The Little Fresh Pond Association, a group of neighbors who have opposed a proposed summer day camp for kids in North Sea for the past year and a half, this week asked the Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals to throw out a December decision allowing a pool and other amenities to be built on the property, currently a tennis camp.
In a letter to the board, the association asked the ZBA to vacate its December decision allowing tennis camp owner Jay Jacobs to add a swimming pool, playground and sports court for kids to his 17.4-acre property on Little Fresh Pond in North Sea without a variance.
ZBA Chairman Adam Grossman stood behind the board’s decision on Monday and said that if the group wanted to challenge the determination, it should... more
In a letter to the board, the association asked the ZBA to vacate its December decision allowing tennis camp owner Jay Jacobs to add a swimming pool, playground and sports court for kids to his 17.4-acre property on Little Fresh Pond in North Sea without a variance.
ZBA Chairman Adam Grossman stood behind the board’s decision on Monday and said that if the group wanted to challenge the determination, it should... more



Jan 9, 2013 10:16 AM






more








I actually am on the side of Mr. Jacobs on this latest twist - the board made a decision (which I agree with from a legal/environmental standpoint) and if they don't like it they can file an Article 78 and a judge can decide. I don't doubt tresspassing has occured either - I've been at plenty of board meetings for various properties where ...more "neighbors" talk about how much they love going on the vacant/wooded/scenic property. They oftentimes have no respect for tresspass laws.
Aside from the SLAPP lawsuit filed by Mr. Jacobs (and the minor no-building-permit incident) he has done things properly and has gone through the channels and many hoops. He's now doing an EIS (which is required) that is costing a significant amount of $$ and Wayne Bryun aint cheap either. If the residents are so against it, maybe they should have bought the property - otherwise they better hope they can make a good argument for it to NOT be granted a change of use.