1 Photo
99 Sanford Place in Southampton Village. DANA SHAW
The owner of 99 Sanford Place, an office building off North Sea Road in Southampton Village, is suing the Village Zoning Board of Appeals after the ZBA rejected an application to change the use of the property from office to residential.
The lawsuit seeks to reverse the ZBA’s decision and asks the State Supreme Court to force the village to pay attorney’s fees.
The owner, who is identified only as 99 Sanford Place LLC, wants to subdivide the 51,955-square-foot property into two lots then raze the former Platt, Platt & Platt law office and build two single-family residences in its place. In addition to needing subdivision approval from the Village Planning Board, the owner needs a special exception permit from the ZBA to allow for residences in an office district.
When the request was brought before the ZBA in June, the chairman, Mark Greenwald, noted that the village’s comprehensive plan from the year 2000 called for an analysis of the office district, but the analysis never happened. He suggested that the applicant pay for a study of the entire office district so the ZBA could make an informed decision and consider whether granting the request would change the character of the community. He pointed to a provision in the village code that puts the onus of paying for professional review by an expert, on the applicant.
Attorney Liz Vail of the law firm Farrell Fritz, who was representing the applicant, told Greenwald that only the Village Board had the authority to order planning studies. “You are the Zoning Board of Appeals,” she said. “You are not the legislative board of the Village of Southampton.”
The Village Board has decided that residential use was permitted in the office district and the application conforms with the comprehensive plan and subsequent planning studies, Vail said.
She further argued that 99 Sanford Place is located in an area that is already has more residences than commercial properties and that the ZBA had recently granted the same request to an applicant on White Street.
One board member agreed with Vail.
“We’re overstepping our bounds when we ask for a study of the office district,” then-ZBA member Kevin Guidera said. He wanted to approve the application immediately.
David Gilmartin, Vail’s fellow attorney at Farrell Fritz, followed up with proof that the ZBA granted a special exception permit for a residential use across the street from 99 Sanford Place and provided letters from neighbors on the street who supported a “less obtrusive” residential use to an office.
In a 3-1 vote at its September 23 meeting, the board turned down the request. Greenwald, Julia McCormack and Joyce Guiffra were in the majority and Susan Stevenson was in the minority. The fifth ZBA seat was vacant at the time.
“It is the determination of the Board that the application here has not met with the required criteria,” the written ZBA decision states. “As such, it is the determination of this Board that allowing the special use exception in this case would adversely affect the neighborhood.”
According to the eight-page decision, those criteria include protecting the established character and social and economic well-being of private and private property and promoting the use of land for the public interest.
Meanwhile, Gilmartin has brought a subdivision application to the Planning Board to allow for two office buildings instead of one.
At their November 29 meeting, members of the Planning Board were baffled by the ZBA’s decision.
“My client had hoped to have residential structures there, which we thought would be more appropriate,” Gilmartin explained to the Planning Board. “But the zoning board did not agree with that.”
“That’s a shame,” said Planning Board Chairman Tony Piazza.
Gilmartin said the decision makes very little sense, but “it is what it is.”
