Southampton Village Delays Decision On Gin Lane Projects Three More Weeks

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Publication: The Southampton Press
By Greg Wehner   Apr 23, 2019 12:56 PM
Apr 23, 2019 2:16 PM

For the second time in the past month, members of the Southampton Village Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation tabled a decision on a proposal to build a guest house and home on two lots on Gin Lane—one of which is an oceanfront lot—because the written decision was not ready.

Village Attorney Elbert W. Robinson, who represents the board, declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday, other than to say the decision would be ready by the board’s next meeting on May 13.

The decision was previously postponed on April 8, also because it had not been prepared, and, the next day, ARB Chairwoman Susan Stevenson said the process of rendering a decision can be complicated and takes time.

She did not immediately return emails seeking a statement on the latest delay this week.

International Investor Scott Shleifer is looking to have a 14,561-square-foot home built on an oceanfront lot at 28 Gin Lane along with a 5,055-square-foot guest house on an adjacent property at 24 Gin Lane.

The proposals were approved by the five-member board in October 2017 in a 3-2 vote, with then-Chairman Curtis Highsmith and board members Brian Brady and Christine Redding voting in favor, and Ms. Stevenson and Jeff Brodlieb voting against the project.

But neighboring property owners WIlliam H. Manger, Lynn Manger, Pamela Michaelcheck and Top O’Dune LLC, who voiced their objections to the project during the numerous public hearings that led up to the board’s decision, filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court two months later seeking the reversal of the board’s decision.

A year after the board voted to approve the applications, State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Pastoressa ruled that ARB members should consider the size and scale of a proposed structure when deciding on applications, which he said they did not do.

As a result, the board was forced to reconsider both applications. The public hearings were closed in March.

The ARB is expected to reconvene at its next meeting on Monday, May 13, at 7 p.m.

Post a Comment
asphalt, driveways, sport courts, curbing, paving, drainage, hamptons<br/>