quogue, club, hotel, inn, luxury, hamptons, visit
27east.com

Story - News

Residents Challenge Day Camp Application

Publication: The Southampton Press
By Rohma Abbas   Sep 8, 2011 4:09 PM
Sep 14, 2011 11:40 AM

A group of neighbors who have opposed a plan to create a seasonal day camp on Majors Path in North Sea are now challenging a determination by Southampton Town Building Inspector Michael Benincasa that the most recent form of the proposal is not an expansion or change of use from what currently exists at the site.

Residents opposed to the camp filed an appeal with the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday challenging Mr. Benincasa’s determination—his support of a list of 10 items prepared by the developer’s attorney, Wayne Bruyn of O’Shea, Marcincuk and Bruyn in Southampton.

The report states that the application does not present an increase in size or change of the current preexisting, nonconforming use at the site. Because of that, the report agrees with the developer’s claim that the project does not need review by the ZBA or the granting of variances, and the proposal can go directly to the Planning Board for site plan approval.

Property owner Jay Jacobs, under the auspices of Southampton Day Camp Realty LLC, had originally sought use variances from the ZBA, but in recent weeks withdrew the application and instead is asking for a site plan review from the Planning Board, intending to renovate the structures currently on the property.

The project aims to create a day camp that would boast an enrollment of up to 400 campers. The camp would also employ about 60 counselors who would live on the 17.3-acre campgrounds during the summer months. That has not changed from the original proposal, though organizers acknowledge that enrollment likely will be smaller in the first few years.

According to town documents filed by the applicant, the entire property has been used as a sports camp and facility since the 1930s, although there’s nothing currently operating on the property. Mr. Jacobs said a tennis club and day camp was running as recently as last year, but residents challenge that, claiming that the camp use has been abandoned for decades. They say that children haven’t attended camp there for at least 40 years.

The plan became the subject of public outcry earlier this summer when Mr. Jacobs was looking to expand the facilities on the site. Residents said they feared that the opening of a summer day camp would create traffic and noise problems, and could pollute neighboring Little Fresh Pond.

Now, Mr. Jacobs is looking to keep the current structures on the property—which includes 12 cottages and several sports courts and decks—while also upgrading some of the facilities, like the site’s septic system.

In support of the Planning Board application, Mr. Bruyn obtained a determination from Mr. Benincasa last month that essentially established that the proposed day camp was a preexisting, non-conforming use, and that the proposed plan does not constitute a change or expansion of that use.

But the neighbors are contesting Mr. Benincasa’s determination. On Monday, a group of them, who belong to four local community groups representing several hundred residents—the Little Fresh Pond Association, the Lake Missapogue (Big Fresh Pond) Association, the North Sea Citizens Action Committee, and the North Sea Neighbors—filed an application with the ZBA to appeal Mr. Benincasa’s determination. They argue that Mr. Jacobs’s plans are a change in use from the current site’s operations.

They are also claiming that the pre-existing, nonconforming summer camp use was abandoned, noting that, most recently, a tennis club was run on the property, and that overnight campers haven’t been there for decades. They’re also claiming that the application now before the Planning Board still requires area and use variances.

“Because the property is in a residential district, it cannot be used for commercial uses, other than the use it was deemed to have previously had by the ZBA in 1998, which was a tennis club,” Foster Maer, a resident who belongs to the Little Fresh Pond Association, said in an email statement. “Thus, it cannot be used as a day camp. We believe that this is the fundamental issue that needs to be decided first before any determinations about it are made by the town.”

On Tuesday morning, Mr. Jacobs, who did not know about the residents’ ZBA appeal, said he was still going forward with the Planning Board application as planned.

“I don’t think their argument has merit, and I think that the characterization of the size of our project is a gross exaggeration,” he said. “I think that they have every right to make their challenge, and I’m pretty confident that we’re right, both in the facts and the law, and we’ll prevail on it. And that’s that.”

