Jan 23, 2013 10:15 AM
- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Little Fresh Pond Association Asks For Stop Work Order At Jacobs Site And Is Denied Apr 17, 2013 10:14 AM
- > Little Fresh Pond Residents Upset By Construction At Tennis Camp Site Mar 6, 2013 11:27 AM
- > Little Fresh Pond Association Asks ZBA To Reconsider Camp Decision Jan 9, 2013 10:16 AM
- > North Sea Camp Owner Wins Right To Add Pool Jan 1, 2013 5:44 PM
- > Environmental Study Is Needed Before Jacobs Application Considered By ZBA, Proposed Pool Upsets Residents Sep 12, 2012 1:48 PM
more
The Little Fresh Pond Association filed a lawsuit Tuesday morning challenging a Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals determination that allows tennis camp owner Jay Jacobs to add a swimming pool, playground and sports court for children to his 17.4-acre property on Little Fresh Pond in North Sea without a variance.
The December decision ruled that the additions were acceptable customary accessory structures to the camp’s tennis courts, meaning that the additions would complement the property and would not constitute a change of use, requiring a variance.
The decision was separate from one the ZBA must make in the spring concerning Mr. Jacobs’s request for a change of use variance, from one pre-existing, non-conforming use to another, to transform his tennis camp and club into a summer day camp for children. That... more
The December decision ruled that the additions were acceptable customary accessory structures to the camp’s tennis courts, meaning that the additions would complement the property and would not constitute a change of use, requiring a variance.
The decision was separate from one the ZBA must make in the spring concerning Mr. Jacobs’s request for a change of use variance, from one pre-existing, non-conforming use to another, to transform his tennis camp and club into a summer day camp for children. That... more
Additionally, they have somewhat of a point with the being "misled" about the construction of the bathhouse - but that can be dealt with through ...more other avenues. It needs site plan approval from the Planning Board and a Building Permit - if it needs a variance, it's back before the ZBA who can make a fair and just decision.
Lastly, they'll have a hard time proving that the pool is "oversized" (based on what criteria?) and that these proposed structures are not accessory. Fact of the matter is there are still more tennis courts than anything else, and these structures are defined as "accessory". My advice would be to put all your efforts into getting the Change of Use denied instead of filing a silly lawsuit like this which will only cost money, waste time and annoy the applicant even more. It's not much different than the SLAPPP lawsuit which was brought before them.
...thanks for the correction. Big difference hah
Fact of the matter is, I know environmental law (apparently better than anyone else on these boards) and I know what is worthy ...more of an article 78 and what isn't. Feel free to sling mud, make accusations, call people/boards corrupt all you want. But I'm telling you right now, this lawsuit will go nowhere.
I've supported the BZA when they've overturned decisions made by benincasa and I'm supported Jeff Bragman and the people he defends on cases against the BZA. Fact of the matter is this is a waste of time lawsuit that will accomplish nothing.
Please, feel free to post any facts you have or opinions on SEQRA law to counter my claims. I'm all ears.
What the ZBA did do, was state that the pool/sports court/playground are accessory uses. The Planning Board deemed them (correctly) as Type II Actions before they headed to the ZBA.
ZBA is not circumventing anything - property owner has full approvals for the accessory structures and is submitting an EIS for the actual ...more COU application (which will also include analysis related to the accessory uses being part of the day camp).
I never said an article 78 shouldn't be filed if the neighbors feel an error was made, I'm simply saying based on my knowledge and understanding of SEQRA law, the ZBA did nothing wrong and it will be an expensive/time consuming lesson to learn by the residents. Their efforts should be put into stopping the COU from going through. I'm happy to debate this with anyone - but no one wants to use actual facts or reference SEQRA law to demonstrate how I might be wrong.
The ZBA approved a pool and a sports area- They did not approve a playground.l A variance to change the use of cottages was not requested as part of the swimming pool because the square footage would be above the limit. Si they figured that the would just do it. The bath house changes are required for dept of health approval but the changes are only inclded in the change of use variance. It is another example of sneaking in the back door.
Sad ...more to say, this is an example of big businees getting rich on the East End.