clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf

Story - News

Nov 20, 2018 10:04 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Southampton Town ZBA Approves Golf Course In East Quogue As Residential Amenity For 118-Unit Subdivision

Nov 20, 2018 10:25 AM

The Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals last week ruled in favor of developers who hope to build an 18-hole golf course as a recreational amenity for a proposed 118-unit subdivision off Spinney Road in East Quogue.

In a 5-2 vote on Thursday, November 15, with board member Helene Burgess and Chairman Adam Grossman dissenting, the board approved a pre-written decision, drafted by assistant town attorney Kathryn Garvin and read by board member Cornelius Kelly. It stated that the regulatory board found the golf course to be comparable to other recreational amenities, such as swimming pools and tennis courts, that are allowed under a little-used portion of the town code covering a planned residential district, or PRD.

“This board found that … under Town Code 330-10, customary accessory structures or uses are permitted in all residential districts unless they are expressly prohibited,” the decision said. It added, “There is nothing in the table of use regulations or elsewhere in the zoning code expressly prohibiting a golf course as an accessory use.”

In its 16-page written decision, the ZBA cited a variety of elements to defend approval of the golf resort, from a groundbreaking decision two decades ago that created one of the largest private homes in the United States on an oceanfront lot in Sagaponack, as well as previous decisions allowing golf holes on private properties in Southampton Town. It referenced radio towers, gas stations with convenience stores—even Wikipedia.

The question of whether or not the golf course, as well as its accompanying maintenance buildings, constituted an accessory use came roughly a year after the developers behind the proposal—Arizona-based Discovery Land Company—failed to convince the Town Board to approve a planned development district, or PDD, for the developers’ previous, nearly identical proposal, “The Hills at Southampton.”

The earlier proposal, which offered a number of community benefits such as $1 million for upgraded septic systems in East Quogue, $500,000 to the East Quogue Elementary School for capital improvements, and funding for water quality projects at Weesuck Creek, was then modified to allow only the residents of the subdivision and their non-paying guests access to the golf course. Previously it would have been available to the public at large. Many of the community benefits have been dropped by Discovery Land.

The ZBA was tasked with interpreting the “accessory use” portion of the zoning code after the Planning Board sought clarification as it reviewed the developer’s pre-application, which was approved, minus the pertinent question, only after Chief Building Inspector Michael Benincasa recused himself from making the determination in May, citing his previous support of the project.

Currently, there is no set list of every permitted accessory use in the town code, according to Mr. Grossman.

On Thursday, Mr. Kelly noted that as the town code does not explicitly prohibit a golf course as an accessory use, the board chose to look at several examples of residential golf courses not just in Southampton Town but across the country.

“In fact, this board has found a variety of uses, buildings and structures that are not specifically listed with the Southampton Town code as ‘accessory,’ including an artist studio, sports barn, accessory structure with loggia, and accessory spa suites,” he read to a crowd at Southampton Town Hall on Thursday.

The interpretation—much to the disbelief of Bob DeLuca, president of the Group for the East End—also referred to Wikipedia, noting that golf courses are so “commonplace that Wikipedia offers the defined term ‘golf course community,’” a “type of residential housing development built around a golf course.”

Citing Wikipedia’s defined term, the decision noted that, “The board may look outside of the town limits to consider whether golf courses are customarily incidental accessory uses elsewhere in the country,” adding, “This board cannot ignore that golf courses are found elsewhere in the state and the country as an accessory use to residential developments.”

It also recognized that in Southampton Town, small private courses with as many as nine holes have been allowed as accessory uses on private properties—for example, a nine-hole golf course on the Cow Neck peninsula in North Sea, owned by Louis Bacon, that, like the East Quogue proposal, was built on a large and environmentally sensitive swath of land in a residential zone.

A key point that was deemed a deciding factor in the ZBA’s decision to approve the golf course has caused much concern among community members.

Referenced several times in the written decision was a 1998 New York State Supreme Court ruling that allowed industrialist Ira Rennert, a Sagaponack homeowner, to build a “playhouse” as an accessory structure to his 57,770-square-foot home on Daniels Lane.

