Shortly after imposing a temporary restraining order that prevented East Hampton Town from moving forward with a planned acquisition of 13.5 acres at 549 and 550 Wainscott Northwest Road, Suffolk County Justice James F. Quinn lifted the order last Thursday, and on Tuesday the town board authorized the purchase using nearly $3.98 million in community housing funds.
This despite five callers, all close neighbors of the parcels along Wainscott Northwest Road, who piled on criticism during the public portion of Tuesday’s meeting.
A second lawsuit as well is now underway regarding the purchase.
Brian Matthews, a lawyer representing Ilan Rosenthal (the owner and managing member of reTREEt on WNR, a limited liability company that owns 554 Wainscott Northwest Road, and who later called to angrily remind Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez about her upcoming primary election), said his client objected to the town using C.H.F. money for the purchase. He asked the town to “reconsider that expenditure” and urged it to use community preservation funds instead, which would ensure that the wooded land would remain undisturbed.
He said he believed the town’s purchase was “violable of state law” and that there were “a number of properties that the town has title to that are more appropriate for community housing needs.”
The lawsuit that was tossed, which was filed on behalf of another neighbor, Elise McKenna, by the attorney Jon Tarbet, had no bearing on Mr. Rosenthal’s case, Mr. Matthews added.
“In order to allow for the level of housing that will make an impact, the properties would have to be rezoned, which itself raises potential spot-zoning issues, but would certainly do away with the state and town-designated protections that this property has been afforded,” he said, noting that it is in both state and town special water districts. “This fact alone should render this action arbitrary and capricious. Either the town has looked at this and decided we are going to rezone this property, which is not reflected in any document, or they haven’t looked at it at all. Either way it undercuts the use of the C.H.F.”
The parcel quickly became the center of controversy after a May 7 public hearing brought out the contingent of neighbors opposed to the development of affordable housing on the lot. While the board noted at the hearing that it had no specific development plan, using C.H.F. funds compels the town to eventually use the land for affordable housing.
In the board’s comments Tuesday, members were unwavering in their belief that they could provide affordable housing on the pristine property while not destroying the surrounding environment.
“I think this is an appropriate purchase,” said Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte. “We’ve had extensive advice from counsel, and I think it’s a legal purchase.”
“We will do a thorough SEQRA [the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act] review. If anything in the review indicates we can’t develop this property responsibly, we won’t.”
He added that common sense dictated that if it couldn’t be developed for community housing, the town could sell it and replenish the C.H.F.
Councilwoman Cate Rogers said that with the town’s median house price at $2.4 million, “the bucket of folks that needs housing affordability grows by the day in this town.”
“Addressing this requires not just political will, but land,” she said, adding that the town had a solid track record of providing housing while not denigrating the surrounding environment.
“I hear the concerns of the adjacent neighbors here,” said Councilman Tom Flight. “You’ve bought your properties here and you’re envisioning potentially the worst thing.” He noted that currently two large houses could be built there and questioned if that would be better.
“It could have been a C.P.F. property,” he said, “But I think as a town we have an incredible environment, but it’s becoming increasingly impossible for people to live and work out here. I do overall think that this project is something that the town does need.”
If there was one thing he worried about, it was that the sale was possibly misrepresented, something that was previously brought up by Claudia Chamberlain Zohorsky, one of four beneficiaries of the trust that controls the land.
During public comment, Ms. Chamberlain Zohorsky read a new letter written by her attorney, Michael Antongiovanni, in which he called for the closing to be canceled.
“The estate does not have the authority to convey full title to the property as it purports,” she read. “The deed reflects that on or about March 27, 2012, Eileen Chamberlain conveyed a 29.41 percent tenants-in-common interest in the property to her then-living children: Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, Claudia Chamberlain Zohorsky, and Matthew Chamberlain. Thus, in order to convey full title of the property the estate needs Ms. Zohorsky’s consent, which it does not have, as well as the consent of the other grantees.”
Still, on May 19, Bonnie Lawston, the attorney for the estate of Ms. Chamberlain, wrote the board stating that the original contract, executed on March 16, required the closing to occur within 60 days. She threatened to pull out of the contract if the purchase wasn’t closed by June 25.
Councilman David Lys spoke with controlled emotion of his support for the purchase.
“I’m burning right now inside,” he said.
“Every single day I think about my kids,” he continued. “I don’t know if they ever will be able to live here. The chance of them owning a house is de minimus. With every single person that can’t do that we lose the fabric of our community, we lose our economic engines, making sure that our businesses are staffed and employed, and it really bothers me.”
“That got emotional for me there,” said Supervisor Burke-Gonzalez, touching Mr. Lys’s arm.
“We’re going to be doing a full environmental review,” she said. “It’s going to be sensitive to the environment. It’s going to be appropriately scaled to the neighborhood. It is on us to preserve our town and our culture. I look forward to voting on the resolution today.”
