The East Hampton Town Planning Board voted on Jan. 24 to advise the town board that it objects to the latter’s plan to take the lead on reviewing the town’s new senior citizens center, exempting it from oversight by the planning, zoning, and architectural review boards.
The following day, the architectural review board deferred a decision on how it would respond to the town board’s intention. It is expected to issue a response at its meeting next Thursday. Before both of those boards’ consideration of the matter, the zoning board of appeals, while acknowledging that it would not be what is called lead agency on the project in any event, opted to table a response to the town board until its meeting on Tuesday.
The planning board’s 6-to-1 vote came in response to a letter from the town board detailing its intention. The town board is seeking lead agency status despite the fact that, were the senior citizens center subject to the town’s zoning standards and procedures, it would require subdivision, site plan approval, a special permit from the planning board, and area variances from the zoning board of appeals for total lot coverage, building coverage, and gross floor area.
The town board indicated last month that it planned a vote on applying a “balancing of public interests” analysis that would enable it to exempt the proposed new senior citizens center from zoning standards and procedures. As of Tuesday, no date had been set for that vote.
The new center, to be constructed on seven acres at 403 Abraham’s Path in Amagansett, is proposed to be almost 22,000 square feet, at a cost of just under $32 million. Plans call for solar canopies over parking spaces, walking trails, and other site improvements as well as expanded services to residents ages 60 and over. But in the last several weeks some residents have questioned the need for a facility of its proposed size and cost. The project’s architects and Jeremy Samuelson, the planning director, spoke at length about the center’s design and the need for expanded services during the town board’s Jan. 23 meeting.
“If you do not respond to this request for lead agency status within 30 days of the date of this letter we will assume that you have no objections,” states the town board’s letter, which went to the three appointed boards. “The town board will continue to coordinate and cooperate with your agency and all involved agencies.”
“What this means,” Sam Kramer, the planning board’s chairman, told his colleagues at the Jan. 24 meeting, “is that we are being given the opportunity to advise the town board that we wish to be the lead agency on this application.” Were the planning board the lead agency, “we would do what we would typically do,” he said, “which means that we’re the ones that decide whether there’s going to be an [environmental impact statement] required. . . . There would obviously be site plan review involved. If we’re not the lead agency, as we would typically be in a subdivision or a site plan review, then that’s ceded to the town board, and our ability to act in the way that we ordinarily would . . . would be given away, ceded.”
Only Michael Hansen opposed the planning board objecting to the town board’s intention for lead agency status. The town board has already put “a thorough, comprehensive effort” into the project, he said, adding that as lead agency it would still be required to seek permits and approvals from non-town agencies including the Suffolk County Health Department, the Suffolk County Water Authority, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The town board, Mr. Kramer replied, may have “all the good reasons in the world” that it should be the lead agency on the project, “and I understand the history, they’re the ones who shepherded the project through. . . . At the same time, this board has the expertise and has the experience of dealing with site plan and subdivision. . . . But if we don’t object, we’re out.”
In remarks to the A.R.B., Mr. Samuelson said that the letter represents the town board’s belief “that they feel they are the appropriate agency to step into that lead agency role, and so there is an obligation that they have under state law to formally coordinate with the other potentially involved agencies, including yourself.” Members of the town board, he said, also “have every desire and intention” to solicit and listen to input “that you would put forward as you move through your review of this application.”
Frank Guittard, an A.R.B. member, suggested seeking from the town board “clarification as to what exactly that process would be going forward in terms of the A.R.B.’s involvement.”
“I think our consideration of this project is important,” said Dianne Benson, another A.R.B. member.
“I agree,” said Chip Rae, the chairman. “So I think we’d like to defer making a decision” until the next meeting.
Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said that the planning board’s vote does not change her belief that the town board is the appropriate entity to serve as lead agency. It spearheaded the effort and has been working on the project since 2014, she said in an email on Tuesday. It is also “the largest stakeholder among the town’s boards because it is responsible for approving the plans, the contracts, and the funding that’s required” to make the new center a reality, she said, and board members are “directly answerable to the public, especially the senior residents this project is intended to serve.”
The town board, she added, has historically been the lead agency on town projects, working in conjunction with the planning department, which has been involved in the process of selecting the site and developing the program and site plan for almost three years.
“Importantly, and contrary to what some objectors to the project have said, the town board serving as lead agency does not mean that input from the town’s other boards will be disregarded,” Ms. Burke-Gonzalez said. “The town board will consult with the other boards on planning issues and will thoroughly consider their comments before finalizing the plans for the proposed center.”