At that time the ZBA ruled that the playhouse—which included a 10,000-square-foot recreational building, a 20-car garage, a 3,000-square-foot garden pavilion, a beach pavilion, guard houses and other accessory structures totaling approximately 38,000 square feet—constituted an accessory use under the town code.

Following that decision, however, the Town Board adopted limits on house sizes.

Still, although he’d voted against approval, even Mr. Grossman argued that aspects of the Rennert decision, such as the size of the lot, were useful in analyzing Discovery Land’s application.

“Just because the town code is subsequently changed doesn’t nullify or make ineffective a prior ZBA decision,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that the decision doesn’t have any value any longer.”

In fact, Wayne Bruyn, an attorney at Southampton-based O’Shea, Marcincuk and Bruyn LLP who represents Discovery Land, said that the subsequent limitations put on housing developments following the playhouse’s approval are not applicable when determining what can and can’t be considered an accessory use. Noting that the Rennert case was a “battle over a number of things,” including both the size of the dwelling and the accessory structure, he argued that they are not one and the same.

Also referenced in the recent ZBA decision was the nine-hole golf course on the Cow Neck peninsula in North Sea. The ZBA found it to be comparable when considering the 591-acre lot on Lewis Road in East Quogue on which both the residential subdivision and the golf course would sit.

“This board finds that the size and scale of the proposed golf course with its membership restrictions render it subordinate and incidental to the 118-unit subdivision,” the ZBA said, adding later on, “the percentage of acres devoted to the golf course in terms of property coverage is 16.55 percent of the premises and is comparable to a tennis court on a standard acre lot.”

That percentage “speaks volumes to the uniqueness of this application as well as the size and scope of this residential development,” the decision continued.

Following the ZBA’s decision, on Friday, several community members spoke out in opposition to the ZBA’s interpretation of the zoning code. Leading the argument were three environmentalists, Dick Amper, Mr. DeLuca and Andrea Spilka, each of whom made it clear that the ZBA’s decision, in their opinion, paves the way for “disaster.”

Mr. Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, said that in its decision to approve the golf course, the ZBA made it clear that it does not “prioritize” protecting the environment.

State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. agreed, noting that the ZBA’s decision “is one of the worst determinations that any zoning board has ever rendered.

“It is the Citizens United of zoning,” Mr. Thiele continued. “With one stroke of the pen, it undermines more than five decades of town policy to protect the Pine Barrens. Moreover, it threatens the underpinnings of the zoning code townwide.”

Mr. Amper, as well as his colleagues, repeatedly argued that Discovery Land would not have spent four years lobbying for a change of zone at the Town Board level if it didn’t need it in order to build its development.

“The fact that the ZBA said that they didn’t need one in the first place is preposterous,” he said on Friday morning. “It’s a disaster. The message it sends is: ‘If you can’t get it through the legislative branch of government, try something else.’”

However, Mr. Grossman, who voted against the proposal, noted that the Town Board’s decision to deny the developer’s PDD request last year by no means plays a part in the ZBA’s interpretation of the town code: “Just because the Town Board turned down the PDD does not bind the Planning Board or my board in terms of how we process this application.”

The decision read: “This board rejects the assertion that deference must be given to the Town Board’s determination … since the Town Board considered a membership golf course open to the public rather than a private golf course.”

Mr. Bruyn applauded the ZBA for how it handled the Town Board’s decision. “I appreciated how the zoning board dealt with that,” he said. “It’s not the same thing and it’s not the same administrative board.”

However, furthering his argument, Mr. Amper pointed to the ZBA’s disregard of several points made by Hampton Bays environmental attorney Carolyn Zenk, who repeatedly referenced the town’s “open space law”—the original intent of which was to preserve natural and scenic resources in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Pine Barrens, within Southampton Town.

Ms. Zenk, who called the ZBA’s decision a “tragedy,” accused the board of being irresponsible. “They’re gutting the open space law,” she said. “There are things that are very precious and they are lost very quickly. It is not something the community can afford.”

“There was no legitimate rationale for approving it, so they tried to duck [the open space law],” Mr. Amper added.

