At its first meeting of the year, the East Hampton Town Planning Board, under the new chairmanship of Ed Krug, chose not to pursue an Article 78 lawsuit against the town board for passing a resolution to exempt the new senior citizens center from town planning and zoning regulations.
The town board approved the resolution, which relied on the “Monroe balancing test” to assess the legality of the move, by a 3-to-1-to-1 vote on Dec. 10. After the previous planning board chairman, Samuel Kramer, was told in December that he would not be reappointed as chairman, he suggested at his final meeting before announcing he would resign from the board that his colleagues consider a lawsuit to explore whether the resolution was faulty.
“I’m committed to maintaining the independence and autonomy of this board,” said Mr. Krug at the board’s Jan. 15 meeting. “I do think that, in many ways, the town’s adopting that does diminish to some degree our standing as a board. I really would have preferred that that this had not happened, but it did.”
He said the board’s chances of prevailing in a lawsuit were scant. He noted, however, that “Some people who are promoting this idea may be thinking that winning is not really the point, but I think most people in this town would find this to be a waste of time and taxpayer money.”
Tina Vavilis LaGarenne, the newly appointed planning director, presented a timeline of the senior center project to the planning board, which last discussed it in June 2023. The review was welcomed by the board, which has seen more than half its membership turn over in just the last year. Bruce Siska, Jennifer Fowkes, Ave Warren, and Reed Jones are all new to the seven-member board, with Mr. Jones appointed this month to replace Mr. Kramer and Ms. Warren appointed in the fall to replace Sharon McCobb.
Ms. Vavilis LaGarenne explained that she had made two presentations to the town board evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed 22,000-square-foot facility under the framework of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The impacts were categorized as none, small, moderate, or large. “Physical disturbance associated with the proposed project” was the only category where moderate to large impacts were noted, she told the board. The town board issued a “negative declaration” for the project on Nov. 19, meaning that further in-depth environmental review would not be required.
Criticism has been raised about the removal of habitat used by the northern long-eared bat. First listed as federally-threatened in 2015, the bat was reclassified as endangered two years ago. The bat winters in caves but uses woodlands in East Hampton to roost during the warmer months. Ms. Vavilis LaGarenne said construction will occur in two phases that will prevent the “incidental take,” or killing, of the bats. “The phasing plan prohibits construction during sensitive times of the bat’s life cycle and only allows clearing during the winter cycle,” she said. “That issue was thoroughly analyzed and carefully addressed.” While the bat may not be present when the trees are cleared (the town has until the end of February to finish the job) it’s unclear what happens to them upon their return, if there are fewer woodlands in which to roost. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, numbers of the bat have declined by 97 to 100 percent.
“My question is, what is our function in all of this?” asked Louis Cortese, a planning board member. The planning board had been asked to submit comments, but the town board now has the authority to approve its own site plan. “We have site plan review,” said Ed Krug, the chairman. “We have a 30-day period to react to the site plan, but this is being driven by the town board.”
“They don’t need site plan approval, but they still want the planning board to comment on the plan,” clarified Ms. Vavilis LaGarenne.
“We had reasonably positive things to say about it,” when it was reviewed in 2023, remembered Mr. Krug. “That was before the town board became lead agency, which sort of changed the dynamic a little. Once they did become lead agency, all the things that Tina just described happened.” Nonetheless, he said, “My feelings about this are that we could have added a lot to this process if we had been involved in a different way.”
Even if his board sued and prevailed, he continued, it’s not clear how the role of the planning board would change. “It’s not something we should pursue.”
The board fell in line behind the new chairman.
“I don’t want to be too critical of the town board because I’m all for what they’re trying to do with this project,” said Mr. Cortese, “but I also think that there’s a conflict of interest here with regard to the Monroe balancing test. I think they have a certain bias that would have been mitigated if we had done a site plan review.”
Mr. Krug agreed and added that it was “revealing” that adopting the results of the Monroe balancing test was not a unanimous decision of the town board. “It’s something that I hope the town doesn’t continue to do with newer projects.”
