Status of Rehab Facility Under Scrutiny

The Dunes, a center for recovering drug addicts on Bull Run in East Hampton’s Northwest Woods, came under an East Hampton Town Planning Board spotlight on May 11, as members considered the center’s application for a special permit as a semi-public facility.

Safe Harbor Retreat, which is headed by Joe McKinsey, leases, with an option to buy, the almost-four-acre property. It has operated the Dunes there since 2011 in a neighborhood zoned for residences, and a certificate of occupancy had been issued for the building as a residence in 2006.

“When you are asking for a special permit, we have to take special care,” Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a member of the board, said. “You’re in a residential area. We have to take that into account. You have a little uphill battle,” he warned Mr. McKinsey’s lawyer, Patrick McCormick.

The status of the Dunes has been clouded by past negotiations with town officials and a lawsuit the facility brought against the town, which was dismissed.

Mr. McKinsey reported, in a 2013 interview, that his company received intial approval from then-Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, former Police Chief Edward V. Ecker, and then-town attorney John Jilnicki, all of whom, on July 9, 2011, signed a letter indicating support. Mr. Jilnicki now has the title of senior assistant town attorney, and frequently advises the planning board.

What apparently happened next was that Tom Preiato, the top town building inspector at the time, found that the residence was, despite the somewhat transient nature of its tenants, operating as a single-family unit, making it allowable under residential zoning. But, in September 2011, Mr. Preiato reversed course. In a letter to Mr. McKinsey, he said, “It is now clear that such an operation is not permitted in a residential zone without site plan approval.” Mr. McKinsey took the case to the zoning board of appeals in 2012, asking that Mr. Preiato’s determination be reversed. When the appeals board declined to do so, the Dunes sued the town.

“They launched a federal lawsuit, alleging discrimination,” Jeffrey Bragman, an attorney representing disgruntled Northwest Woods neighbors, told the planning board last week. “The lawsuit was denied as not being ripe,” he said. That is, the court found that the Dunes had not exhausted its options at the planning board and zoning board levels.

Despite legal rejection, Mr. McCormick said on May 11, the Dunes stands by the belief that the residents are a “protected class of individuals” as recovering drug addicts. The board, however, focused on the numbers of residents, the duration of stays, and the number of employees. Mr. McCormick told the board that the ideal stay was 11 months to assure recovery. That number was not realistic, Mr. Bragman responded, saying stays were much shorter, due in part to the cost, which he said was $45,000 a month. Mr. Bragman also said residents received three meals a day. “They have three chefs there, and a sous chef,” Mr. Bragman said, along with three maids. According to a memo prepared for the planning board by Eric Schantz, senior town planner, the Dunes indicated that up to 16 residents could be there at any one time.

“The Dunes has dramatically underestimated occupants in the house,” Mr. Bragman alleged, along with the number of attending employees, which he said was three for each resident.  Mr. McCormick challenged Mr. Bragman’s numbers, accusing him of cherry-picking them from different documents.

“I was there today myself. I did count eight cars in the front, and four in the back,” Kathleen Cunningham, a member of the planning board, said.”If you have 10 people a day, being served 30 meals a day, you are really running a mini-restaurant,” Diana Weir, another board member, said.

 The intensity of use of the septic system was an ongoing theme throughout the discussion. The site is in a water recharge district, and appears to have been over-cleared, Mr. Schantz told the board.

While Reed Jones, the board’s chairman, commended the attempt by the Dunes to help the addicted, he said, “I wonder if this property is large enough for the specific use. I’m not sure it is.”

Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the site plan as well, with Mr. McCormick responding.  “What is going on is NIMBYism. We are happy to respond to any question. We are not retreating from anything. We don’t retreat. I want to make it clear,” he said.

Even with a special permit from the planning board, the Dunes would have to apply to the Z.B.A. for setback variances, among others. Board members agreed that when the applicant makes that application, they would send comments to the Z.B.A. They did not discuss what those comments might be.

Another hot-button issue on the agenda May 11 was a site plan for 12 new cellphone antenna panels to go on the existing monopole at the East Hampton Town Recycling Center. The pole already holds equipment from Sprint and T-Mobile, whose leases run out between 2021 and 2022, and Lisa A. Covert of the Amato Group, representing Verizon, attended the session.

Another application with regard to cellphone equipment, to be considered by the board in coming weeks, is from AT&T, Mr. Schantz said. It is proposing a new pole at the location, which would eventually host all four companies. Because of that, Mr. Schantz told the planners they should consider limiting the lease for Verizon on the existing pole to five years, an idea Ms. Covert chafed at.

“The future of the AT&T pole is uncertain,” she said. She went on to tell the board that, at the heart of the urgency felt by her corporate client is that Cablevision is not renewing leases for cellphone companies on its tower at Springs-Fireplace Road and Abraham’s Path. Verizon needs a longer commitment than five years, she said. “There may be a significant gap in service if that doesn’t happen.”

Board members discussed the possibility of making the lease renewable in case the new tower doesn’t materialize. A public hearing on the proposal was to be scheduled last night.