Ms. Spilka, president of the Southampton Town Civic Coalition, who joined the Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality in May, agreed. “To me, they were remiss in picking and choosing the parts of the law that they would look at,” she said. “I think they abdicate their role as an appointed board when they do that.”

In a prepared statement on Friday, Mr. DeLuca noted that the ZBA “simply ignored the qualified testimony of expert planners who defended Southampton Town’s environmental zoning.

“Instead, the ZBA cloaked itself in the developer’s ‘voluminous’ submissions and citations from Webster’s dictionary, Google searches about golf course communities elsewhere on the planet, and Wikipedia,” the statement continued.

However, to rebut those arguments, Mr. Grossman referred to the written decision, which reads: “This board does not have the authority to vary any provision of Chapter 247 of the town code.”

Mr. Grossman would not comment on the ZBA’s decision to look outside Southampton Town for examples of golf course communities.

Moving forward, Mr. Amper could not confirm whether the Pine Barrens Society will pursue legal action. He did say, however, that he would be “very surprised” should the organization’s board of directors “look the other way.”

“The war isn’t over by any means,” he said.

Similarly, Mr. DeLuca would not say if the Group for the East End plans to pursue litigation; however, he did say, “We are reviewing the decision and evaluating our legal options.”

Ms. Zenk shamed the Town Board for not stepping up to the plate to amend the town code to prohibit golf courses in residential zones.

“It’s sad that this falls on the not-for-profits,” she said. “Government officials, where are you?”

Should the argument proceed to the courts, Mr. Amper said that, in his opinion, the rationale used by the ZBA to constitute a golf course as a recreational amenity will not hold up.

However, the rationale behind each individual board member’s decision is unclear.

As is its custom, the ZBA voted Thursday on a written decision that had been drafted in advance by Ms. Garvin. There was no discussion of the individual board members’ votes at Thursday’s meeting—and, in fact, no board member has discussed his or her views on the application at a single public meeting held prior to the vote.

The state’s Open Meetings Law requires all “deliberation”—every substantive discussion that leads to a vote, not just the vote itself—to take place in public.

But the ZBA routinely sidesteps the law by never holding such a discussion when there is a quorum present. Instead, Ms. Garvin meets individually with its members and drafts a written opinion based on what they have to say about the application. Then the vote is held in public.

When the developer’s PDD request was rejected by the Town Board, each individual Town Board member offered a detailed analysis of what had led them to their decision to vote for or against the proposal. Following that public vote, Discovery Land filed a $100 million lawsuit in which those who voted against the proposal—board members Julie Lofstad and John Bouvier—were specifically targeted.

Mr. Grossman, who, on Friday declined to offer his rationale for voting against the application, said that the ZBA is not bound by the same standards. “We have a different way of doing things,” he said. “There’s no requirement to do a public discussion of any kind.”

He added: “The decision speaks for itself.”

While the pre-written decision pointed to several factors that led five out of seven board members to vote in favor of the project, it did not make any reference to the rationale made by those opposed to it—which is, again, common practice for the ZBA, according to Mr. Grossman.

“We do not have dissenting opinions in ZBA decisions,” he said. Rather, the town attorney drafts a decision based on majority opinion, which is obtained by polling individual members.

That process is of great concern to Ms. Spilka, who on Friday said that in doing so the ZBA has set a “bad precedent.”

“It was absolutely inappropriate that they didn’t come forward with their rationale,” she said.

None of the six board members, other than Mr. Grossman, including Helene Burgess, who also voted against the proposal, returned phone calls on Friday.

Mr. Grossman explained that the developer’s application will now return to the Southampton Town Planning Board to nail down the ultimate layout, design and development of the premises.

In the meantime, Mr. DeLuca put the ball in the Town Board’s court.

“As deeply disturbing as this decision is for the future of development in Southampton Town, the responsibility for this outcome is not just the ZBA’s to bear alone,” he said.

He referenced Southampton Town Councilman Tommy John Schiavoni’s failed legislation that would have allowed the Town Board to settle an ambiguity in the town code.

