Even though clearing for the new East Hampton Town Senior Citizens Center on Abraham’s Path in Amagansett is to begin next month, its design, features, and cost have been drawing scrutiny; and, now, potential zoning exemptions for the project are being debated, too.
On Tuesday, the town board heard from consulting attorneys who explained how the board could declare itself exempt from zoning regulations. That discussion came on the heels of another, on Dec. 7, when Jeff Bragman, a former councilman, asked if the board was “effectively exempting yourself from zoning, because your [appointed] boards are not actually granting approvals or conditioning this project in a way that binds you.” Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc responded that the board would seek review and comment from the Planning, Zoning, and Architectural Review Boards, but that the ultimate authority would be the town board.
Mr. Bragman returned to Town Hall on Tuesday, telling the board during the public-comment period at the start of the work session that such a move would trigger a process called “Monroe analysis,” which requires public notice and a decision that “follows a balancing test that the highest court in the State of New York has imposed on municipalities. It’s not correct that the town board is automatically exempt from its zoning and planning process,” he said. “I have always urged the town board not to abrogate the zoning process on its own projects, especially one of the largest and most expensive projects ever proposed in the town, the senior center.”
Public participation is critical to making a decision, Mr. Bragman said. With construction slated to begin in mid-2024 and clearing of the site starting next month, “to me,” he said, this “suggests that there is a great deal of institutional, let’s call it pressure — the courts have called it institutional bias in favor of the project — which has no place in a thorough planning review, which this project should get.”
The center is to be sited on a seven-acre portion of a larger parcel that has yet to be subdivided, Mr. Bragman said, and the power of subdivision is within the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. “In the Town of East Hampton, you can’t clear on a project like this, which the town has discussed, without getting a building permit. You can’t get a building permit without doing the State environmental review.”
Phil Butler, a consulting attorney, described the Monroe analysis as the inquiry the town board would have to initiate if it was considering exempting the senior citizens center from its own zoning processes and laws. Monroe analysis stems from a 1988 case involving Monroe County and the City of Rochester.
Mr. Butler listed various government construction projects around New York State that have been exempted from local zoning laws following Monroe analysis. These include libraries, police stations, firehouses, ambulance facilities, telecommunications towers, and landfills, he said.
There are nine factors to be considered, Mr. Butler continued: the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity; the encroaching government’s legislative grant of authority; the kind of function or land use involved; the effect local land use regulation would have upon the concerned enterprise; alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas; the impact upon legitimate local interests; alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement; the extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements, and intergovernmental participation in the project’s development process and an opportunity for those parties to be heard.
Not all factors are always relevant, not any one is determinative, and any one factor can be determined to be the most important, Mr. Butler said. “You can exempt the project partially from zoning, and in other aspects apply your zoning process.”
Mr. Bragman is correct, he said, that public notice and a public hearing are required, “and, of course, you have to have a written decision with a reasoned outcome for why you’re reaching a particular decision, whether you say that it’s entirely immune, the project is not immune, or you’re immune in certain aspects.” The public would weigh in at the required hearing. “I would also encourage that you consult with your planning staff, your planning consultants, and in confidential conversations with your attorneys on matters relating to the immunity question.”
Once the hearing was closed, Mr. Butler said, the board would deliberate in sessions that the public could view. “Then, when you’re comfortable with a decision, you’ll direct counsel to draft a decision reflecting what you believe will be the outcome.” Finally, the board would vote on any potential zoning exemptions at a subsequent meeting, and the decision would be published.
Supervisor Van Scoyoc thanked Mr. Bragman and Mr. Butler for their input, but the board did not respond to their comments on Tuesday, and moved on to the next agenda item.
