
A State Supreme Court justice has thrown out a 2012 Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals decision that had cleared the way for a controversial swimming pool to be installed in a Bridgehampton front yard, contrary to the town code, sending the matter back to the ZBA.
The ruling by Justice William B. Rebolini, which was issued on July 3, stated that by granting the necessary variances for a 14-foot-by-28-foot swimming pool and deck, the ZBA made an “arbitrary and capricious” decision. The justice argued that the ZBA essentially ignored a prior decision rejecting a similar application for a slightly larger pool at the same Hildreth Avenue property, although the circumstances cited in the earlier ruling had not significantly changed.
In the original 2009 ZBA decision, Justice Rebolini said, board members outlined several valid concerns regarding the character of the neighborhood, the environmental impact on the area and privacy for neighbors. In the 2012 decision, many of those issues were not addressed or were overlooked, he said, as the smaller pool was approved.
“The ZBA did not explain in the September 20, 2012, determination why it is now, theoretically, willing to ‘jeopardize the environmental integrity of surrounding parcels’ when it was not willing to do so before,” the court decision reads.
“As the ZBA failed to articulate any reasons to justify a departure from its prior finding, its determination must be annulled, and the court need not consider whether the evidence was otherwise sufficient to support the determination.”
Ultimately, the decision remanded the swimming pool application back to the ZBA for a new decision consistent with the court findings. John Bennett, the attorney representing property owner Janet Finkel, said this week that he will go back before the ZBA seeking re-approval of the swimming pool.
On Monday morning, Mr. Bennett said that the application was approved by both the Southampton Town Conservation Board and the State Department of Environmental Conservation, and that neighbors have not tried to appeal either of those permits.
“I will continue to fight for this woman who is being victimized by her arrogant and hypocritical neighbors,” he said. “We are going to go back and demonstrate why there is no environmental impact to the area.”
East Hampton-based attorney Jeff Bragman, who was representing neighbors David DiDomenico and Arthur Romaine in the Article 78 lawsuit against Ms. Finkel and the ZBA, said he is very happy with the decision. “I think this is the Supreme Court correctly doing its job and making sure that the ZBA acts responsibly,” he said when reached on Friday.
“When the ZBA makes decisions, they set a precedent, not only for the town but for itself,” he added. “You can change your mind if you have a reason and articulate it. But in this last approval—which had the look and feel of a political compromise—they did not articulate any reason for overruling the previous denial.”
On Friday morning, Assistant Town Attorney Katie Garvin said the ZBA will reevaluate the application after it has a chance to talk to Ms. Finkel. “The court remanded it to the ZBA,” she said. “So we will process it as soon as we can coordinate with the applicant.”
That is a stat I like seeing.
Notice I haven't mentioned any political parties in this connection, but there won't be any prizes for guessing which party ran -- and still runs -- the machine and which party has steadfastly opposed it. The opposition is gaining ground, and anything we can do to accelerate that process will be good for Southampton.
So George, let me ask if you have ever heard of a quote from some ancient that ...more went something like this - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or perhaps this one "Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone".
The good old boy times are as strong as ever George Lynch. As a life long Democrat it sickens me that those good old boys/gals are now all affiliated in the Town Democratic Committee. We used to stand for good open honest government, ethics. The current generation has apparently sold out. Shame on them George and on those who in their silence condone their actions or lack of actions.
Unfortunately despite your attempt otherwise George, and George, I believe you to be an honorable man of good intentions, but George the sins you condemn in your missive above are being committed equally by both major party office holders and appointees. And political appointees of both major parties are being asked to do favors or look the other way for favored special interests and individuals.
You, George, have a fiduciary responsibility as an office of the Southampton Town Democratic Committee to demand these activities stop. I believe it was a Mario Puzo character we must credit with the line "The fish stinks from the head down".
Democrats used to stand up for the blue collar workers, to represent the morals established by FDR. Nowadays, George, it seems that "money talks, nobody walks".
It is in one word, George, appalling.
Whenever possible, he should be ignored -- except when he (in whatever guise he appears here) is sooooo disingenuous that he demands to be called on his spin blather as you have done here. Bravo!
The New York State Supreme ...more Court has made a wise and appropriate ruling in the matter -- a quasi-judicial board MUST be consistent in its determinations, or, as just happened, risk have its pants pulled down over here on Griffing Avenue.
O, and it wasn't Mario Puzo, Mr. Tiger -- that was "Luca Brazi sleeps with the fishes." -- it was Sir James Porter who wrote "The fish rots from the head down" in the late 1760s.
The State Supreme Court made a sensible and in my opinion, correct decision. A swimming pool in the front yard? How stupid.
He has appeared here in at least three separate identities (if not more) and argues monotonously for the Town Democratic agenda -- which isn't all bad because I can recall the days when Southampton Town Democrats weren't organized well enough to have a coherent agenda -- but does so duplicitously and under false colors.
As ...more for not knowing the man, he may be a good husband, a wonderful grandfather and feed the waterfowl near his home -- don't know as I'm pretty sure we've never met. But I DO "know him" from his appearances here, and that persona was who I was referencing.
Do they get paid?
Are they part of or officers in any of the political parties?
You could have simply responded. "oops, my bad" or "I felt like pontificating on other levels of government" But nope, you had to wait till someone else attempted to explain your actions, then you hopped on that bandwagon.
Have a good weekend.
IMO
PBR, Chief changed the terms of the story in his first post, made a comment in the last having nothing to do with anything, and you ran with it. Nothing here has anything to do with any philosophy I have regarding LEOs. Its that simple. Stick to the matter at hand. You usually stay away from the zoo where a story on Congressman Bishop results in arguments over the validity of President Obama's birth certificate. Please don't replicate those ...more folks. It is unseemly.
Thank you for monitoring whether I appear unseemly!