have no basements, include permeable pavers and on‑site stormwater leaching galleries, and set aside 20 percent of units as deed‑restricted affordable housing if the project is approved.

Nicole Blanda, attorney for Pinello Estates 109 LLC, opened the applicant presentation with site specifics and mitigation measures. “We would like to develop this site with single family owner occupied condominium units that would not be rented,” Blanda said, and described a two‑lot subdivision: Lot 1 (the Route 109 frontage) would retain a one‑story office building and Lot 2 (about 1.897 acres) would contain the proposed condo buildings. Blanda said the applicant has a pending permit application with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is coordinating with town DEC staff and engineering, and has submitted materials to the town’s traffic safety consultant, IMG. She said IMG estimated the project would generate about 6–7 trips per hour and “would be a negligible number of trips” that did not require a full traffic study. Blanda also told the board the applicant is seeking a NYSDOT curb‑cut permit and is not pursuing tax abatements or IDA assistance.

Residents and nearby homeowners urged the board to deny or delay rezoning. Julianne Nolan, a neighbor at 31 Karen Street, described repeated basement flooding and said the creek backs up onto adjacent yards: “During heavy rains, that creek backs up and floods out my neighbor’s property… I can only foresee more flooding in these residential properties created by the potential building on this parcel of land.”

Several speakers focused on traffic and safety at the Route 109/East Drive merge. Steven Aquavita, who said he represents dozens of neighbors and lives at 697 East Drive, argued the proposed density and lot size violate local bulk requirements and would create unsafe access on a high‑volume state highway. “The applicant wants to rezone an industrial parcel to allow 14 3 bedroom duplex units… That’s 14 homes, 42 bedrooms, squeezed onto just 1.897 acres of residential land,” Aquavita said, adding that the project would increase conflicts on the Route 109 merge and urged a full independent traffic impact study. Other residents reported frequent accidents, pedestrian traffic to the nearby post office and shopping center, and on‑street parking concerns.

Neighbors and speakers also raised environmental and character issues: several said the site provides a tree buffer and wildlife habitat, asked whether DEC’s wetlands setback and plant‑list requirements would be met, and noted repeated local flooding and the costs some homeowners have borne to remediate water intrusion. Glenn Bythrow and Linda Schweitzer described multiple past floods affecting basements and yards; Schweitzer said she spent roughly $100,000 elevating part of her home to reduce repeated damage.

The applicant described specific mitigation steps included in project plans: 42 parking spaces (three per condo), inward‑facing driveways with no direct East Drive curb cuts for individual units, a gated emergency access point, continuous frontage curb and sidewalk improvements, street trees and landscaping, permeable pavers for drive aisles and a Grasscrete emergency gate connection, and a 50‑foot DEC nondisturbance/vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetlands subject to DEC approval. Blanda also said the applicant consented to a covenant on Lot 1 limiting it to a single commercial user (no medical office) and that planning staff and town DEC are actively reviewing drainage and native species plantings to address invasive vegetation.

After public comment, Supervisor Schaffer accepted a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. Councilman Martinez moved to close and reserve and Councilman McSweeney seconded; the board’s roll call earlier in the meeting showed five members present. Schaffer told residents DEC and NYSDOT reviews and town planning and engineering comments would be required before a decision and provided a means for residents to register for updates and to request staff site visits.

Next steps described on the record include continued coordination with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Transportation (for a curb‑cut permit), the town’s planning, engineering and environmental control staff, and (if variances are needed) the Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant said variance relief would be sought from the Zoning Board of Appeals; Blanda emphasized the town board is acting only on a change of zone, not on variances. Blanda also said the project would include a 20 percent affordable component (three units) to be administered under applicable income limits and vetting, and that Long Island Housing Partnership or a similar agency would implement affordability vetting if the project proceeds.

The hearing record will remain open to written questions and responses the board directs to planning and the applicant. Residents who asked to be notified will receive updates and access to submitted reports, Supervisor Schaffer said. No decision was made at the Aug. 6 meeting.

Votes at a glance: The board approved two routine resolutions during the subsequent agenda (Resolution 563 and Resolution 564); the transcript lists both as approved on voice vote after motions were made and seconded, but the resolutions’ substantive texts and sponsor details were not described on the record during the hearing portion and are not specified in the hearing transcript.