Mocomanto Opponents Seek Ethics Probe Into Actions Of Village’s Historical Consultant

Opponents of an application to nearly double the size of a 125-year-old Southampton Village home known as Mocomanto have taken aim at the village’s historical consultant, saying he overstepped boundaries and gave private advice to the applicant’s historical consultant.

The Southampton Association, a citizen group that has clearly stated its opposition to the proposed expansion of Mocomanto, is calling for the village’s Board of Ethics to look into the claims before the Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation votes on the application.

According to a letter submitted to the ARB on March 8 by Madeline VenJohn, an attorney representing the Southampton Association, a request made under the Freedom of Information Law uncovered emails between Zachary Studenroth, the ARB’s architectural consultant, and Joel Snodgrass, a consultant hired by Ken Fox, the owner of Mocomanto.

“These communications indicate that a consultant hired by the applicant was privately communicating with and receiving advice from the board’s historic consultant, who is intended to remain impartial, outside of the hearing process and without any disclosure to some or all members of the [ARB],” Ms. VenJohn said in her letter.

She also writes that the emails were “particularly concerning in light of Mr. Studenroth’s very vocal support of the applicant’s most recent proposal at the February 26th hearing.”

At the meeting on February 26, Ms. VenJohn said, Mr. Studenroth supported the application and provided his own legal interpretation of village code.

“It is entirely inappropriate for the historic consultant, who is not a lawyer, to provide a legal interpretation of village code provisions,” the letter read. “If board members are unsure as to the application of code provisions, they can and should seek direction from their legal counsel.”

The letter also argued that Mr. Studenroth compiled a report on the application without considering complaints from neighbors and other historic consultants. Mr. Studenroth “doubled down” on the analysis he had presented earlier in the month, Ms. VenJohn added, without weighing any of the information added to the record, including an alternative plan put together by Siamak Samii, an architect who was hired by neighbors who oppose the project.

“Granting a certificate of appropriateness to alter a house of this significance in the manner currently proposed will set a dangerous precedent and result in a serious detriment to the historic district and the village as a whole,” Ms. VenJohn said in her letter.

Patrick Fife, an attorney representing neighbors Robert Giuffra, Joyce Giuffra and Whitney Stevens, also submitted a letter addressing Mr. Studenroth’s “lack of fairness and the potential bias” he demonstrated in his communications with Mr. Snodgrass.

In his letter, Mr. Fife said Mr. Studenroth gave the applicant “preferential treatment” by allowing him to see his report before it was sent to the ARB. In the email, Mr. Fife said, Mr. Studenroth told Mr. Snodgrass: “Please let the others receive through regular channels.”

The neighbors, through Mr. Fife, asked that ARB members not consider Mr. Studenroth’s report until an investigation into the communications between he and Mr. Snodgrass is completed.

In an email to The Press on Monday, Mr. Studenroth said there was “absolutely no merit to any of these claims” without further comment. He suggested that questions be directed to Village Attorney Wayne Bruyn, who did not return a call seeking comment.

Southampton Village Board member Bill Hattrick brought up ethical violations at the board’s meeting on March 8, asking Mayor Michael Irving if there was a way to encourage the Board of Ethics to look into issues like Mr. Studenroth’s emails, as well as ARB Chairman Curtis Highsmith’s visit to Mocomanto in November 2017. At that visit, opponents claim Mr. Highsmith met with Mr. Fox’s representatives.

“I’d hate to see a decision made on this, and then find out that this emergence then becomes a problem,” Mr. Hattrick said.

Mr. Highsmith has said he never met with Mr. Fox or his representatives on his site visit to Mocomanto, and did so again this week in an email: “Untrue, but I guess false accusation[s] don’t need to be true in present day. Very sad.”

As of now, the public hearing is closed, and the ARB is expected to render a decision on the proposed expansion at the April 23 meeting.