Board Considers an Unusual Subdivision

A proposed subdivision of 36-plus oceanfront acres in Wainscott which is before the East Hampton Town Planning Board, has pitted two executives of major corporations who are neighbors against each other.

Jane Lauder, a granddaughter of Estee Lauder, who founded the global cosmetics company that bears her name, owns the land. It is held by a limited liability corporation called Wainscott Holdings. Opposing Ms. Lauder’s plans is Yves-Andre Istel, a senior adviser to Rothschild Global Financial Advisory, among posts in other corporations. Others have also expressed opposition to the plans, although their letters were received after a public hearing on the proposal, on Nov. 18, had been closed.

Ms. Lauder’s property, just east of Town Line Road, has Wainscott Pond to the east and the Atlantic Ocean to the south. Zoned for five-acre minimum house lots, a yield map drawn by George Walbridge Surveyors shows that the land could be divided into six buildable lots. Under the open space provisions of the zoning code, however, the applicant is proposing three lots of about three acres each on the oceanfront and asking permission for two houses on two of the three lots. The remaining acreage would be set aside as an agricultural reserve. The land is in two overlay districts, one agricultural, the other covering coastal erosion hazards.

According to a letter from Anthony B. Tohill, a lawyer representing Ms. Lauder, she has no intention of ever selling the newly created lots. Rather, he wrote, “The Lauder family intends to preserve for their use what is there today.” The fact is that Ms. Lauder already has built a house on the site, or what may actually be two houses, according to town records. The two-story main house, containing 3,500 square feet, received a certificate of occupancy in early 2014. The second building is of one story and contains 931 square feet. The Building Department had ruled that the second structure was an extension of the house rather than a separate one because the two are connected by a 1,060-square-foot wine cellar. It never received a certificate of occupancy, however.

There also are three 600-square-foot structures on the property under subdivision consideration. They sit on a giant deck under a single roof. Called an entertainment pavilion in plans by the New York architectural firm of Shelton, Mindel and Associates, this complex faces Wainscott Pond. The 600 square feet each structure contains is the maximum allowed for accessory structures. The property also contains a fire pit, a pool, more decking, and several air-conditioning units.

The proposed subdivision has been in the works for a couple of years. While no one spoke in opposition at the Nov. 18 hearing, the board has now received nine letters in opposition. The planning board does not have to consider seven of them since they arrived too late. Those seven letters encouraged the town to purchase the land.

Two other letters, which the board can legally consider, are from Mr. Istel and the East Hampton Town Trustees. Christopher Kelley of Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, representing Mr. Istel and his wife, Kathleen Begala, agreed that the land is an “excellent candidate for purchase and preservation.” Joanne Pahwul, the assistant director of the town Planning Department, has encouraged the planning board to discuss whether to recommend the purchase. Such a recommendation, though, “can have no impact on the review of the project,” she said.

If the town is not inclined to buy the property, Mr. Kelley asked instead for a scenic easement adjacent to his clients’ property, which would move the building envelope away from it.

The trustees argue that the 100-to-125-foot scenic easements proposed landward of the bluff on the three lots are “not conducive to long-term stabilization of the dunes, and . . . likely to lead to the property owner requesting a rock revetment in the future.”

Ms. Pahwul noted in a memo dated Nov. 30 that the shoreline had “exhibited rapid erosion,” with the toe of the bluff eroded 40 to 50 feet between 2010 and 2013. She said that in 2012 Ms. Lauder had received a permit to deposit 3,333 square feet of beach-compatible sand there and to “replant the dune with beach grass.”

The trustees were also concerned that if the erosion that occurred over the past few years continued, any resulting protective action “would negatively affect the public’s use and enjoyment” of the beach. The letter from the trustees was written by Diane McNally, who is no longer the trustees’ presiding officer.

Mr. Tohill, in a letter responding to both Mr. Kelley and the trustees, derided Ms. McNally’s warning that the subdivision could create a circumstance where a rock revetment would be sought, calling it 100-percent inaccurate. 

The idea that Ms. Lauder is requesting a subdivision with no intent to develop the buildable lots thereby created, was also mentioned in three other letters received after the record had been closed. The letter-writers, Susan Macy, Dennis D’Andrea, and Jose Arandia, are members of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee. They reported that William Fleming, another lawyer for Ms. Lauder, had told the committee that there were “no plans to build on the other two lots.”

A call to Mr. Tohill’s office this week asking what the point of the subdivision was if the land is never to be developed went unanswered. He had written the board saying that Ms. McNally’s warning that the subdivision would have a negative impact on the public’s access to the beach was nonsense and had criticized Mr. Kelley’s request for a scenic easement as entirely self-serving.

Ms. Pahwul weighed in on the scenic easement, noting that the new lots are on land that had historically been farmed, and therefore are not appropriate for scenic easements. Buffering between the properties could be done with plantings, she suggested. She also encouraged the board to consider the town code requirement on “the protection of natural coastal features” when designating any building envelopes.

The subdivision is likely to be on the agenda at the planning board’s next meeting, Jan. 27.