1  |  2  >>  

You have read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Yes! I'll try a one-month
Premium Membership
for just 99¢!
CLICK HERE

Already a subscriber? LOG IN HERE

How is the camp going to be a danger to little fresh? Before it was a tennis club in the 80's and 90's it was a boy's camp. Little Fresh was never negatively impacted before so why would it be now. Why don't the nimby's just be hones and say they don't want it near them and stop the b.s. about save Little Fresh. Ridiculous.
By icecreamman (175), Southampton on Sep 9, 11 9:01 AM
5 members liked this comment
The camp is an abandoned, pre-existing nonconforming use located on residentially zoned property. Now the new owner wants to change the use & bring in 500 kids & pretend it's still a quiet little tennis club. Would YOU want that next to YOUR house or 500 toilets flushing 10x a day into YOUR lake?
By East End 2 (65), Southampton on Sep 9, 11 9:42 PM
1 member liked this comment
While i'm in the camp against expansion of the pre-existing non-conforming use for fears of degradation to the pond it does no good to rant and rave using hyperboles.

500 toilets X 10 flushes/day = 5,000 potty breaks. I would put the number at 1500 flushes/day which is far more realistic.

The property could accomodate approximately 15 homes if they did their as-of-right subdivision. 15 homes (assuming an average occupancy of 4 people per home) would yield ~ 300 flushes/day ...more
By Nature (2460), Hampton Bays on Sep 11, 11 11:05 PM
What would really be bad is all those people in those houses who don't shower, prepare food, wash clothes and dishes and water their fertilized lawns. Imagine how bad the area would look and smell if that were to happen!
By VOS (572), WHB on Sep 11, 11 11:42 PM
1 member liked this comment
Nice try, Nature...but your entire argument goes out the window for the simple fact that you cannot guarantee at all that the 15 homes are only going to be used during the 3 months of summer. Much like most of the homes in that area, they are used 12 months a year. The summer camp, by definition, would only operate during the summer months. You, Nature, cannot make any assumption that the homes would only be used during the summer. Run the numbers again, using 12 months of use for the homes, ...more
By GoBlue (3), Dix Hills on Sep 12, 11 8:51 AM
1 member liked this comment
I have heard alot of people say that this camp is going to pollute the pond - I have attended a few of the hearings and have taken a look at the proposed plans - the structures are several hundred feet away from the pond - can ANY of you naysayers PROVE that the camp will pollute the pond? All I hear is words, and no one has offered any evidence...and let me ask you this - what about all of you homeowners surrounding the pond - are YOU absolutely certain that you're not polluting the pond yourselves?! ...more
By GoBlue (3), Dix Hills on Sep 11, 11 9:40 PM
Exactly...As Go Blue stated, the proposed structures are well away from the pond. These protests are not about pollution, it's classic NIMBY-ism. There are always going to be people to protest things. Hell, I'm one of them...I was one of the people who protested LIPA's plan to put up huge power line poles on the back roads of Water Mill and Bridgehapton. But this protest really seems to be without merit.
By TheWaterMillian (20), Water Mill on Sep 14, 11 3:45 PM
There are a numerous clinical studies which measure sewage per acre and what a parcel of land can and cannot accomodate. By the developers own plans, he admits that he exceeds the sewage limitations for the size of the lot. Though the Pond may be a few hundred feet away, it does not matter in the least. The watershed under the property is a direct filter into the pond.... not to mention all the private wells for the surrounding homes.
By Celeste (3), Southampton on Oct 3, 11 1:59 PM
The questions about whether or not Little Fresh Pond would be adversely affected by Jacobs' camp could, and should only be answered by a full environmental review undertaken by qualified professionals, and not by a lot of uninformed people ,on either side, talking out of their keisters. Of course, this is not an inexpensive proposition and Jacobs, understandably, doesn't want to spend the money and, more importantly, doesn't want to roll the dice and let the project live or die based on an honest ...more
By nagaika (6), Southampton on Sep 15, 11 2:15 AM
I thought the owner was/is required to install a sewage treatment facility just like the one at the Majors Path Condos.
By auntof9 (59), Southampton on Sep 15, 11 7:40 PM
©2014, 27east.com / The Press News Group - Ph: 631-283-4100 - mailbag@27east.com