The South Shore Press
← Back to Local
Local

Day School Yes, Dorms No: Islip Blocks Boarding at Bay Shore’s Former Seminary

The Islip Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-1 recently that a proposed Muslim boarding school in Bay Shore may not house students overnight because boarding is not a permitted accessory use. The United American Muslim Association may still operate a day school at the site.

By Kalli Bond
Day School Yes, Dorms No: Islip Blocks Boarding at Bay Shore’s Former Seminary
File PhotoCredit: Kalli Bond

The Islip Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-1 recently that a proposed Muslim boarding school in Bay Shore may not house students overnight because boarding is not a permitted accessory use. The United American Muslim Association may still operate a day school at the site.

The 13-acre property at 26 South Saxon Avenue operated as a Catholic boarding school and seminary under the Montfort Missionaries from 1926 to 1972. It later served as a retreat house and the order’s headquarters.

The New Jersey-based association bought the property for $5 million in June 2026 and planned to open Bay Shore Academy, a private school for boys in grades seven through 12 that would combine academics and Islamic studies, with students and some staff living on campus.

Town building officials had interpreted boarding as a possible accessory use to a permitted parochial school in the AAA residential zone. Neighbors and their attorney, Steven P. Bertolino of Steven P. Bertolino, P.C., challenged that interpretation.

The site is in an AAA district, the town’s most protective residential zone. Opponents argued that dormitories are not a “customary, incidental, and subordinate” accessory use to a parochial school. Bertolino said most New York parochial schools do not have dormitories.

Another neighbor raised concerns about housing 120 male students next to nearby homes and a community for people 55 and older. She said the proposal would dramatically change a peaceful area with wildlife and a pond.

Anna Chan, a homeowner who lives near the school, said her family bought its house in reliance on the residential zoning protections. Speakers also raised fire-code questions about the number of students per bedroom and concerns about weddings, parties, a daycare program and other services included in the project’s original presentation.

Supporters of the school and the association’s attorney, Samuel L. Bifulco of Sahn Ward Braff Coschignano, PLLC, said the property had operated as a boarding school for decades under the Montfort Missionaries. Although the dormitories housed fewer students then, Bifulco said the proposed residential enrollment of 120 students was modest for the size of the property.

He said no public events, such as weddings, were planned and that the presentation cited by opponents described an earlier, broader vision for the school.

Bifulco raised First Amendment concerns, noting the property’s history as a religious boarding school. He suggested that some residents’ opposition reflected concern that the dormitory residents would be Muslim. Bertolino responded that the legal issue was the town code, not the religion of the new owners.

The current zoning code was adopted in 1967, when the property was already operating as a seminary. Board members had to determine whether overnight student housing is a permitted accessory use to a parochial school in an AAA district.

After a July public hearing that drew more than 600 people, the board concluded that “boarding is not a permitted accessory use under the town code.” The signs on Saxon Avenue remain, and the dispute is not over.

The association has several practical and legal options, but none is guaranteed; each would require time and money. It could operate a day school, with students commuting while the buildings and grounds continue to serve educational and religious purposes without overnight housing.

The association also could seek a variance, special permit or rezoning that would explicitly allow dormitories, with or without conditions.

Another option is an Article 78 proceeding asking the New York Supreme Court to review whether the board had a rational basis for its decision or instead acted arbitrarily, disregarded the property’s history or misinterpreted the code.

The association also could file a federal First Amendment lawsuit. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, known as RLUIPA, bars governments from imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise through zoning.

Litigation can last for years and impose significant costs on both sides. Similar zoning disputes can end in settlements that include traffic studies, occupancy caps and operating rules.

The school’s next public step will likely come after the board releases its written decision and the association’s lawyers review it.

You Might Also Be Interested In