“The Town Board still has time to shake off the cobwebs, step up to the challenges placed before it, and get back to the business of writing code that protects our water and eliminates loopholes,” Mr. DeLuca said. “The only thing that’s needed is a healthy dose of leadership.”

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Here comes the appeal and lawsuit.
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Nov 16, 18 7:54 AM
2 members liked this comment
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye...

~ The Last Resort (The Eagles, 1976)
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Nov 16, 18 11:17 PM
P.S. Some rich men came and raped the land,
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes,
And Jesus, people bought 'em.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Nov 16, 18 11:21 PM
One year ago, before John and Julie voted no on the PDD, The Press did a story on how Discovery had this path to a golf course without the PDD. John and Julie knew this would be the outcome and yet they chose to vote no to:
$1 million for upgraded septic systems in East Quogue
$500,000 to East Quogue school for capital improvements
A new playground at the East Quogue School
Funding for water quality projects for Weesuck Creek
Public Trails
College Scholarships for East Quogue ...more
By cmac (184), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 8:26 AM
i think that the point is that the current vote in favor of the golf course is also bad
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on Nov 16, 18 10:16 AM
2 members liked this comment
Just like the McDonald's Shop Right fiasco the board as a habit of overreaching ...
By joe hampton (3461), The Hamptons on Nov 17, 18 2:36 PM
By local 84 (353), riverhead on Nov 17, 18 2:37 PM
The end result is still a golf course.

No amount of DL's bribes would have diminished that fact.

I guess you and the other pro-incorporation people are ok with a golf course as long as you can get something out of it, right?

By 2329702 (67), East Quogue on Nov 19, 18 11:11 AM
cmac: East Quogue is bribed and fooled and the rest of Southampton Town gets polluted water. The developers and their lies will destroy the Hamptons long before climate change.
By P. Revere (152), hampton Bays on Nov 16, 18 9:00 AM
Not all of EQ is fooled! I know of those who opposed this project but the simple truth is money buys everything in Southampton. Those fooled cared little about the polluted water and the quality of life for future generations.
By crusader (391), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 10:44 AM
Good job Julie and John. Just shows you two jare so clueless. No more water treatment or anything. This town of Southampton gets more and more comical as time goes. Great job ZBA and thank you for your hard work. At least one board in the town has some sense in them
By watchoutnow968 (56), Southampton on Nov 16, 18 10:27 AM
2 members liked this comment
By LocalEnthusiast (23), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 10:27 AM
2 members liked this comment
We told you, we told you , we told! They were going to build know matter what. The civic association had themselves convinced that the builders would pack up and go away. Thanks for nothing, as in we as a community get nothing from this developer. We had our chance to do the right thing, to get many benefits for us and you and Julie and John f*#%ed it up for all of us.
By whp (21), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 10:48 AM
You underestimate the community, which will fight this tooth and nail to the end.......and beyond! The ridiculous, pathetic, paltry crumbs dropped perfunctorily in the guise of "community benefits" in exchange for what environmentalists have warned as another destruction of our groundwater that will affect so many communities well beyond EQ, and likely well beyond Southampton Town will not fool anyone beyond the paid professionals paid not to understand the dangers.

DLC and their paid local ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Nov 20, 18 10:48 PM
1 member liked this comment
Good luck with that.
By bb (922), Hampton Bays on Nov 27, 18 4:23 PM
Both sides won a battle, but the war will rage on. This is NOT OVER by a long shot.
By Taz (725), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 11:07 AM
2 members liked this comment
Can long term residents still dump garbage at the end of Spinney Road? I mean thats whats it there for right?
By jim (48), hampton bays on Nov 16, 18 11:46 AM
1 member liked this comment
top notch negotiation. no you can't build your golf course and give the town a ton of money and land!!!! you can build it if you don't let the public play the course and keep your money and land! well played all!!!
By deanonyc (1), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 11:59 AM
Can I now build a putt putt golf and rollercoaster on my property if I only let my family members and friends use the putt putt and coaster ? I promise to limit use and will give Hampton Bays a new swing and money bars.
By P. Revere (152), hampton Bays on Nov 16, 18 1:02 PM
1 member liked this comment
Once again the mentality that all developers are evil. Trade off, a public place to a private, members only facility. For a town that is so concerned with the "Public Benefit" they overplayed their hand. Could have been handled much better. This is what happens when the JV plays the Varsity.
By The Real World (368), southampton on Nov 16, 18 1:34 PM
Yup Screwed up. Should have let the PDD go through then at least the EQ would have received some public benefit. Now not. Golf at the Bridge, Sebonac, and Atlantic. All recent Golf Courses that are monitored. Guess what? No Issues. Who would have thought that.... At least there will be an increased tax base for the school system....
By North Sea Citizen (568), North Sea on Nov 16, 18 2:26 PM
2 members liked this comment
Your statement is deceptive and not accurate. the Tuckahoe community which houses about 4 big golf courses has long chafed and complained that those golf courses are a big part of their fiscal problems.

