Homeowner Demands Chairwoman’s Recusal From Decisions On Proposed Gin Lane Compound

The owner of a Gin Lane property is calling for Southampton Village Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation Chairwoman Susan Stevenson to recuse herself from further deliberations and decisions on his application to build a home on the parcel.

In a January 18 letter, Southampton attorney John Bennett, who represents the owner, investor Scott Shleifer, noted that Ms. Stevenson did not resign from her position as a member and treasurer of the Southampton Association, a local citizens group, until eight months after Mr. Shleifer’s application had been filed and a public hearing on the plan opened at the end of 2016. At the same time, she was serving as a board member. She resigned from the association one month before the close of the public hearing in July 2017.

The Southampton Association has long been opposed to Mr. Shleifer’s plan to build a 14,561-square-foot home and 5,055-square-foot guest house on two parcels along the oceanfront in the village’s historic district. During some of the review process and public hearing, Ms. Stevenson expressed “her disapproval and demonstrable disdain for the application” on the board while a sitting member of the association, Mr. Bennett charged in his letter, calling her involvement a conflict of interest.

Ms. Stevenson could not be reached for comment. Village Attorney Elbert W. Robinson could not be reached to explain how he will advise the board.

The board is expected to continue public hearings on the application at its January 28 meeting.

The public hearing was ordered reopened by a State Supreme Court decision, which overturned the board’s approval of the application in October 2017.

In a lawsuit, neighboring property owners Lynn Manger, William H. Manger, Top O’Dune LLC and Pamela Michaelcheck contended that the board did not properly address the magnitude of the proposed structures in their decision. It was the position of the board at the time that size could not enter the discussion because the project was appropriate for the site under zoning. Notably, Ms. Stevenson and fellow board member Jeff Brodlieb, opposed the measure.

In December 2017, Justice Joseph C. Pastoressa disagreed, stating that ARB members “did not apply the correct standard,” and that size of the proposed structure should be part of the board’s decision-making process, since massing and size are elements of whether a structure is appropriate for a specific site.

In the petitioners’ argument, attorney Richard Handler affirmed Ms. Stevenson’s simultaneous involvement with the Southampton Association and the village regulatory board. In the same argument, Mr. Handler said any request for her recusal would be “entirely inappropriate and unsanctioned.”

Attorney Madeline VenJohn, who represents the Southampton Association, which was not involved in the lawsuit but supported it, declined to comment.

Talks in December were adjourned until this month to allow the board to review the judge’s decision. However, Ms. Stevenson did opt to reopen the application with two separate public hearings—one on the house, and the other on the guest house.