The Southampton Town Board chose not to close a public hearing and vote to commit community preservation fund money to a Sag Harbor School District project to build an athletic field and community park across from the school along Marsden Street. Instead, at its meeting Tuesday night, and much to school officials’ chagrin, the board voted to keep the public hearing open until its March 14 meeting.
“Normally everyone celebrates when we spend C.P.F. money,” said Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman.
But no one was celebrating Tuesday night, least of all Jeff Nichols, Sag Harbor’s district superintendent, who hoped the board would vote to commit the money before the school’s self-imposed March 20 deadline, so it could properly advertise a bond vote for the proposal in conjunction with the annual budget vote in May.
With Tuesday night’s delay, that is looking less likely.
Even before members of the public, largely those who live near the proposed field, spoke out against the C.P.F. purchase by a roughly 3-to-1 margin, cracks emerged in the school’s presentation.
Saverio Belfiore, an architect with H2M, a firm working with the school on the project, acknowledged that “the site does sit in a low spot” and that there would be “challenges for stormwater prevention.” A detailed stormwater prevention plan, however, was not yet available; nor was its cost. Also controversial were retaining walls, proposed along Division Street and the western side of the Marsden lots, because of grade changes on the property.
“You’re aware that this was a kettlehole that was filled in?” asked Councilman Tommy John Schiavoni, who happens to be a former Sag Harbor School Board member.
Those in attendance groaned when Mr. Belfiore, who said he understood the history of the land, explained that he estimated an additional $2 to $3 million would be needed to develop the engineering plan to contain the stormwater. The number seemed to catch the town board off guard.
“Is this going to be a playable field with all the water potentially coming into it?” asked Mr. Schneiderman. “We’re creating this and putting up $6 million in public funds to create a community facility and I want to make sure it’s playable. Sounds like there’s a lot of water you’ll need to mitigate.”
“One of the reasons we asked for these costs up front is so we can have a public hearing and clearly tell people what the costs are going to be,” Councilman John Bouvier said. “It’s in your interest to get us that information.”
A stormwater engineer for H2M indicated that they were at “a very preliminary phase” of developing a plan, hence the estimate.
Mr. Nichols said all the costs would be presented before the bond vote.
The town board, however, seemed to doubt it would have the necessary information that would give it the confidence to commit the money before the next meeting.
Town and school officials have said a proper stormwater plan could take months to develop, and costs could increase. If estimates rise too much, the public might vote against the bond, putting the town board in the awkward position of having committed money to a project that couldn’t be completed, since the C.P.F.’s contribution is contingent on an affirmative bond vote.
Neighbors expressed concerns about environmental issues associated with the loss of the woodlands and how the proposed field contrasts with the historical character of the community. Most requested that the board preserve the land as is, to be used as nature trails or a type of school-sponsored ecological preserve.
But that option is not on the table. A false choice seems to have been presented, between the athletic field on one hand and keeping the lots as they are on the other.
The Marsden Street neighbors may be close to winning a battle against the school’s partnership with the town, but they could still lose the war over the eventual development of the lots. And the bats, owls, and trees will be gone regardless.
In a phone call yesterday morning, Mr. Schneiderman said, “There are no plans to preserve these lots by the town if the town doesn’t move forward with the school.” The school has good reason to be interested in the adjacent lots, he said, and the town wouldn’t “steal them out” from under the school.
Pat Trunzo, the developer who owns the four lots, said by text message this week that the hearing “was a make-or-break event for the proposal. The opponents mobilized and the supporters really didn’t.” He said he is “back to seeking approval to build some fine homes.”
Mr. Schneiderman also affirmed that with Mr. Trunzo indicating his desire to develop the lots, the town would never condemn the land for preservation.
“We want to do things that people like,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “In this case, it’s hotly contested. If the community is not on board to a greater degree, it’s hard to see the town moving forward with this. We went in thinking there would be a lot more public support. We haven’t seen that. They point to the November vote, but all I know is at my public hearing, people spoke out 3-to-1 against.”
The school could also move forward without the town’s participation and tack on the $6 million cost of the lots to the anticipated bond cost, allowing it to develop the lots on its own, should the bond pass.
As it stands, the school district has only two weeks remaining to gather its supporters before the 1 p.m. hearing on March 14. Letters can also be sent to the town board.
“The focus now falls on the March 14 hearing,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “It’s not over yet.”