animal rescue, adoption, ARF

Story - News

May 31, 2018 2:11 PMPublication: The Southampton Press

Construction On Third Building In Hampton Business District At Gabreski Airport In Westhampton Expected To Begin

The site plan for Phase 2A of the Hampton Business District is currently being reviewed by the Southampton Town Planning Board. A final decision will be made within the next month, following a public hearing. ELSIE BOSKAMP
Jun 5, 2018 2:03 PM

Representatives of Rechler Equity Partners, a real estate and construction development company that is building and operating the Hampton Business District at Francis S. Gabreski Airport, plan to break ground on construction of a third building in the Westhampton business park within the next few weeks.

“We’re excited,” the company’s managing partner, Mitchell Rechler, said. “We anticipate completion by the first quarter of next year.”

The Southampton Town Planning Board is expected to make a final decision within the next month on the site plan application for the construction, which falls under Phase 2A of the Gabreski Airport Planned Development District, or PDD—a zoning mechanism that can allow for more intense developments in exchange for community benefits.

The plan submitted by Rechler Equity includes the construction of a 64,360-square-foot building at 215 Roger’s Way, which is located in the southwest portion of the business district, just to the right of the main entrance, ahead of the existing building and parking lot that sits beside the Walking Figure statue.

If approved by the board, the construction will sit on 6.8 acres and will include a parking lot with 198 spaces.

The building is expected to be used for office, showroom, warehouse and industrial uses. According to Mr. Rechler, 30,000 square feet will be used for office space, and the remaining space will feature smaller “industrial-type spaces,” which are expected to each be between 2,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet. The smaller spaces will consist of approximately 10 percent office space and 90 percent manufacturing and warehouse space, Mr. Rechler explained.

According to Planning Board Chairman Dennis Finnerty, the site plan application has reached the public comment phase, and the board likely will vote on the plan at a meeting on June 14 or 28.

The proposal was initially discussed by board members at their regular meeting on May 24, when Guy Germano, the Holbrook-based attorney representing the Rechlers, presented the new site plan. “We are providing all of the parking that is required,” he said at the meeting.

The airport PDD was originally approved in 2007 and, according to Mr. Finnerty, the Gabreski PDD does not have an expiration date. “It’s a permanent change of zone,” he said.

PDDs are planning tools that allow developers to surpass zoning restrictions on their properties in exchange for a community benefit. The PDD zoning legislation, which was passed by the Town Board in September 1995, became the subject of public criticism and, in 2017, the Town Board decided to stop reviewing and accepting new PDD applications.

You have read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

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

Already a subscriber? LOG IN HERE

Well isn't that just wonderful did you people think to ask them when they plan on starting work on the Canoe Place Inn while you had them on the phone?
By widow gavits (201), sag harbor on Jun 1, 18 4:01 PM
2 members liked this comment
Did Suffolk sell all of WH to them??? What a deal???
By knitter (1363), Southampton on Jun 1, 18 5:43 PM
Maybe so, but selling it is far superior to just having public land handed over to them which appears to be what has happened in Hampton Bays.

Still no response from anyone who knows how Rechler got the land from the county that used to be the approach to the old Montauk Highway bridge and why will the county be moving North Road to the east to give them more room for parking.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 2, 18 11:24 PM
The County Leased the land to them. It has been sitting fallow for years. The county is broke and looking for ways to raise money. Taxing residential rentals, increasing park fees, leasing land etc.
By North Sea Citizen (493), North Sea on Jun 3, 18 7:03 AM
They are building on leased land? Will the purchasers of the townhouses have encumbered titles to their property? Was the property made available to the public in the light of day or was this an under-the-table deal? Please direct us to any documentation to support your statement.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 3, 18 10:11 AM
the rechlers employ local skilled workers, I'm looking forward to the next phase as the present buildings will last many years trouble free.
By politcal pawn (117), Flanders on Jun 3, 18 9:30 AM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Turkey Bridge (1856), Quiogue on Jun 5, 18 8:28 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 5, 18 3:44 PM
... you cant knock the Rechlers and be pro-Hills. They are cut of the same cloth. They have no regard for the environment or the future of the Town.The Rechlers sold a bill of goods to an incompetent Throne-Holst led town board and, unfortunately, got approved.

The hills was not a "partisan issue" since Schneiderman voted for it. Too much money was given to the town and county political parties for him to vote "no". Check it out for yourself. Let's talk about following the money.

Are ...more
By William Rodney (501), southampton on Jun 5, 18 4:48 PM
1 member liked this comment
I certainly can "knock the Rechlers and be pro-Hills" because I examine all the information regarding the proposals individually based on real information, not politics, not emotions. One size, certainly, does not fit all. Ensuring that any project does not have an adverse impact on the impact is the responsibility of the boards - we pay them to hold the feet of the developers to the fire. The problem is that the job we pay them to do falls behind their partisan loyalties and quid pro quos.

