Zoning board approves two home renovation variance requests; several commercial items reserved
March 27, 2026 | Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals approved multiple variances for two home-renovation applications and amended another application while reserving decisions on several commercial matters.
The board approved application 26-27 (315 4th Street, Lindenhurst) after the applicant, Scott Conn, said he represented the Valley family and sought variances for a front-yard setback (seeking 21.21 feet where 30 feet is required), a reduced west-side setback, increased lot coverage to 41.41% and retention of one pavilion and one shed while removing two other sheds and an above-ground pool. Board member Mrs. Cortides moved to delete variances 6–9 and later moved to approve the application as amended; the board voiced its approval. Conn agreed to the conditions the board requested, including no further enclosure of the front porch or pavilion and removal of plumbing in the pavilion.
Another residential application, 26-29 (110 Palmas Avenue), represented by applicant Thomas Beaker, was approved with a condition that the front porch not be further enclosed. Beaker told the board the second-floor addition would add three bedrooms and a full bathroom; the applicant asked to reduce required setbacks and to increase building area to 38.84%. Mrs. Cortides pressed for the porch condition and moved to approve with that limit, and the motion carried.
Several items were not decided or were reserved. The board kept the record open on the application for Argyle Lake Ventures (an automotive-to-medical-office conversion that requests a 30% parking variance) and held Raising Cane's sign variances pending Suffolk County Planning and fire-marshal comments. For one residential matter (application 26-30), the board amended the application to reflect a proposed semi-in-ground pool and to legalize certain accessory structures; the record was held open for county planning review and building inspections.
The board said written decisions will be mailed to applicants in accordance with standard practice. The board also reminded applicants that approvals do not substitute for required building permits from the building department.
The board approved application 26-27 (315 4th Street, Lindenhurst) after the applicant, Scott Conn, said he represented the Valley family and sought variances for a front-yard setback (seeking 21.21 feet where 30 feet is required), a reduced west-side setback, increased lot coverage to 41.41% and retention of one pavilion and one shed while removing two other sheds and an above-ground pool. Board member Mrs. Cortides moved to delete variances 6–9 and later moved to approve the application as amended; the board voiced its approval. Conn agreed to the conditions the board requested, including no further enclosure of the front porch or pavilion and removal of plumbing in the pavilion.
Another residential application, 26-29 (110 Palmas Avenue), represented by applicant Thomas Beaker, was approved with a condition that the front porch not be further enclosed. Beaker told the board the second-floor addition would add three bedrooms and a full bathroom; the applicant asked to reduce required setbacks and to increase building area to 38.84%. Mrs. Cortides pressed for the porch condition and moved to approve with that limit, and the motion carried.
Several items were not decided or were reserved. The board kept the record open on the application for Argyle Lake Ventures (an automotive-to-medical-office conversion that requests a 30% parking variance) and held Raising Cane's sign variances pending Suffolk County Planning and fire-marshal comments. For one residential matter (application 26-30), the board amended the application to reflect a proposed semi-in-ground pool and to legalize certain accessory structures; the record was held open for county planning review and building inspections.
The board said written decisions will be mailed to applicants in accordance with standard practice. The board also reminded applicants that approvals do not substitute for required building permits from the building department.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
