| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
 Share
|
Digg
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
Twitter
DeliciousRelated Articles
Hampton Bays civic supports Baykeeper lawsuit
Mar 18, 09 10:02 AM
Baykeeper sues over Dockers dock plans
Feb 11, 09 2:28 PM
moreA Suffolk County Court judge has reversed a Southampton Town Trustees’ decision that granted the owner of Dockers Waterside Restaurant in East Quogue permission to install 16 boat slips along his Dune Road property’s bulkhead, ruling that the Trustees did not follow the guidelines of a state-mandated review.
In his ruling on a lawsuit filed by Peconic Baykeeper Kevin McAllister challenging the 2008 decision, Judge John J.J. Jones Jr. declared that the Town Trustees are a regulatory agency operating within New York State and therefore must comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA. He annulled the Trustees’ earlier decision, though he did not address the merits of the proposed project, leaving the application open to be reviewed again by the Trustees.
Larry Hoffman, the owner of Dockers, said the ruling, handed down on January 22, has little bearing on his marina plans, because he expected to have to prepare an environmental report for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He said he can simply apply it to a new application that he must file with the Trustees.
“It’s meaningless to me,” Mr. Hoffman said of the court ruling. “This fight is between Kevin and the Trustees. I’m not going to appeal—it doesn’t really affect me.”
But the decision could weigh on other applications before the Trustees in the future. Neither the Southampton Town nor East Hampton Town Trustees typically follow the guidelines of SEQRA, since they derive their authority from colonial-era patents that predate the formation of the state but are recognized in the State Constitution.
Southampton Town Assistant Town Attorney Joseph Lombardo, who represents the Trustees, said he plans to appeal the ruling.
Town Trustee Eric Shultz said the Trustees have never used those state guidelines in any application reviews in the 14 years that he has served on the board.
“It’s always been our policy that the Trustees don’t follow SEQRA,” he said. “We have our own review process, and the state has their own review process. If the DEC wants to do it, they can do it. They have SEQRA, we have the patents. When the State Constitution was ratified, the power of the Trustees was recognized, and that’s what we go by.”
Judge Jones disagreed with that opinion in his ruling. “While it is not disputed that the Trustees is a propriety entity ... derived from the Dongan Patent of 1686, it also serves as a body politic,” Judge Jones wrote in his decision, citing a 1984 court case between the Southampton Town Trustees and the state that focused on the colonial-era patent creating the Board of Trustees. “[The] Trustees execute their authority as an agency of the Town of Southampton ... by maintaining offices and holding meetings in Southampton Town Hall, being funded through taxes collected by the town and being represented by the Southampton Town Attorney on legal matters.”
Mr. McAllister, the president of Peconic Baykeeper Inc., said that while the Trustees tend to conduct thorough environmental reviews of most projects, adhering to the detailed state guidelines which require interaction between all regulatory agencies that are reviewing a substantial project can only serve to heighten protection of sensitive environments. “I have the utmost respect for their authority and their wisdom, but it behooves the board to coordinate through the process,” he said. “There’s full disclosure and transparency. If it’s done unilaterally, it diminishes the comprehensiveness of the oversight.”
Mr. McAllister has opposed Mr. Hoffman’s marina vision at Dockers since the day the application was filed more than six years ago. The original proposal called for nearly 60 boat slips on four piers that would have extended from the restaurant’s current bulkhead and marina services, such as gasoline sales. Following objections from the community and a clear message from the Trustees that the plan would not receive approval, Mr. Hoffman withdrew that proposal.
More than a year later, he returned with a vastly pared-down plan calling for just 16 slips on one dock that would be installed along the existing bulkhead. Public opposition largely faded and the Trustees approved the application, with the caveat that the permit would be revoked if the presence of boats in Dockers’ boat basin caused state scientists to close nearby sand flats to shellfishing because of septic contamination—as sometimes happens near large marinas.
This week, Mr. McAllister renewed his criticisms of the revised application. “Sanctioning a marina use at this property will put the Trustees in a difficult position when there are navigational issues, which I assert there will be, and Mr. Hoffman comes looking to dredge a channel to his basin,” he said.
Add a comment
Total comments by davidf: 105
Total comments by ride the truth wave: 89
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Total comments by fix-it-now: 187
If he has the utmost respect for their authority and their wisdom, then why did he challenge their authority under the Patent in superior court? That is because Kevin is good at speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Clearly he doesn't trust them, that is why he sued them!
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
That is good for everybody. Now there is in effect a do over because it wasn't done up front. If the SEQRA review says it can't be done, then isn't it better to know that sooner rather than later ?
