Dec 10, 2014 12:01 PM

The Southampton Town Board expects to make a final decision on an ambitious mixed-use development plan, one that would forever alter the appearance of both shores of the Shinnecock Canal in Hampton Bays, at its first meeting of 2015, scheduled for January 13.

On Tuesday night, the board closed the public comment period on the proposed Canoe Place Inn maritime planned development district following the conclusion of the third multi-hour hearing on the plan filed by developers Gregg and Mitchell Rechler. It calls for residential development along the east side of the canal in exchange for renovating and reopening the Canoe Place Inn on the opposite shore.

Prior to closing the hearing, a parade of Hampton Bays residents criticized the plan to construct 37 townhouses where two waterfront restaurants once operated on the eastern banks of the canal, stating that such development is too intense and opposes what numerous town-ordered planning studies have suggested be done with the waterfront land.

Supporters of the PDD application, meanwhile, again applauded the multimillion-dollar renovation of the Canoe Place Inn and reopening it as a hotel and catering facility, the influx of new taxes from the development that would benefit the Hampton Bays School District, and the economic potential of the plan.

Town Board members said they had decided before Tuesday night’s meeting that if there were no new concerns raised about the project, they would close the hearing and begin their contemplation of its approval. Under the town’s PDD guidelines, four board members—defined as a supermajority—must sign off on the change of zone.

“In lieu of hearing anything new, we felt that time had come to close the hearing,” Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst said. “At this point, we feel we have sufficient material to deliberate on the local law that we will then consider for adoption or not. We will have that on for our January 13 meeting, about one month from now.”

Earlier in the evening, the developers, Gregg and Mitchell Rechler, had introduced some changes to their plans, in hopes of appeasing some of the criticisms by residents, as well as some of the concerns about the project raised by planning officials. Among the modifications, which were outlined by Gregg Rechler, were the addition of an extended floating dock that would run parallel to the canal shoreline, in about the same place where a dock now sits. Previously, the plan had called for only a smaller fishing pier that would have extended from the shoreline at the southern edge of the property.

Mr. Rechler said the architects of the project had also trimmed the roofline of the proposed townhouse complex by 18 inches, the most they could reduce it for design reasons, in response to a note from planning officials that the building exceeded the town’s 32-foot height restriction for residential buildings. Previously, the buildings had been shown as 35 feet high, which is the height of the town’s commercial building limit.

“We did go back and were able to come up with a resolution that would reduce the size from 35 feet, down to 33 and a half feet,” Mr. Rechler said. “So we kind of got halfway there and still maintained the architectural integrity of the buildings we’re proposing.”

Those changes did little to appease the objections of Hampton Bays residents who pointed to the canalside property as one that should be dedicated to the sort of commercial uses that welcome the public to the waterfront, as the existing zoning demands, and not private residential development.

“I’ve always envisioned that property as a Gosman’s Dock-type development,” said hamlet resident Robert Jay, referring to a waterfront site in Montauk. “It screams for it. It would bring people here. It would be great for visitors, it would be great for residents, it would be great for the town.”

Mr. Jay said the Rechlers’ original plans for the properties when they bought them 10 years ago were wiser: demolish the Canoe Place Inn and build a residential complex on that land, and pursue commercial development along the canal. In 2006, the Rechlers submitted plans for a condominium development on the CPI land. No official proposal had ever been made for the canal property prior to the filing of the PDD application.

Strong opposition from those pushing for the preservation of the Canoe Place Inn—which dates back to the 18th century, though the building itself has been reconstructed several times—derailed those plans and prompted the Rechlers to request the current PDD.

The alternative, however, has drawn just as vociferous a reaction from some residents, both for and against it.

“This plan offers no benefits to the community,” said Maud Kramer, one of the residents who had led the opposition to the demolition of the CPI, but has more recently stated that the proposed alternative is not an acceptable price to pay for saving it. “The canal property would be flattened. If the Rechlers are not interested in developing the property as it is zoned … do not turn a willful eye against the town’s own policies and guidelines.”

Several residents pointed to a catalog of town planning studies from the last 20 years—some of them just a year or two old and others still ongoing—that promote commercial development along the eastern side of the canal. In some cases, the studies specifically state that residential development should not be permitted along the shore.

“The Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan from 2008 says to encourage an approach to tourism development of the eastern bank of the canal … including a re-emphasis on water-related resort and tourism uses, as opposed to condo conversions,” said Hampton Bays resident John Capone, while reading from excerpts of several town planning studies. “These are supposed to be the guiding documents for all of the town’s land use decisions. Otherwise, why do they even exist? What is the point even to having a Planning Department if decisions can be made that are contrary to its recommendations?”

The Rechlers, and their supporters, have pointed to the economic benefits of their plan and also noted that the townhouses would come with a cutting-edge septic treatment and groundwater filtration system that would prevent large amount of nitrates from entering the water. If allowed to develop their land under current zoning, the Rechlers would not be obligated to install such an expensive system. Those who live east of where the townhouses would be sited, however, have been adamant in their opposition to part of the treatment facility being housed in their neighborhood and not next door to the townhouses.

A hydrology consultant hired by the town, and paid for by the developers, told the Town Board this week that the most effective way to prevent the introduction of more nitrogen from a redeveloped CPI was not to require a complicated septic system. Instead, the consultant recommended the utilization of an underground filtration system that neutralizes nitrogen before it reaches water tables and seeps into the bay.

“I’m neutral to this project … but with respect to wastewater treatment, they have, in fact, stepped up,” Kevin McAllister, the former Peconic Baykeeper and founder of Defend H2O, a water quality advocate, said of the Rechlers. “When it comes to access, I’m a big proponent of shoreline access. I think the two can be reconciled. Perhaps that plan can be improved and a promenade can be accomplished while there’s still living space.”

Proponents of the plan continued to argue that the preservation and restoration of the CPI is a huge public benefit—a point dismissed by those who think it is not historic—and that demands to keep the eastern shoreline of the canal open to the public were nothing but a red herring.

“To those people who say we are going to lose access—I’ve never seen anybody at Tide Runners sitting in a beach chair reading a book,” quipped Lorry Werner. “A building like CPI would not be allowed to be destroyed anywhere else. It would be a very big mistake and very detrimental to Hampton Bays.”