Thursday, October 1, 2026
Sea Cliff residents have expressed concerns about the village’s new salt shed, on the Department of Public Works property, for the second month. The structure, which stores road salt for the winter, was built as a replacement for the old one, which collapsed. Residents who live nearby have raised issues like obstructed views and potential declines in property value.
Lauren Burignat-Kozol and her wife, Christine, first spoke up at the village board meeting on June 8, after the project had begun. Lauren Burignat-Kozol suggested that the structure, which was not built in the same spot on the DPW property as the old one, be moved to where the old one stood, or somewhere else on the lot. The DPW property is adjacent to the couple’s property.
Mayor Elena Villafane said on Tuesday that it was not financially feasible to move the shed, and the village had been told that moving it would void its warranty.
When Burignat-Kozol returned to the podium at the board’s public meeting Monday night, she listed concerned like obstructed view from her property, the glare of sunlight reflecting off the domed structure, the visibility of DPW activities and the value of her property.
“It looks like a plane hangar was placed right next to our backyard,” she said, “turning what felt like a rural space into an industrial zone.”
There is a concrete wall between the DPW property and the Burignat-Kozol residence. One top of the wall is a fence with vertical privacy slats. Villafane said on Tuesday that the village has gotten an estimate from the Williams Fence Company to install an 8-foot-tall fence with horizontal privacy slats on top of the wall, to replace the existing fence and provide more privacy. She added that the village was exploring the Burignat-Kozols’ request for additional plantings on both sides of the wall.
The new shed is 60 feet long and 40 feet wide, about 10 feet longer and seven feet taller than the old one, which had been in poor condition for six years, according to Villafane, as the Nassau County Department of Health had noted annually.
Burignat-Kozol said she felt that the shed’s size was “disproportionate” for a village measuring one square mile, and that she doubted the explanation that it needed to be that size to allow trucks to enter and exit.
“We have now lived with the structure for a month and a half, and we have found it very hard,” she said, “It was our worst month and a half in Sea Cliff.”
Burignat-Kozol thanked Villafane and Trustee George Williams for visiting her property to view the shed from her backyard. She asked that the village review the matter as it relates to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which requires local, regional and state government agencies to review not only the environmental impact of a residential, commercial or industrial project, but its social and economic impact as well. The village’s current interpretation is that the shed project was not subject to a SEQR review because it is a municipal building. SEQR allows local municipalities to adopt their own lists of projects that would be subject to review.
Burignat-Kozol cited three provisions from the village code that mention projects that would be subject to a SEQR review. These are projects, defined by the state, that may be more likely to have a “significant adverse effect” on the environment and could require an environmental impact statement.
Village Attorney Brian Stolar has been tasked with re-evaluating whether or not the shed could be subject to a SEQR review.
Other residents expressed support for the couple, echoing their concerns. “I think that really needs to be looked at again and rectified,” Gwyn Lennon said. “It’s just really wrong.
Resident Hayley Smith asked what would happen next. Villafane said that the board would continue to update residents.
“We’re going to talk to our attorney with regards to the points that were raised,” she said on Monday. “We’ve had continuing dialogues with the property owner to try and, as indicated, see what we can do to ameliorate the situation from their perspective, and the conversation continues.”
Villafane added that discussion of the salt shed would be on the agenda for the board’s Aug. 3 public conference meeting, which does not include a public comment period. The topic was also discussed at the board’s last public conference meeting on July 7. The board will not hold a public meeting that includes a public comment session in August.
