Southampton Village Architectural Review Board Closes Mocomanto Hearing

The Southampton Village Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review voted on Monday to close the hearing on an application to nearly double the size of a 125-year-old home known as Mocomanto, clearing the way for a vote in April—though the decision split the board.

Chairman Curtis Highsmith, Christine Redding and the board’s newest member, Rob Coburn, voted for the hearing to be closed, while Susan Stevenson and Jeff Brodlieb voted against the motion.

“When these things are closed … the debate ends,” Mr. Brodlieb told board members before the vote. “I don’t support this application and will not vote for it.”

The proposed changes include nearly doubling the size of the residence at 472 First Neck Lane by adding a two-story addition to the north, along with a smaller one-story addition. The home is within the village’s historic district, though the structure itself has no official protection as a historic property.

According to a report issued on February 7 by the board’s historical consultant, Zachary Studenroth, the changes are “consistent with both local and national standards” and the scale is “visually subservient” to the existing home.

“That’s not subservient,” Ms. Stevenson told fellow board members on Monday. She added that alternative plans were presented by Siamak Samii, an architect who was hired by neighbors who oppose the project, showing that the homeowner, Ken Fox, can increase the size of the house and modernize it “without destroying the historic facade that is facing the lake, and without increasing the size so that it overpowers” the home.

While Mr. Highsmith noted that he appreciated Mr. Brodlieb’s and Ms. Stevenson’s comments, he reminded the ARB members that it is their responsibility to look at appropriateness. He added that the board is not charged with redesigning the home—nor is that a neighbor’s responsibility.

When asked whether any other changes would be submitted, John Bennett, the Southampton-based attorney representing Mr. Fox during the application process, said no.

Attorney Patrick Fife, who represents neighbors Joyce and Bob Giuffra and Whitney Stevens, submitted a new letter to the board hours before the meeting. In the letter, Mr. Fife reiterated many of his clients’ arguments against the project, citing its size and scale, and sought to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are followed.

“My clients are not opposed to an addition to Mocomanto, but they believe the applicant must submit a plan for a more historically appropriate addition that respects Mocomanto’s original structure and comports with its history as the leading house during the establishment of Southampton’s resort community,” Mr. Fife said in his letter.

He also included a string of emails from Mr. Studenroth, including a November 16, 2017, email in which Mr. Highsmith said he would meet Mr. Studenroth at 472 First Neck Lane to get a firsthand look at the house. Mr. Fife suggested during Monday’s board meeting that Mr. Highsmith had met individually with the homeowner’s representatives—a suggestion that Mr. Highsmith later firmly denied.

“I met with no representative to discuss anything pertaining to 472 First Neck,” Mr. Highsmith said in an email to The Press on Tuesday. “This was a very important application, but I was unfamiliar with the site, and, therefore, it would be customary to do a site visit and not rely on only third-party information reported to me.

“I questioned the board if any member had communications with any opponents to the application, representative of the opponents, or the counsel, to offer the opportunity to disclose and put it on the record. My response remains an affirmed NO I HAVEN’T!” he added in the email.

Mr. Highsmith also asked members of the board on Monday, if they had communications with the applicant or representatives for the applicants, in an effort to put it on the record.

Though the board closed the hearing, written comments can still be submitted until Thursday, March 8. Mr. Highsmith told board members if new material is submitted that could change the minds of the board members, the hearing could be reopened for further dialogue.

If the hearing is not reopened, then a decision is expected to announced at the ARB’s Monday, April 23, meeting.