Dueling Applications Reflect Conflict Over Sagaponack Property

The co-owners of a large oceanfront parcel in Sagaponack have filed separate and apparently conflicting applications to develop the property—the crux of an argument that is expected to go before the State Supreme Court.

The 43.5-acre property, at 451 Daniels Lane, is owned by Sagaponack Realty LLC. Marc Goldman, one of the property owners, has filed a site plan application for a single-family residence on an approximately three-acre portion of the property, which has not yet been subdivided. The other application, from joint owner Milton Berlinski, is to subdivide the property to create four lots—none of which would be where Mr. Goldman proposes to put his house.

Due to the conflict, the Sagaponack Village Board has tabled both applications until its meeting on Monday, January 9.

“All the disagreement is about where the fourth lot should be and getting the subdivision done so the owners can build their houses,” Mr. Berlinski’s attorney, Eric Bregman, said in December.

According to Mr. Bregman, there is a consensus among the owners and the village on the conceptual location of the first three lots—across the southern portion of the property along the ocean. However, the location of the fourth lot has not been agreed upon, at least in part because of an agricultural reserve that would span over 65 percent of the overall property, as well as drainage and concerns about drainage and sight lines.

The site plan application calls for a single-family residence in the northeast section of the property, close to the road and in the middle of the agricultural open space easement already granted to the Peconic Land Trust. At a November meeting, Village Board members said they could not support placing the building lot in the easement.

“This village is not going to approve a plan that defies the Land Trust easement,” Sagaponack Village Attorney Anthony Tohill said in November. “No village would do that. No town. No municipality.”

The subdivision application proposes four lots, with the fourth lot to be placed north of the two lots on the southwestern portion of the property near the ocean, mainly because of drainage concerns. However, Village Board members have repeatedly said they would prefer the fourth lot to be positioned on the eastern boarder of the property behind the third lot.

A different subdivision application was first submitted to the village in 2007 and received preliminary approval, although the plan was never implemented by the property owners. The owners then submitted a site plan application for development of the northern portion property in 2015, but the plan was rejected by the Village Board, whose members cited a desire to keep the land open and visible from the road, as the proposed location for development was in an open space easement area. Under the LLC, joint owners Mr. Goldman, Michael Hirtenstein and Mr. Berlinski then filed a lawsuit to challenge the decision, and the lawsuit was later dismissed in court.

Now, with applications for the same property with conflicting locations for the fourth lot, the Village Board said it cannot make a determination.

“The board does not want two applications pending at the same time,” Mr. Tohill said at a December 12 meeting.
“You’re asking us to approve something we can’t approve,” Sagaponack Village Mayor Don Louchheim told both applicants regarding the question of who the proper applicant was.

The attorney for Mr. Goldman, Brian Descesa, argued that only the managing partner of the LLC—Mr. Goldman—had the authority to submit applications for approvals. However, Mr. Bregman said his client, Mr. Berlinski, did not agree with that interpretation.

Mr. Descesa said that he hopes by the next Village Board meeting, only one application will be before the board, as the State Supreme Court may have decided who has the right to apply to the village by then.

At a November board meeting, Mr. Louchheim noted that board members had expressed for several years that they preferred all four of the residential lots to be in the southern portion of the property. He said it was extremely unusual for a site plan to be proposed, particularly on a portion of the property that was protected by a land easement.

“Since [the site plan] isn’t part of an overall [subdivision] plan, the board, our attorney said, cannot approve a site plan where the site of a residence is in an area where residences are prohibited,” the mayor said, referring to the protected land.

The property was the subject of conflict in 2015 when the owners planted thousands of sapling Christmas trees on the property, screened by a perimeter of larger evergreens tracing the boundary of an agricultural easement on the property—and blocking the public’s view. Some believed the plantings to be an act of retaliation for the village’s denial of the subdivision application, but the trees were said to be a legitimate use in an agricultural easement.