How YOU Can Help!

To:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Subject: Objection to South Bay Village Rezoning and SDEIS — Persistent Violations of SEQRA and Community Standards
Project: CZ2017-009A — South Bay Village (formerly Island Hills)

Dear Members of the Islip Town Board & Islip Town Planning Board,

I am writing to submit formal objections to the proposed South Bay Village Planned Development District Proposal and the recently filed Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS).

Although the applicant has submitted an SDEIS, the document is incomplete, misleading, and fails to resolve the significant issues that led to the Town Board’s unanimous rejection of the prior proposal in December 2021. The revised application continues to conflict with the legal, environmental, and land use standards established under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Town of Islip Code.

1. The SDEIS Remains Misleading and Substantively Deficient

Despite submission, the SDEIS fails to:

• Provide independent, peer-reviewed data to support its mitigation claims

• Adequately address the significant adverse impacts identified in the Town’s 2024 Positive Declaration, including:
  • Over 46 acres of new impervious surface and associated runoff risks
  • Removal of more than 55 acres of woodland and proximity to endangered habitat
  • An estimated 220,000+ GPD of sewage to be discharged into the watershed
  • Severe traffic overload on constrained corridors like Lakeland Avenue

The SDEIS relies heavily on developer-funded reports, such as the Nelson & Pope traffic scope, which understate cumulative impacts and propose vague or unverified mitigation strategies. Notably, the Town’s own independent traffic consultants have disagreed with several of the proposed measures, finding the actual impacts to be significantly greater than stated. This fails the SEQRA standard of “hard look” review.

2. The Core Issues Behind the 2021 Denial Remain Unresolved

The Town Board previously resolved that the prior rezoning application “would not be entertained.” The current proposal continues to raise some of the same unresolved issues:

• Scale and Density: 890 units represent a 908% increase over what is permitted under Residence AAA zoning

• Traffic and Safety: Slight access shifts do little to alleviate projected congestion, especially during school and rush hours

• Community Character: Three-story buildings and dense multifamily configurations remain fundamentally incompatible with surrounding single-family homes

• Environmental Harm: The proposal involves tree loss, contaminated soils, and construction within a sensitive watershed, with what I feel is not a credible mitigation plan

3. Lack of Valid Public Engagement or Scoping

The SDEIS cites outreach through a developer-created advisory group and other statements. However:

• The developer has not held a true public meeting where the community could give genuine input—only handpicked meetings misrepresented as public outreach

• Over 1,700 residents have signed petitions opposing the project

• Hundreds have attended public hearings or submitted written objections

• No Town-led scoping session or public workshop has been held for this materially altered SDEIS, nor has the developer held any comparable forum. The Town is conducting its legally required process, but that does not substitute for meaningful public engagement by the applicant

• While a Town meeting will occur before the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), this does not satisfy SEQRA’s requirement for early and meaningful public engagement by the applicant.

4. Legal and Procedural Denial Requested

I respectfully urge the Town of Islip and all reviewing agencies to:

• Reject the current SDEIS as procedurally and substantively inadequate

• Commission truly independent environmental and infrastructure reviews like what was done for the traffic study, free of developer influence

• Reaffirm the Town’s 2021 position, which found the proposed rezoning incompatible with Sayville’s infrastructure, zoning, and community character—all of which still apply.

Conclusion

This proposal has simply been rebranded and slightly revised. It still represents a dramatic and unjustified upzoning and spot zoning, with permanent impacts on traffic, water quality, natural habitat, and neighborhood integrity.

I urge the Town and planning board to uphold its obligations under SEQRA and municipal law by rejecting both the requested zone change and the deficient SDEIS.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Address (optional)]
[Email (optional)]