There was a period of time, not too long ago, when the Southampton Village Board could be counted on to pass almost any resolution or legislation with a 5-0 vote.
It happened so frequently, in fact, that many residents began to question if that kind of uniformity of thought was healthy for the village, or if it was a sign that the art of dissent had been lost, along with a willingness to thoughtfully examine both sides of any given issue.
One thing’s been made clear in the second half of the calendar year — that period of smooth sailing and boardwide conformity is firmly in the rearview.
Trustee Ed Simioni — who has pushed the envelope on various issues and proven he’s not afraid to break with the rest of the board since he first took office in 2024 — found himself on the short end of split votes on three important and contentious village issues at the most recent board meeting on December 11. While that experience is nothing new for Simioni, he’s been a bit less alone in recent months, since Trustee Rob Coburn joined the board in July.
Coburn pledged to be an independent voice when he ran for trustee earlier this year, and that message seemed to resonate with village residents, who gave him the highest number of votes in the election. His views and stances have not made him as much of an outlier as Simioni, but like Simioni, he’s shown he’s not afraid to break with the stance of what seems to be emerging as a solid triumvirate on the board among Mayor Bill Manger, Deputy Mayor Len Zinnanti and Trustee Roy Stevenson.
Simioni cast the lone dissenting vote on a code amendment that allows special exception use and special conditions for workforce housing developments, live-work units, and single-family detached dwellings in the office zoning districts in the village.
Simioni long ago made his stance clear on the proposed code change, which has been up for a public hearing since August, and kept open for months before the hearing was finally closed and the code update was approved last night. Simioni voted no on the proposal because it stipulates that only half of any new units built need to be classified as affordable housing. He believes that 100 percent of any new units built should meet the parameters for affordable housing.
While he was alone in casting a dissenting vote, at least one resident spoke up in agreement with him.
Elizabeth Dantz spoke during the hearing, saying the village should be more proactive about ensuring as many affordable housing units as possible.
“Start with something like 90/10 percent, and see how that goes,” she suggested, referring to the percentages of affordable and market rate housing that the law should stipulate. “If you don’t get enough [interested developers], you can look at it again and adjust it. I think you have to be really serious about this. People are saying we need [affordable housing]. We have to have it. I’m so against the 50/50 idea.”
The counterpoint, argued by Manger, Stevenson, Zinnanti and others, is that, without the guarantee of some market-rate housing, the area won’t attract any developers, because the money they’ll need to spend to build the housing units won’t lead to a return on investment — and could even lead to a net loss, some argue. And some affordable housing, they reason, is better than none at all.
“You have to balance the economic reality of someone who is going to develop the property with the needs of the community,” Stevenson said.
He spoke passionately about the need for affordable housing and said ensuring the village can create some affordable housing as soon as possible is key, advocating for the code change as it stands rather than taking the risk of requiring 100 percent affordable housing specifications that could lead to no affordable housing being built at all.
“We really need to decide as a community where the priority will be,” he said. “Are we going to try to create affordable housing or not? Where else are the teachers and firemen and policemen going to live?”
Simioni said that a code change that doesn’t require 100 percent affordable housing “dilutes the impact” and puts “private profit over public need.”
Manger pointed out that the percentage of housing that was required to be affordable has been increased since the proposal was first introduced, at Simioni’s urging, and he stressed the importance of moving ahead with the current plan.
“We’ve been talking about this since August, but nothing is getting done,” Manger said. “I’m fine with asking the planning commission to look at other options in the village. But we paid money to come up with a plan for how we can integrate workforce housing.”
Board Meeting Procedures Debated
Simioni clashed with Manger and several fellow board members on another issue that was brought up at Thursday’s meeting. On a resolution to adopt procedures for preparing meeting agendas, both Simioni and Coburn voted against adopting the policies, in what was a 3-2 vote, objecting primarily to a provision that stipulates that any time a trustee wants to add a resolution to the agenda, he must have concurrence from at least one other trustee or the mayor to add the item to the agenda.
Simioni said that requirement is “inconsistent with the principles of open government,” adding that requiring a majority of board members to concur to add an item to the agenda is unsupported by guidance issued from both the New York Conference of Mayors and the Committee on Open Government.
“It would suppress issues before they ever reach this room,” Simioni said. “Trustees could prevent an item from appearing on the agenda at all, shutting down public debate before it begins.” He said the requirement “undermines transparency, accountability and public trust.”
“If the resolution lacks merit, the board can vote it down,” Simioni argued. That is the democratic check, not withholding the ability to introduce it in the first place.”
He referred to the provision as “procedural gatekeeping.”
Manger pointed out that any trustee can freely bring up any issue he wants during the portion of every meeting set aside for trustee comments. Coburn said that that’s not a sufficient substitute, pointing out that many in the audience at meetings leave before the trustee comments begin.
Simioni had a resolution of his own on the December 11 agenda concerning board meeting policy, reflecting his policy preferences. His resolution failed, 1-3, with Coburn abstaining from the vote, explaining that he felt the resolution was moot after the board majority had approved a different policy.
