Southampton Village Residents Continue To Oppose Gin Lane Compound

Developers have reduced the proposed square footage of a massive house planned on Gin Lane in Southampton Village’s historic district, but some residents are still asking for the village to mandate further reductions.

A handful of residents expressed concern about the mass and the scale of the nearly 16,000-square-foot house being proposed for 28 Gin Lane at a public hearing held by the village’s Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation on Monday evening. The Southampton Association, a local citizens group, presented a petition with 264 signatures to the board opposing the project.

Manhattan-based architect Timothy Haynes is proposing to build a compound for his client, international investor Scott Shleifer, that would include the originally proposed 16,870-square-foot main house, on the 28 Gin Lane lot, and a guest house of 3,700 square feet on neighboring 24 Gin Lane.

Mr. Haynes and his team showed some of the changes that they made to the design of the 28 Gin Lane home at the hearing on Monday evening. One of those changes was changing the pitch from 45 degrees to 30 degrees, to “soften” the visual impact. Also, the architect was able to shave off 1,100 square feet from the originally proposed size of the dwelling.

“That’s probably just a closet,” countered Jeff Bragman, an attorney representing homeowner Bill Manger, a village resident and former Village Board member who lives off Fairlea Road, next door to the targeted property.

Mr. Manger, who also attended the hearing, told the board the efforts were “hardly shaving anything” from the project, and that many residents would rather see the building reduced by as much as another 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. He suggested spreading the square footage between the two properties and lowering the height of the first floor on the main house to reduce the size.

He also reminded the board that they have the duty of preserving the historic nature of the village. “This is a huge change to a very visible part of this village,” he said.

Mr. Bragman gave many reasons to the ARB to deny the application, arguing mainly that it does not conform aesthetically. “It’s a very blocky design, because the height is uniform,” he said. “To our eye, the building looks commercial.”

Ric Stott, a Southampton-based architect who was hired by Mr. Manger, showed the board images of what the house would look like from Gin Lane and various other angles, even showing how it would cast a shadow over Mr. Manger’s home as the sun goes down. “They cast shadows on the neighbor’s most valuable outdoor space,” Mr. Stott told the board. “The facades are intimidating, overbearing and aggressive.”

Southampton-resident Ellen Scarborough asked the board to preserve the historic district, saying the homeowners should go somewhere else, like the end of Meadow Lane, to build their large home, but not in the historic district.

At the beginning of the public hearing, Southampton Village-based attorney John Bennett, who represents the property owners, reiterated, as he has in the past, that the house conforms to village code. “Talk about a horse being beaten dead,” Mr. Bennett told the board. “It’s dead.”

Curtis Highsmith, the chairman of the ARB, said he needed time to review the changes and the information presented on Monday night. He also suggested to the board that they review the material in an executive session with counsel.

“This is far from a dead horse, legally,” said ARB Board Member Jeffrey Brodlieb.

Through a limited liability corporation, Mr. Shleifer purchased the two properties in December 2015, paying $40 million to buy 28 Gin Lane from William G. McKnight III, and $13 million to purchase 24 Gin Lane from JV 24 Gin Lane LLC. The latter property was 2.75 acres of land, while the larger purchase included 3.77 acres of land on the ocean, an existing two-story, 4,597-square-foot home with nine bedrooms, five bathrooms and two kitchens, plus another two-story, 2,382-square-foot home with five bedrooms and four bathrooms that was built in 1900.

At a meeting in January, residents asked the board to consider the view when people look east from the St. Andrew’s Dune Church parking lot on Gin Lane. Their concern was that if this house is built, it will become a major focal point.

Mr. Brodlieb said he thought the application was somewhat incomplete because there was no visual provided, from the architect in charge of the project, of what the new house would look like from Gin Lane and from other views east and west.

The ARB took no action but left open the public hearing to revisit in the future.