The property owner's quote "It’s meaningless to me" is very telling. I am in favor ... more of property owner's rights, but it really isn't so much about the use of the property as to how that use affects the adjoining waterways which are a natural resource we all have a stake in.
Is the Town going to fund such an appeal ? If so why ? Regardless, of whether it is an in house attorney, it is still a cost. He could be doing something else.
Bad, bad idea to appeal, Trustees do the SEQRA process, it has to be done no matter what (it is a cost born by the developer) and it makes all parties consider things up front, not later.
Total comments by Publius: 307
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Dockers was going to have to do the SEQRA process, so isn't it better to have one, unified, process with one set of rules rather than two - the Trustees ... more process followed by SEQRA? Or just SEQRA from the outset.
The Trustees power which relates back to a patent granted by a Governor appointed by the King of England, remains one of the perverse vestiges of colonial America. When do you suppose we re-think that?
No reason to appeal, do the SEQRA process with the Trustees (developer will like that, do you think the Trustees are going to say, oh no, look how wrong we were?)
Assistant Town Attorneys should be doing other things.
Total comments by Publius: 307
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Instead, by divesting themselves of that authority the Trustees LOSE power. It means another Town agency will visit the question of environmental impacts, and may that other agency may reach a conclusion that disapproves what the Trustees approved.
So now, the ... more Trustees want to appeal a determination, which if they win, will reduce their power.
That is a gross waste of time and money that has been caused by the Trustees determination to fight in order to have LESS power. It makes no sense.
Going back to the Trustees themselves and the relationship with the Town Attorney. Who makes the decision to use taxpayer resources to fight the battle? The Town Board ? The Trustees? Must the Town fund any mission the Trustees want to undertake.
The autonomous role of a board of Trustees that are nothing but a historic artifact of our colonial roots should be ended.
Total comments by Publius: 307
Total comments by fix-it-now: 187
Total comments by Native Westhamptonite: 14
A legal action based upon SEQRA does not grant Mr. McAllister veto power, it is a legal action that requires boards with decision making authority to consider the wider impacts of such a project. The authority still rests with the Board, they just have to do their job and SEQRA is a comprehensive process that helps boards to make better decision based ... more upon more complete information.
Total comments by Publius: 307
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
But somebody else will have to, so why pass the buck, particularly when the cost of rendering the SEQRA decision is the developer's ?
Yes, throw away the Dongan Patent, and I won't be paying taxes to England either.
Total comments by Publius: 307
Total comments by SHNative: 262
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
review? If they are truly committed to protecting the public interest for the freeholders who own the bays and bottomlands, they would welcome the opportunity to conduct the most thorough environmental review possible. They are our trustees and have a fiduciary responsibility to all our citizens. We should sue them for making such a bad decision.
The trustees first priority seems to be the power they love ... more to brag about and revel in. The Dongen Patent of the 1600s needs to be expanded to provide the best environmental decisions which are required in our modern society. It is a different world, but their ( trustees ) egos seem to take precedence here.
Remember, it wasn't only Kevin McAllister who objected to the destruction of one of the last pristine shell fish/fin fish habitats and nurseries of Shinnecock Bay to feed the greed of a private enterprise. Close to a thousand citizens signed petitions and voiced their dismay. Do the trustees operate a feifdom within the town? Are they a law just to themselves? I think not. Thank God for Kevin.
Total comments by Phaedrus: 8
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Total comments by VOS: 55
Total comments by davidf: 105
Total comments by davidf: 105
Total comments by PrivateerMatt: 335
Dockers changed ownership in 2001 or 2002 so I don't think they knew the history of yesteryear.
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
I never said it was a big marina, but the ramble-down docks accomodated more than the 16 boats in today's plan. I take it you don't like boats? Too bad for you - you shouldn't have become involved in a boating area. I suppose the gas tanks and pump that were right next to ... more the launching ramp are a figment of my imagination, too?
Total comments by VOS: 55
Total comments by davidf: 105
Total comments by clammer: 3
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Total comments by clammer: 3
The South Shore bays are dying because of pollution. It gets worse ever year. Even considering the erection of new commercial docks is insane.
Perhaps if the Trustees prohibit new dock construction, the ST Council will seriously address the much greater problem of the leaching of sewage from cesspools into bay waters. Some sewage treatment program has ... more to be structured. Either that, or look forward to the bays becoming as dead and malodorous as western Long Island Sound.
Total comments by highhatsize: 417
Total comments by PrivateerMatt: 335
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Total comments by HBNative: 6
Total comments by BIGjimbo12: 66
Total comments by fix-it-now: 187
Add a comment