Sandy Hollow Affordable Housing Lawsuit Dismissed By State Supreme Court Justice

A lawsuit seeking to stop Southampton Town’s development of a 28-unit apartment complex in Tuckahoe has been dismissed by a State Supreme Court justice.

The suit had been filed by five homeowners living near the Sandy Hollow property after the 28-unit affordable housing proposal was approved by the Town Board on June 12, 2014. The suit argued that the Town Board’s approval of the project violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act by not looking closely enough at how the project would affect traffic, groundwater and wildlife.

The decision handed down by State Supreme Court Justice W. Gerard Asher on December 29 said that the petitioners’ arguments against the project were “superfluous,” because an Article 78 lawsuit cannot petition the validity of a legislative act such as a zoning ordinance.

The decision notes that the town followed the appropriate procedure in enacting the law—if it hadn’t, that would have been grounds to challenge the validity of the action in court.

The suit named the Town Board, the Southampton Town Housing Authority, Georgica Green Ventures and Glesir Development, the current owner of the property, as defendants.

Ground has not yet been broken for the approved project, a partnership between the Town Housing Authority and Georgica Green. It calls for 28 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments, intended for middle-income tenants. Government tax credits that would be used to fund the construction require that most of the apartments be offered at varying fractions of open market value, based on the income levels of potential tenants. The apartments are to start at about $950 per month, the developers claimed during the application process.

This week, David Gilmartin Jr., attorney for Georgica Green Ventures, said the developers were pleased with the determination, adding that they will be filing for a building permit in the next few days to start construction as soon as possible.

“We are very happy with the outcome,” he said. “It was a very thorough and detailed decision, and we look forward to building a project that, ultimately, the community can be proud of.”

According to Southampton Town Deputy Attorney Kathleen Murray, the main claims against the town were that it had violated SEQRA and its own Comprehensive Plan by approving the project, both of which the decision disputed.

The decision goes on to say that the fact that the neighbors do not like the town’s decision does not make the project illegal: “Although the petitioners may not be satisfied with the board’s determinations, they have not produced any competent evidence to controvert the analyses prepared by the board, and thus, have not established that it failed to take a ‘hard look’ at the zoning impacts or lacked ‘reasoned elaboration’ for its analyses and findings.”

This week, Nica Strunk, attorney for the neighbors, said they are disappointed with the decision, adding that the judge repeatedly mentioned a prior approval for a smaller version of the project in 2009. However, she said, there were key differences between the two proposals that the decision does not address.

Ms. Strunk added that her clients are currently reviewing their options, and said an appeal is possible.

“Obviously, my clients are very disappointed,” she said. “We really thought there was a very clear violation of the town code violations, and we are disappointed the judge didn’t focus closely on that.”