They occupy so much of their land and are given special preferences that do not primarily benefit residents, only the exclusive private members. The golf courses pay, through previous political corruption and legislation, pay a fraction in real estate taxes compared to ordinary homeowners, ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Nov 20, 18 11:07 PM
1 member liked this comment
I'll admit I totally lost interest in this story as I knew they were going to approve it anyway eventually.

My only question is (and it's a dumb one, I know) is will this golf course be public or private?

I'm pretty sure I already know that answer to this too.
By johnj (1024), Westhampton on Nov 16, 18 3:48 PM
This is the stupidest thing I have seen in 30 years of paying taxes to live in East Quogue plus ten years renting in the village. There is no benefit to anyone but these questionable characters from Arizona; and to base the decision on wording and semantics and the definition of "accessory usage" is beyond ridiculous Welcome to BLACK BAYS
By jeffaada (6), East Quogue on Nov 16, 18 3:56 PM
how does one get on the ZBA? I assume they are appointed, not elected
By North of Highway (280), New York on Nov 16, 18 4:12 PM
By Craigcat (258), Speonk on Nov 16, 18 5:12 PM
1 member liked this comment
The Southampton Town Board are masters of the small picture. Whatever vote gets them through the next hearing and the next election, that’s their orientation. No matter how small minded, how shortsighted. True leaders would have gotten ahead of this process, and gotten the community maximum benefit if the outcome were reasonably inevitable. Used their leverage while they had it. This group of amateurs whiffed yet again. Zero leadership in the Town right now.
By CPalmer (122), Southampton on Nov 16, 18 4:44 PM
1 member liked this comment
Soon, backyard helipads will be ubiquitous...
By V.Tomanoku (790), southampton on Nov 16, 18 5:37 PM
2 members liked this comment
Rumored but I have no personal proof that the various ZBAs are interconnected and help each other's friends. I was told that they are required by rules to conduct themselves totally in public. Miraculously without public discussion they reach decisions and someone writes a decision. Evidently all is done without conversation or 'non-public' discussion. In Salem, MA in years past they would be called witches.
By TheTurtle (143), Southampton on Nov 16, 18 6:42 PM
1 member liked this comment
Aren't they supposed to make a decision? How can you write a decision before hand without knowing the answer. Just another lost soul in this town. Nice logo are you 10? Thank you ZBA, Julie and Bouvier are complete lost souls. Discovery deserves this. Local baymen go thank Julie for polluting the water. She is so laughable
By watchoutnow968 (56), Southampton on Nov 16, 18 10:16 PM
Discovery doesn't 'deserve' a damn thing! They have threatened and bullied and litigated the Town into giving into their demand for a golf course over OUR aquafer . Disgusting capitulation ZBA.
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Nov 17, 18 7:02 AM
2 members liked this comment
Yes Turtle I wondered the same thing .. According to their own semantics & little tricky bylaws avoidance They always come to conclusion & vote without discussion ??
So childesh
By dave h (193), calverton on Nov 16, 18 9:09 PM
Im calling Julie Lofstad office. She seems like a confused lost soul. She is so shot and probably the worst board member this town has voted in. She is against safe drinking water with what the hllls was proposing but wants to sell the HBWD down the road for safe drinking water. Folks we need to pay more attention to the people or " donkeys that get voted in.Julie please step down you are so confused. You and Bouvier are def top 5 worst town board members in the history of town hall. Hopefully they ...more
By watchoutnow968 (56), Southampton on Nov 16, 18 10:12 PM
This theme of game playing and how the Town Board blew it is so consistent throughout this thread that one could well think the commenters are being supplied with their material by a single source, I.e., the developer.