Pressure Continues for Release of Historic District Survey
In a letter to the editor submitted to The Southampton Press on Monday morning, December 8, Simioni announced that he had submitted a resolution for inclusion on the December 11 meeting agenda calling for the village’s Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation to share with the Board of Trustees a historic resource survey in its current, not yet finalized form, and requiring the release of the document — with any legally permitted redactions — to several individuals and groups who have been denied access to it after a Freedom of Information Law request.
Coburn seconded Simioni’s motion.
The document was prepared by Preservation Studios, a firm the village hired and paid with state grant money to conduct a survey of areas of the village that could potentially be added to the historic district. The document is of interest to many homeowners because inclusion in the historic district could potentially limit what they can do to their homes and thus could affect their maintenance costs and property values.
Manger and Mark McIntire, the chairman of the Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation — known as the ARB — have said repeatedly that the village will release the document to the public when it is no longer in draft form, and that the ARB will hold public hearings on the matter that will be open for all residents to attend.
“Transparency builds trust and secrecy breeds suspicion,” Simioni said of the process surrounding the document.
The Southampton Press is one of the parties that filed a FOIL request for the document and was denied. The Press appealed the denial and is currently awaiting a response from the village’s FOIL appeals officer, Administrator Scott Russell.
Southampton Village resident Jessica McNerney had harsh words for Manger when it came to issues surrounding the village’s refusal to release the draft document. She spoke during public comment, and accused Manger of creating a culture of secrecy, pandering to donors, and not making a big enough commitment to transparency.
“The administration is now hiding behind staff and misusing the term ‘draft’ as an excuse to conceal public information,” she said. “When residents and The Southampton Press requested a survey report that taxpayers funded, the village claimed it could not release it. The Press publicly rebuked this excuse and rightfully gave you a ‘dunce cap.’
“Worse, the village’s own records management officer then stated in writing that the document does not exist per village attorney,” she continued. “That was false. And you dragged the ARB attorney into the mess unnecessarily. Public information is not optional. It is required by law.”
When Simioni floated his resolution, Manger said, “The FOIL appeals officer, who is the village administrator, is reviewing the information that was provided by the consultants. He will have a decision on if it can be released. … I’m confident that the village administrator, in undergoing these duties, will handle it appropriately.”
Manger voted against the resolution, saying the matter should be left in the hands of Russell, the FOIL appeals officer, and adding he did not want to “insert” himself into the business of the ARB, which he said is supposed to operate as an independent body, without any pressure or influence from the Village Board.
Coburn once again joined Simioni in another 3-2 vote.
News and Notes
• Work on constructing the permeable reactive barrier, another mitigation effort to help restore the health of Lake Agawam, began on December 11 at Doscher Park, near the lake. A permeable reactive barrier is a technology that can be implemented in different ways, but it essentially introduces a carbon source under the ground surrounding a polluted body of water, and that carbon source effectively sets off reactions that ultimately remove nitrates from the groundwater before they enter the lake. The carbon source can be placed underground either inside a ditch surrounding the body of water or, if it needs to penetrate deeper, through a series of injection wells, which is the case for Lake Agawam.
• Coburn spoke briefly about the village’s plans for creating a sewer district, saying that residents could expect an update in approximately two months, and “maybe some specifics.”
• The board agreed to have Village Planner Alex Wallach review village code when it comes to what kinds of landscape or property alterations in the historic district require the landowners to seek a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB. Coburn had pointed out earlier this month that plans for the planting of the new Gin Lane bioswale, which was funded by the Lake Agawam Conservancy, should have gone before the ARB for a certificate of appropriateness because it involves a village right-of-way and is in the historic district, bordering the lake. After debate about the process played out over several days, the village decided it should update its code and add provisions for minimal exclusions from the policy, so that homeowners in the historic district aren’t unduly burdened if they are seeking to make simple landscaping improvements. A proposed amendment to that code is likely to show up on the meeting agenda in January.
• Coburn said that he thinks the village is “overdue” for a reassessment of village properties, since one hasn’t been done in more than 30 years. Simioni said he supports that idea, words that will be music to the ears of village resident David Rung, who has been railing against the board for years about what he says is a broken assessment system that disproportionately negatively impacts lower-income residents.
• Zinnanti shared a traffic update, saying that the new traffic pattern on County Road 39, which has been in effect for a little over three weeks, has had “some hiccups,” and adding that he and others, including the village traffic consultant, Southampton Town Supervisor Maria Moore, Southampton Village Police Chief Sue Hurteau and Southampton Town Highway Superintendent Charlie McArdle will continue to meet to see what “further tweaks” can be made so that the pattern will become as efficient as it was back when it was first run as a pilot program in the spring.
• Manger announced that at his upcoming trip to attend a New York Conference of Mayors event in Albany, he will meet with New York State Assemblyman Tommy John Schiavoni and New York State Senator Anthony Palumbo to argue for the use of speed cameras in the village on a pilot basis.
He pointed out that another New York village, Hastings-on-Hudson, recently had speed camera legislation signed into law by the governor, and he’s hoping that legislation can be used as a blueprint for a similar path forward in Southampton Village.
“It would go a long way toward helping us cut down on people speeding through our village,” Manger said.
Cailin Riley on Dec 12, 2025