How ...more
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 5, 18 11:29 PM
Yes let's just keep living in Decay Hampton Bays good time looks so wonderful as it is, why do anything to help the image of the town. Oh that's right your property taxes may go up can't have that can we. Gentrification happens maybe it's time you move to South Carolina y'all
By widow gavits (201), sag harbor on Jun 5, 18 9:30 PM
vos, the people who wanted to "save cpi" because they had their communion there, are the cause of the problem, not the Rechlers. Some of them have moved on to the CPI in the sky. I don't think that many of the Townhouse supporters think it is a great project, but at this point, it needs to get done. This completion of this project is very symbolic for many people in Hampton Bays.
By HB Proud (870), Hampton Bays on Jun 6, 18 6:21 AM
That is all beside the point, as a famous poet once said "You can't always get what you want." There may have been good reason to save the Canoe Place Inn in the minds of some but to allow the huge bait-and-switch that linked that project to a townhouse development on a separate parcel is absurd. That is the "cause of the problem." People's desires did not create the situation, poor planning and bending to the wishes of powerful developers did.

There has been not a single sign, hint or ...more
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 6, 18 2:31 PM
vos, we can agree to disagree on this. I blame the "safe cpi" people pushing hard against the original development without understand the unintended consequences. The developers bent over backwards for these people. These people wanted to stop progress like progress is a 4-letter word. They were left no choice if they wanted to save their precious cpi then to support the townhouses. It is now 15 years - it is a done deal and time to move on.
By HB Proud (870), Hampton Bays on Jun 6, 18 10:39 PM
The problem is that, in my opinion, the developers have no intention to complete the project at the Canoe Place Inn and now that the Town has essentially given the developers carte blanche on the townhouse site the entire PDD will be a lose, lose for the people of Hampton Bays.

They have lost vibrant businesses and RWB zoning which had been identified as essential to the well being of the area and will have lost any chance to renovate the CPI as the developers accelerated its deterioration ...more
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 7, 18 2:15 AM
The Town has been scammed by a developer once again , the CPI is close to actually falling down while the condo project is underway.
By bigfresh (3614), north sea on Jun 7, 18 6:01 AM
2 members liked this comment
I am not buying into the developer scamming anyone so we can agree to disagree on that. I believe the "scam" is the Town Board listening to a small group of like minded individuals who make themselves out to be bigger than life and are now think they speak for the community. This is not on the Rechlers, this is on the "Save CPI" movement and the Town Board who couldn't see the through their "scam".
By HB Proud (870), Hampton Bays on Jun 7, 18 9:22 AM
What you are describing is politicians pandering to a few loud voices at the expense of the entire community. The people have only their voices, the Town Board has the power and the responsibility to filter the noise and make good decisions for everyone not simply to garner a few votes by kowtowing to those that shout the loudest. What we see in Hampton Bays is an abject failure of representative government.

This, however, is nothing new, particularly in Hampton Bays, where the empty ...more
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 8, 18 2:34 AM
1 member liked this comment
At least we all agree that CPI would be its best as a pile of ashes.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3538), HAMPTON BAYS on Jun 8, 18 6:09 AM
I'm sorry. I do not agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the project to renovate the Canoe Place Inn. A well run resort with catering facilities would be an asset to the community.

There are two huge problems surrounding that however. The linking of such a project to the destructive development on the other side of the canal is one. The other is the abject failure of the Town to require the developers to maintain the site of the Canoe Place Inn in an acceptable fashion and ...more
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 8, 18 3:04 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Turkey Bridge (1856), Quiogue on Jun 7, 18 12:54 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 7, 18 3:23 PM
Let me try to state my views in a form that's more acceptable to the management: Our friend VOS, who has consistently, invariably, and sometimes heatedly supported the Discovery Land proposals for East Quogue (The Hills/Lewis Road), is nevertheless launching a great deal of criticism at the Rechlers' project in Hampton Bays. This apparent inconsistency is inexplicable to me except as commercial rivalry -- developer vs. developer. Others have alleged that VOS is in the employ of Discovery. I ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1856), Quiogue on Jun 8, 18 10:09 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 9, 18 4:04 AM
1 member liked this comment

I provided multiple quotes from Turkey Bridge in which he, not "others," accused me of working for Discovery even after he claimed a simple denial would be fine. I also provided dictionary definitions of "shill" and "Partisan Hack."

The truth is what I post.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 9, 18 1:45 PM
So you do work on behalf of Discovery then?
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (540), southampton on Jun 9, 18 2:11 PM
If I repeat the consistent denials going back over a year, directly quoted in the above deleted response that did not stop the false claims, this too would probably be deleted. I am dealing with a very tilted playing field, it seems.
By VOS (1108), WHB on Jun 10, 18 12:30 AM
southamptons, jewelry, hamptons