One question: Will the member/owners at Discovery’s Dune Deck location have golfing privileges at Lewis Road? If so (and I bet it will be so), then the golf course won’t be an accessory use to the Lewis Road residences because it won’t be restricted to ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1979), Quiogue on Nov 16, 18 10:12 PM
1 member liked this comment
Water under the Turkey Bridge, George. Your team effed this one up.
By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Nov 16, 18 11:28 PM
The Southampton Press is certainly beginning to play fast and loose with the facts here. After burying the original story of the ZBA's approval of the project by "updating it" and changing the title needlessly they now claim "Community Members" have raised complaints. The big problem here is that they have not named a single member of the East Quogue community. They have not even cited a single individual who resides within the entire Town of Southampton.

Instead, we get the griping ...more
By VOS (1241), WHB on Nov 17, 18 1:49 AM
still on the payroll I see
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Nov 17, 18 7:04 AM
2 members liked this comment
... you dont reside within the East Quogue community. The developers dont reside with in the East Quogue community - in fact, they live in Arizona.
By William Rodney (561), southampton on Nov 17, 18 9:20 AM
2 members liked this comment
Nor do Dick Amper, Bob DeLuca, or Andrea Spilka
By cmac (184), East Quogue on Nov 17, 18 3:07 PM
I noticed that too Vos. Don't worry they'll up date it again with a single quote from Al Algeri and nothing from the East Quogue residents that have vocally supported the Hill project from the beginning.
By Damon.Hagan (34), East Quogue on Nov 17, 18 6:37 AM
Thank you Southampton Press for keeping track of this incredibly relentless ploy to frustrate the will of the people of the Town of Southampton. The assistant Town attorney supporting this new legal challenge by a develioer who has filed a lawsuit that targets members of the Town Board personally -- what a disgusting turn of events. The corrupt stench of moneyed interest is astounding.
By dfree (818), hampton bays on Nov 17, 18 11:31 AM
2 members liked this comment
EQ pro-golf residents: This is not just about you. Adults consider effects outside their immediate playground.
By Taz (725), East Quogue on Nov 17, 18 12:37 PM
2 members liked this comment
Taz, Its not just about people who live next to the coarse either. Think about it. Its not like we are asking you to live next the new Boardy Barn! Its a golf coarse you'll live.
By 27dan (2854), Shinnecock Hills on Nov 17, 18 12:44 PM
Tell that to the Pine Barren Society, the Group for the East End and all the other orgs and people concerned about our ground water and bays. Hope you like drinking polluted water, swimming in brown water and eating shell fish and fin fish with toxins in them. It's not juast a golf course. BTW, I live in EQ and would probably benefit financially from it - but selfishness is not my thing.
By Taz (725), East Quogue on Nov 17, 18 12:56 PM
2 members liked this comment
I would love it if the editor could explain which "community members" raised concerns? None of the people quoted are East Quogue residents. In fact, not one of these "environmentalists" has said a word about the abandoned, Town owned landfill on the other side of Lewis Rd that is currently contaminating our water in East Quogue. Wouldn't "community members" care about that too?
By cmac (184), East Quogue on Nov 17, 18 2:49 PM
Darned copy editor...cut out "at large"...should have read "the community at large"...
By V.Tomanoku (790), southampton on Nov 17, 18 4:08 PM
Cmac, really? You've seen community members at odds about this, all you need to do is look at the FB page. Remember the members that raised their concerns on there over many months? The ones you and your husband and other pro-DL people talked down to and ridiculed and some even kicked out of the group? But now in a public forum you play dumb, LOL.
By 2329702 (67), East Quogue on Nov 19, 18 11:40 AM
1 member liked this comment
EQ residents can care about environmental issues stemming from the potential Spinney Hills development and also care about the problems on Lewis Rd. Though it's typically best to focus on the specific issue being discussed at meeetings / in articles rather than bringing up every issue that one is aware of all at once. ...
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on Nov 19, 18 11:54 AM
1 member liked this comment
Happy to see that The Press chose to change the headline.
By cmac (184), East Quogue on Nov 19, 18 5:20 PM
We need additional headline changes:

'opponents' should not be in the headline - the use of this word is a mischaracterization and is vague - are these opponents of the ZBA? are these the members of the ZBA who voted no?

