A beneficiary of the trust that controls 13.5 acres of land in Wainscott accused the East Hampton Town Board Tuesday of misrepresenting how the town would use the land after a proposed purchase.
The town board passed a resolution on April 16 noticing a public hearing to authorize the use of $3.975 million from the community housing fund to purchase the land at 549 and 550 Wainscott Northwest Road, not far from Route 114.
But that is not the future that one beneficiary of the trust expected for the land.
“The use of the land as represented to me for preservation was a significant aspect of the choice to sell to the town,” Claudia Chamberlain-Zohorsky said during the public portion of the town board meeting Tuesday. “Had I been aware the plan was to develop a high-density housing project, against both the interest of surrounding neighbors and environmental protections in place to maintain the aquifer, I never would have agreed to the sale.”
Patrick Derenze, the town’s public information officer, confirmed Wednesday morning that the town has been in contract to purchase the land since Feb. 26.
“The town is in contract with the estate of Eileen Chamberlain for the purchase of the two properties,” he wrote in a text. “The town has always conveyed to the real estate broker and seller’s attorney of the intention to utilize the property for proposed affordable housing.”
“The contract was signed by the executer of the estate of Eileen Chamberlain, James Murphy. The town is unaware of the relationship between the executor and the caller or the number of heirs to the estate.”
The hearing on May 7 drew a crowd, with 20 people speaking, the majority in favor. However, the seven neighbors who spoke against the purchase seemed to have much more at stake and spoke with greater passion and information about the land close to their houses. Those who spoke in support spoke more generally about the need for affordable housing in the town.
Perhaps most importantly, the acreage lies within a water recharge overlay district and is fully wooded, providing important habitat for the federally-endangered northern long-eared bat.
“I only learned of the town’s plan to develop this parcel last week and when I consulted our realtor to find out what was going on, she conveyed that representatives of the town were assuring her this parcel was not only undevelopable from an environmental standpoint but also was not slated for development,” Ms. Chamberlain-Zohorsky told the board on Tuesday.
“The decision of the board to permit development of my family’s land after representing it as slated for preservation is a misuse of our estate asset that would negatively affect nearby homeowners and environmental protections,” she continued.
“I formally request the Town of East Hampton reverse its decision in favor of preserving the Wainscott land parcel for public recreational use as represented to me for consideration of this sale,” she concluded.
However, it did not appear the town was about to do that.
“In this situation, the caller is one of the many heirs to the estate and might not be in complete coordination with all of the legal and real estate representatives of the estate,” Councilman David Lys wrote in a text. “The town was fully transparent of its intentions with the real estate agent as is the practice of our Department of Land Acquisition,” he wrote.
Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, who was out of the office on jury duty this week, “is a trusted employee and longstanding agent for the town that executes large numbers of real estate transactions each year,” Mr. Lys said. “Personally, the need for affordable housing is so great, I find it difficult to see the venom that some are throwing at this potential purchase. In short, it seems like there are a lot of chefs in the kitchen on the estate’s side and as with some situations, not all might be as knowledgeable as others and have their own intentions.”
Jon Tarbet is the attorney representing nearly a dozen neighbors in an Article 78 lawsuit seeking to stop the real estate transaction. He was in court Tuesday, where there was some confusion. He said the contract was contingent on the town board’s approval, but that so far, no public resolution has been passed with that approval.
“I was in court to stop the town from authorizing the purchase, but they might have already done that,” he said in a phone call.
“The town is trying to argue two legal issues at the same time. They’re trying to say we are buying this with housing money, but it will have no environmental effect because it’s vacant land. At the same time, using C.H.F. money requires them to build housing. So, if they buy it, they must build housing. They need to say it will have some impact. They can’t say it’s vacant land.”
