A unanimous East Hampton Town Board passed a resolution Tuesday to create the John Osborn Homestead Historic Landmark at 66 Main Street in Wainscott. The town purchased the property from Ronald Lauder, using Community Preservation Fund money, for $56 million late last year.
The historic designation applies only to the 1904 Louisa Edwards Osborn House and the 17th-century Osborn Barn, despite concerns from nine residents, many members of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee, and others affiliated with the Wainscott Heritage Project, who called in to the meeting urging the board to either pause the designation or include the land and a third structure, known as the “playhouse,” in it.
“Please note landmark status is applied to the structures only,” reads the resolution.
“We want it preserved the way it is, as we see it now,” said Bruce Wayne Solomon, a Wainscott resident wo is on the citizens committee. “It is a cherished vista.”
What the board preferred, evidently, was flexibility to deal with the water quality issues that have long plagued Wainscott Pond, making it one of the most polluted water bodies on Long Island.
“Let’s say we adopt today, and we cover the two structures,” said Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, during a board discussion about the preservation status. “We can go at a later date this year and do the third. We could, after we know what’s going there, and maybe have gotten input from the Water Quality Technical Advisory Committee, and have a plan forward for remediating Wainscott Pond, we could come back with the carve-outs and later designate the entire property historic. To me, that’s a methodical way to do it. Not go in blindly until we know what we’re working with there, because we don’t know how we’re going to remediate that pond.”
“That’s what I was thinking,” said Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a councilman. “Everyone agrees that the two structures should be preserved as historic. We need another hearing to do more than that anyway. So, the good we can do today is that — as long as we’re not handcuffing ourselves for the future.”
Ms. Burke-Gonzalez received assurance from John Jilnicki, assistant town attorney, that approving the historic designation for just the two structures wouldn’t preclude the board from designating the third structure or the land.
Mr. Jilnicki also responded to questions from board members regarding his memo outlining permitted uses of the acquisition and how differing historic designations could affect it. The memo recalled that in the public hearing on the acquisition, board members listed four goals of the purchase: to preserve open space, agricultural lands, historic places and property, and to allow for the protection and improvement of water quality.
“I wouldn’t want to see a situation where the town decides to implement a water quality improvement, and you actually have to install structures, and then you have an opposition that you can’t do that because the property itself is designated historic and they’re not consistent with historic use of the property,” Mr. Jilnicki said. “It’s a pretty highly protected parcel already just by nature of a C.P.F. acquisition, and there’s not an awful lot of things you could allow to have happen on it.”
One comment from the public mentioned the potential for a playground on the property. “There can’t be a playground here,” said Councilman David Lys. “So, there’s some inconsistencies with what information is being put out there.”
“I would consider a trail passive recreation,” said Scott Wilson, director of land acquisition and management. “That’s an appropriate use on an open-space property — not a playground.”
Councilwoman Cate Rogers relayed concerns from the advisory committee that a portion of the land could be turned into a large parking area for beach or pond access. “Like the playground, that’s one of the things that’s out there,” she said.
“The only way that I could see that happening, is whether it was designated on the property or otherwise is an alienation of the property that’s approved by the Legislature of the State of New York, which requires a substitute of equal value or more,” said Mr. Jilnicki. “So, I don’t really see that. It’s certainly not a possibility under the C.P.F. regulations.”
The permitted uses would be fine-tuned in a property management plan, which would be subject to a public hearing when complete.
“Our next Property Management Committee meeting is actually on site at 66 Wainscott Main,” said Mr. Wilson. “The plan is basically a guide on how the town board proposes to the public what they want to see happen on that site. It also provides protections, because there’s a list of ‘cans’ and there’s a list of ‘cant’s.’ “
“I don’t feel it’s quite that straightforward,” said Councilman Tom Flight. “I feel like we have approved management plans out there that we don’t necessarily follow through on. Management plans are seemingly more visionary, instead of being applicable in some cases.”
“That’s true,” conceded Mr. Wilson.
“Does the historic property designation forbid the construction of underground water quality improvements?” asked Ms. Rogers. “Would you say that putting the historic designation on the property could complicate the water quality projects?”
“I do think that it could,” Mr. Jilnicki replied. “It gives a tool to somebody who wants to challenge that occurring, to argue that it’s not consistent with the historical designation.”
“I’m not a fan of leaving it up to a judge,” said Councilwoman Rogers, making up her mind. “I support what we’re doing right now. I agree with Kathee on being methodical, and would not want to put a designation on this property that would preclude us from water quality projects. Once we know what water quality projects will be needed, I can vote in the affirmative.”
