Residents in North Massapequa are voicing concerns over a proposal by Grace Episcopal Church to develop a new cemetery on its front lawn.

Neighbors say they have long viewed the church as a positive presence in the community but believe the proposed cemetery is too large for the area.

"They've been a great neighbor for years... And this is just excessive," said Jerry Jones, of North Massapequa.

According to residents, the addition of a cemetery would change the character of the neighborhood.

"We recognized there's always a need for the church to have resources and to do things for the community. But something of this magnitude is well beyond what is reasonable," said Jones.

Jay Valentine, a resident who lives across the street from the church, said the proposal would have influenced his family's decision to move into the neighborhood.

"I can assure you that my wife never, ever, ever would have bought a house across street from a cemetery...." Valentine said. "We're going to do anything we can to try to stop it because it's heartbreaking to us."

The church's zoning attorney, Tom Abbate, said the church already has a cemetery across the street, but it is running out of space. The proposed new cemetery would contain 716 plots and would be located along Merrick Road. They would also build a maintenance shed on the property.

"I want them to know that we took all their concerns to heart at the outset," Abbate said.

Abbate said the cemetery would not include upright tombstones. Instead, it would use stone markers embedded into the ground. It would also include landscaping along Cedar Shore Road to act as a visual buffer.

A public hearing on the proposal had been scheduled for Thursday evening during the town's Planning Advisory Board meeting. However, Abbate requested that the hearing be adjourned and said he plans to organize a civic association meeting before the matter moves forward.

"We can tell them what we proposed, so there are no misunderstandings. And they can tell us what their concerns are so we can absorb them and then perhaps tweak our site plan," Abbate said.

While some residents expressed frustration with the delay, others said additional time is necessary for the community to review the proposal.

"I'm happy it was tabled because I think we need more time for our residents to examine and express their support or their unhappiness with it," Jones said.