Indian Wells Lot Division Gets Reprieve
With barely a quorum on Feb. 25 (three of the seven members were absent) the East Hampton Town Planning Board ruled that the applicant who seeks to divide a house lot on Indian Wells Highway in Amagansett would not have to submit a full environment impact statement under the state’s Environmental Quality Review Act. Kathleen Cunningham, Diana Weir, Ian Calder-Piedmonte, and Reed Jones, the board’s chair, agreed that the proposed division of 38 Indian Wells Highway would have “no or small impact” on the area.
However, all four members expressed concern about the proposal. “I think it is a disturbing trend to create two nonconforming lots,” Ms. Cunningham had said before she voted. Ms. Weir was equally reluctant, questioning the findings of an impact assessment, but she agreed to allow the procedural action to go forward, not wanting “to gum up the works,” as she put it.
“This shouldn’t be construed as this being any kind of endorsement on this proposal. It is not,” Eric Schantz, a senior planner with the town’s Planning Department, assured the board members about the SEQRA declaration. Mr Calder-Piedmonte and Mr. Reed voiced reservations as well.
The vote was needed because the application is also in front of the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, for variances to allow two parcels to be smaller than the zoning code calls for in that area. The Z.B.A. could not act until the SEQRA decision was made.
The property is a little over one acre, a narrow strip of land that runs east to west from Indian Wells Highway to Further Court. There are two houses on the property, one accessed by a driveway from Indian Wells Highway, the other from Further Court. A hedgerow separates the two houses. The area is zoned for at least one-acre house lots. Thomas Onisko, the property owner, wants to break the property into two roughly half-acre lots, and has told the board that he has already sold the property on the condition that it is divided.
Before the planning board’s vote on SEQRA, several neighbors addressed the board stating their opposition, much as they had at a public hearing before the Z.B.A. They also expressed concern with the complicated process, saying they did not know the planning board had already held two reviews of the proposal.
Mr. Jones reminded those in the room that a planning board hearing would be held if the Z.B.A. approves the requested variances, and that all adjacent neighbors would be notified.
“This has been slipping in under the radar,” Theodore Sklar, an attorney with Esseks, Hefter & Angel, said. He represents a couple who live adjacent to the property. He said he had watched recordings of the two previous planning board sessions concerning the proposal, noting that it was clear that the board was far from being in support of the proposal. “Exercise your statutory authority to let the Z.B.A. know how you feel about it,” Mr. Sklar urged. Mr. Jones agreed, and said he would ask the rest of the board to send comments to the Z.B.A.
Another controversial subdivision, that of 55 Wainscott Hollow, has already had two public hearings before the planning board. It was scheduled to be discussed again on Feb. 25, but Mary Jane Asato, an attorney representing the applicants, asked that it be tabled because Bob Schaeffer, a member of the board who has been an advocate for the proposal, could not be present. The plan calls for seven buildable lots on 40 acres of former farmland, and at least two of the four members present oppose the proposal as currently configured. Ms. Weir has repeatedly called the layout “bad planning.”
Mr. Schaeffer spoke on the phone Tuesday. He confirmed that he is undergoing chemotherapy and radiation for cancer. On Tuesday, he said, he underwent radiation treatment twice. He promised he would be in attendance at last night’s scheduled planning board meeting, at least when the 55 Wainscott Hollow Road proposal was discussed.
He also said he is very hopeful that the treatments will bring the cancer into remission.