Boards Weigh Village's Annexation of New Development

The Southampton Town Board and Southampton Village Board held a joint public hearing May 9 to hear arguments on a proposal of a kind that has never come before the boards in the past.

Real estate developers have petitioned the municipalities to redraw the village boundaries, a move that would require the approval of both boards. The Beechwood Organization's planned luxury condominium complex straddles the western border of Southampton Village, but the developers would like the entire complex to be within the village.

The village boundary currently cuts through the development, running southwest to northeast, and the developers are asking for the line to be moved north to the railroad tracks.

After making a motion to name Southampton Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst the chair of the joint hearing, Southampton Village Mayor Mark Epley recused himself from the discussions and left Town Hall. His recusal comes because his father-in-law, George Benedict, is one of the partners in the development project.

David Gilmartin, a Southampton attorney with the law firm Farrell Fritz, addressed the members of the boards  — minus Epley — on behalf of Beechwood.

Regardless of how residents feel about the annexation, Gilmartin said there is universal agreement that the condo development is an improvement over the Rambo sand and gravel pit and cement and compost manufacturing facility that were once at the site. “This had to be the single most noxious use within the town and village of Southampton,” he said.

But weighing the annexation comes down to other factors. Gilmartin told the boards, “The legal standard for you to consider this is whether it’s in the overall public interest, number one, and number two, whether there is a unity of purpose and facilities that constitute a community here. I would say that the evidence in that regard is overwhelming.”

Considering emergency services, Gilmartin said that the village's services surpass the town's. The village's ambulance barn is closer to the development than the town's closest ambulance facility, he said, plus the Southampton Village Police Department has at least three cars in the area at all times while the Southampton Town Police Department has one sector car.

The Southampton Fire Department already services both sides of the village line.

Ed Deyermond, a former town town assessor speaking on behalf of the developers, said that of the 77 units planned there are eight that are cut by the village boundary and 23 that are in the town, while the balance of units are wholly within the village.

Five residents addressed the board at the hearing, with mixed responses to the proposal.

Elaine Kahl said she was concerned with the precedent redrafting boundaries sets. Susan Stevenson said, “I am completely against zoning or changes that have to do with specific developers who want something to enhance their investment in land that will be developed."

Frances Genovese, who lives close to the site and has been a longtime critic of the cement and compost facilities that had existed there, said the neighbors of the development are all on the same page. “This is a consensus," she told the board. "The community is 100 percent in favor of the annexation, as we were 100 percent in favor of the project itself." She said the project has improved the area "a thousandfold."
 
“We feel that the community and the developers deserve the cohesion and protection an annexation will confer,” Genovese added.

Bonnie Goebert, the chair of the Southampton-Shinnecock Hills-Tuckahoe Citizens Advisory Committee, said the CAC is behind the annexation — and glad to hear that changing the village boundary would have no effect on the boundaries of the Southampton and Tuckahoe school districts.

The hearing was adjourned until June 6 at 4 p.m., when it will continue at Town Hall. When the hearing closes, the boards will have 90 days to vote separately on the annexation. Both boards need to sign off for the proposal to go through.