'east quogue golf course' - should be changed to 'private golf course in east quogue' b/c the course does not belong to east quogue
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on Nov 20, 18 8:35 AM
1 member liked this comment
What is so hard to understand about 5 (five) Acre Residential Zoning? That is what these "Friends"of East Quogue bought. No PDD no PRD just 5 acre residential zoning in a fragile Pine Barren area which is surrounded by No Development areas. A private 18 hole golf resort is not a swimming pool or a tennis court or a Playhouse, whatever that is, and Rennert was not trying to get around any zoning. How can an appointed ZBA control the Fate of a Village nearby hamlets and the Township? What is a five ...more
By jeffaada (6), East Quogue on Nov 18, 18 4:33 PM
Really smells of political corruption and special interests at work. An obviously anti-people, anti- environment, anti-zoning initiative turned down by the Town's elected officials,every legitimate East End environmental watchdog, opposed by the Southampton community and its elected officials, all of a sudden approved in utter secrecy by an unelected Board without any public input.

We thought these types of political corruption were already excised by the community with the demise of Anna ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Nov 18, 18 11:06 PM
Again and again, people fall into, or consciously adopt, the trope of this being an exclusively East Quogue issue. It’s not, because the ground water and surface water that’s at stake here extends far beyond East Quogue, probably even beyond Southampton Town.

The threatened area is vast and anyone in that area has a right to speak out. Indeed, even people outside the area have the same right, in the interest of protecting their own land, water and air against a similar risk. ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1979), Quiogue on Nov 20, 18 9:21 AM
2 members liked this comment
There is no "threatened area." The ground water and surface water are not at stake here. The environmental impact statements accepted by the town do not support any such premise.

What you are doing is fertilizing the boogie man theory that the Nimbys and Bananas are hanging their hats upon that has no scientific basis. Why not have the intellectual honesty to admit that some people simply want to "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" and will create their own scenario of ...more
By VOS (1241), WHB on Nov 20, 18 12:35 PM
LOL! Coming from the one who won't admit that they are here working on behalf of DLC - wooooo
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on Nov 20, 18 2:18 PM
Good tactic - when you cannot face the facts, just build on your fallacies.
By VOS (1241), WHB on Nov 21, 18 2:47 PM
did you just copy/paste from your personal journal?
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on Nov 21, 18 9:23 PM
... it is also reassuring to know that the ZBA based this iteration of a final decision on information gleaned from Wikipedia.
By William Rodney (561), southampton on Nov 20, 18 10:05 AM
Not sure why the Press is ignoring what everyone wants info on but, FYI the Rechler Boathouse Project that is part of the CPI restoration has begun last week ?

I thought the CPI was supposed to happed first ???
By 27dan (2854), Shinnecock Hills on Nov 25, 18 3:16 PM
That was the deal they had with the town hopefully we will get more information today!
By Ditch Bum (929), Water Mill on Nov 26, 18 7:35 AM
The deal with the town is that Certificates of Occupancy for the townhouses will be granted proportionately to the progress being made on the Canoe Place Inn renovation. As of now they are entitled to zero townhouse CO's. The deal also included the proviso that trees on the townhouse site would be preserved, particularly around the marina area. As of last week it appears that only three trees remain in that area of what was a fairly wooded hillside.

Still no indication of how and why ...more
By VOS (1241), WHB on Dec 2, 18 3:37 AM
Since no one else wants to report on this I will... Work started on the CPI today .
By joe hampton (3461), The Hamptons on Dec 3, 18 8:28 PM
1 member liked this comment