Judge Rules That Canoe Place Inn Lawsuit Can Move Forward

A judge has ruled that a lawsuit challenging the Southampton Town Board’s 2015 approval of the Canoe Place Inn planned development district can move forward.

State Supreme Court Justice William Rebolini on August 30 denied a request by the developers, Gregg and Mitchell Rechler of Rechler Equity, seeking a dismissal of a lawsuit that challenges the Town Board’s decision to grant a zoning change for their project, which calls for redevelopment along both sides of the Shinnecock Canal in Hampton Bays.

A lawsuit was filed last year by a group of residents, called Shinnecock Neighbors, who are opposed to the townhouse component of the project, which calls for the installation of a sewage treatment facility in their neighborhood. As part of their lawsuit, the neighbors also argue that the project creates too much density on the 4.5-acre property on the eastern side of the canal on which 37 townhouses would be constructed.

In addition to the townhouses, the Rechlers plan to restore the Canoe Place Inn so it can reopen as a 25-room inn with guest cottages, and also construct a new 300-seat catering hall on the western property, which measures 5.6 acres.

The Town Board approved the change of zone in January 2015, though, to date, the Rechlers have not yet broken ground on the project.

Jennifer Juengst of Gordon & Juengst, the lawyer representing Shinnecock Neighbors in the lawsuit, said Friday that she was satisfied with Justice Rebolini’s ruling—though she stressed that the litigation is far from over.

“We won a battle, but we haven’t won the war yet,” Ms. Juengst said.

Ms. Juengst said the Rechlers have up to a month to decide if they want to appeal the ruling. If they do not appeal, the lawsuit can then proceed, she added.

David Yaffe, an attorney representing the Rechlers, said in a statement that his client disagrees with the ruling and is considering an appeal.

"All that has occurred in the case is the Suffolk County Supreme Court had determined, as a procedural matter and giving the plaintiffs the initial benefit of the doubt, that they have 'standing' to have their arguments heard by the court," the statement reads. "Nothing more. We disagree with the procedural ruling and are considering our options with respect to an appeal. Regardless, the case will now promptly advance to be heard on its merits by the Supreme Court and we are looking forward to the court’s resolution of the matter. At this stage, the plaintiffs receive no benefit of the doubt, and are instead required to overcome the strong presumption of validity that applies to the Town Board’s considered determination to change the property’s zoning for redevelopment. We are confident the Town Board carefully and closely reviewed every aspect of the proposed redevelopment during its lengthy review process and complied with all legal requirements.

"In the meantime, we continue to pursue applications for construction approvals before the town's planning board."

Last week’s ruling makes a point of noting that one of the members of Shinnecock Neighbors, Hope Sandrow of Shinnecock Hills, will be directly affected if the redevelopment is permitted to move forward. Ms. Sandrow, an artist, has been a vocal opponent of the planned development district, particular with the siting of the sewage treatment facility in her neighborhood.

“It appears that as a professional artist and art activist, she is an advocate for the environment in general and for the preservation of the Shinnecock Canal in particular, and uses and visits the canal as part of her life’s work,” the ruling reads. “That protection of the environment is a predominant theme of her work; that the Shinnecock Canal has served as the subject of her work; that much of her work since the mid-1980s has referenced art history and reflected her concerns for preserving the environment on the East End …”

Ms. Sandrow said in an email on Tuesday that she has been “celebrating” the ruling since it was handed down by Justice Rebolini.

Ms. Juengst added that Ms. Sandrow, as well as other members of the Shinnecock Neighbors, strongly believe that the eastern bank of the Shinnecock Canal should remain open to the public. Most recently, the area featured a pair of restaurants that have since closed their doors.

“This project, with its new zone change, allows the Rechlers to privatize the canal, which has been public for 300 years,” Ms. Juengst said.