Letters

In his dismissal of our Article 78 proceeding [“Bel-Aire Cove Motel Action Dismissed In Court, But Litigants Expect To Sue Again,” 27east.com, January 6], State Supreme Court Justice Sanford Berland determined that the Hampton Bays Waterfront Revitalization Plan was an “aspirational goal” — one that has no structural reality, no clear path and perhaps even defies logic. We do not disagree with this assessment of the plan.

During our roughly 24 hours of Zoom judicial conferences over the last year, the town’s attorney repeatedly made statements to the effect that the board did not really know what it would do with the property. This was a shock to us, as we believed the board was serious when it announced a solution to the decades-long problem.

In last week’s article, the supervisor stated that the motel structure has “not been razed yet, because the site needs to be assessed by Suffolk County Department of Health to determine the correct sanitary flow for non-conforming use.”

The realities are: 1) the county has established flow rates for this site; 2) the flow rates generated by a motel or condo of the size imagined by the town would greatly exceed the current established rates; and 3) the county regulations specify the circumstances under which “grandfathering” of, or modifications to, established flows could be approved.

Even if there was a possibility that the town could obtain grandfathering or a modification to the established rates, razing the building would eliminate this possibility.

It is ironic, at best, for the town to make water quality a priority, encourage sanitary and nitrogen reduction — and then, for the sake of luxury condos, seek to circumvent the very regulations designed to protect the water.

The supervisor stated that he has “talked to many, many people, and people in Hampton Bays don’t think they needed a park there.” We talk to many, many people too, and the people we talk to prefer open space. The record used to justify the town’s decision at the time was overwhelmingly in support of a park or open space.

The opportunities to preserve and enhance the public’s use of its waterfront are limited. We can embrace family-friendly tourism without sacrificing those limited opportunities. For an elected official to advocate privatizing a piece of waterfront property and developing it with structures three times the size of the existing structure is nothing short of an outrage.

We hoped that our Article 78 proceeding would at least encourage the board to open its decision-making process and to take more seriously its role as the steward of our community and our resources. However, we find ourselves in agreement with last week’s letter from the Chair of the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee [“A Hamlet At Risk,” Letters, January 7], that there is a risk to all the unincorporated hamlets in Southampton Town.

Mary F. Pazan, Esq.

Hampton Bays

Elizabeth I. Hook, Esq.

Hampton Bays

Doreen Bartoldus, PE, CCM

Hampton Bays