Dunehampton Request Turned Down
The State Court of Appeals this week refused to hear a request by representatives of Dunehampton, a proposed village comprising the oceanfront land of three eastern hamlets in Southampton Town. The decision, which Dunehampton's opponents had expected, effectively stops the case from being considered any further.
In February, a State Appellate Division panel unanimously upheld a determination by Southampton Town Supervisor Patrick A. Heaney that a petition calling for a referendum on Dunehampton was not legitimate. Dunehampton's proponents then asked the State Court of Appeals to consider the case.
Thomas Butler, a partner in the law firm Chadbourne and Park, who represents the Dunehampton proponents, said they were very disappointed and "collectively considering our options." He also said he planned to review the impact of the lower courts' decisions on the case as a whole.
Such decisions could be instructive for the Dunehampton supporters, who have also filed a petition with the town to incorporate Southampton Beach, which would absorb more land in Sagaponack and farther inland along the coast.
The petition for Southampton Beach is in line behind yet another one, for a Sagaponack village. But if Sagaponack incorporates, Southampton Beach will lose all its Sagaponack territory, as well as the Sagaponack residents that Southampton Beach now claims on the petition that it has.
That, Mr. Heaney has said previously, will make the task of assembling 500 regular residents for Southampton Beach nearly impossible. He could not be reached for comment this week.
The Dunehampton village petition came in response to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law adopted by Southampton in 2003. The law set limits on how much and what types of protection homeowners could use against erosion and limited how much they could rebuild.
Oceanfront property owners from Water Mill to Sagaponack signed on to form an incorporated village and devise their own laws.
Their petition was deemed "insufficient" by Mr. Heaney, who found that the list included names of people who were deceased as well as those who maintained another residence for voting purposes. The state requires those petitioning for incorporation to have as their primary residence the area that will form the proposed village. Voter registration at the time the petition is signed is one way to confirm such residence.
The Appeals Court decision will allow Sagaponack residents to have their own petition on forming an incorporated village proceed. Mr. Heaney had been asked by a previous appellate court not to consider the Sagaponack decision until the Dunehampton case had been definitively decided.
A hearing on the Sagaponack village petition was held last May, before the court's request was issued. Mr. Heaney would now be compelled to proceed.
Sagaponack's petition has been classified by residents and town officials as a mostly defensive measure to protect their beachfront from being co-opted by a third party - that is, Dunehampton.
This month the Sagaponack Citizens Advisory Committee started to prepare a response in case Sagaponack's petition is challenged by Dunehampton representatives. They were concerned about people who may have moved or died since the Sagaponack petition was signed. Even though its progress was thwarted pending a decision on Dunehampton, the petition has to be considered as it was originally submitted and cannot be updated by those who are behind it.
"We're looking at every and all options regarding Dunehampton and Sagaponack, but I don't have anything I can tell you yet," said Mr. Butler, the Dunehampton lawyer.
If Dunehampton challenges the Sagaponack petition, it is likely to take the same route through the state courts and appeals process. If, after this process, Sagaponack can get a referendum passed determining the boundaries that would be incorporated, there will be two years in which to decide whether to go ahead.