It’s no loss to Mary Pazan, even though the judge dismissed the lawsuit to overturn a plan to renovate the tainted Bel-Aire Cove Motel that she, Liz Hook, and Doreen Bartoldus brought to Southampton Town. Given all the documents they tracked down and amassed, the Hampton Bays trio – two lawyers and an engineer – say they will be well equipped to sue again in due course. “We are ready,” said Ms. Pagan this week.
The Article 78 lawsuit filed in August 2019 aimed to repeal the acceptance of the Hampton Bays Waterfront Resort revitalization plan and the selection of the Bel-Aire Cove Motel on Shinnecock Road as the first urban renewal area under the plan. Southampton City Warden Jay Schneiderman advocated a vision that would transform the rundown motel into luxury condominium or a boutique hotel. The city bought the property in 2019 and paid $ 1.06 million for the 1.47 acres at the top of Penny Pond.
In the decision to adopt the Waterfront Plan, which was passed by the city government on the same evening as the motel purchase, it was determined that it would have no negative environmental impact and therefore not a comprehensive review under state law reviewing the Environmental quality is required. The women disagreed and hoped to force the city to scrutinize the plan under SEQRA and prohibit the city from spending any money on the project.
Ms. Bartoldus, an engineer with expertise in the SEQRA review, spoke of driving to the job site and “it took no more than 10 seconds” to write down a number of environmental issues – such as erosion control, cesspool location, a bulkhead in bad condition. “The property was in very bad shape,” she said, offering that any plan would require a “really good SEQRA review and really good environmental controls.” A more thorough environmental assessment was justified, the trio said. Ms. Pazan described the city’s environmental review as “superficial”.
The state Supreme Court Justice, Sanford Berland, disagreed.
He dismissed the case in late December and offered an oral decision. He said it was premature, Ms. Hook explained. The judge said the city’s plan was “nothing but a goal” and the review was appropriate, Ms. Pazan said. There doesn’t need to be a more detailed review until a site plan has been submitted for the property, Ms. Hook said.
An eyebrow-raising aspect of Supervisor Schneiderman’s vision for the property as a family-oriented tourist area that would include either 20 luxury motel units or 12 high-end condominiums was the idea of the city creating the site plan for the property. City officials would guide the project through the site planning process overseen by their own city planning agency.
The supervisor – and later the approved plan – took his initiative forward in 2019, saying the city would draft a blueprint for the land, which currently has a two-story residence and about 20 units. The units, he said this week, “are in pretty bad shape.”
The city would buy the land, which it did, and then tear down the old buildings, which it hasn’t done yet. The plan is that the city will ensure the proper zoning and permit is in place before tendering the “shovel-ready” property development. However, Mr Schneiderman said this week that officials could simply sell the land to a developer and let the developer walk a project through the city’s planning process.
“If we at the end of the [planning] Obviously, if any permit is in, it will be sold for more money, ”Schneiderman said. “But,” he added, “I’d rather get rid of it sooner than later.”
Regarding the lawsuit, the supervisor emphasized: “A SEQRA review would take place in any actual site plan process.”
He said the building has not yet been demolished as the site needs an assessment by the Suffolk County’s Department of Health to determine the proper plumbing flow for the pre-existing improper use. Any new development would involve the installation of a modern sewer system.
The environmental impact of the plan was not the only concern of litigants. During the month-long settlement talks, which Ms. Hook described as “endless,” the women tried to get city officials to make sure that the Bel-Aire was the only waterfront motel available for purchase and revitalization.
While the city’s coastal resource plan acknowledges concern that individual projects may not have an adverse impact but, when combined with other, nearby developments, could damage coastal resources, the waterfront plan fails to do so. In fact, it calls for a development that could have cumulative adverse effects, say the litigants.
“The city government has not considered the implications of the Waterfront Plan’s goal of converting several properties in Hampton Bays,” the court records read. In fact, the plan “specifically states that its goal is to improve the development and rehabilitation of waterfront properties in Hampton Bays, which is in direct contradiction to the Zoning Acts and the 2016 Coastal Resource Plan that is designed to contain and control that development were. “
But it must not contradict the wishes of the residents of Hampton Bays. Ms. Pazan, Hook and Bartoldus prefer a park in the area and found that another sticking point in the settlement talks was the city’s refusal to consider public use and public access in future environmental assessments – “that’s where the talks broke out in my case together opinion, ”said Ms. Pazan.
Mr. Schneiderman replied, “I’ve spoken to many, many people and the people in Hampton Bays don’t think they need a park there.” Describing the neighborhood as “sort of an industrial park,” he said, “People seem to be embracing the creation of family-friendly tourism in Hampton Bays and this is an opportunity spot.”
Ms. Pazan looked at yet another facet of her legal effort, pointing to the money the city has spent so far between buying the land, losing three years of tax income, and defending the lawsuit. “All the money to see if this goal is feasible,” she said. She believes the city is wasting money pursuing something that is probably not feasible.
The manager disagrees.
Hampton Bays is a “hot spot” right now and the time is right, he said, offering, “I’m confident this will have a happy ending.”
When asked what happens now, Ms. Hook said, “We’re waiting.” Ms. Pazan shared what Judge Berland said when he offered his release. “He said his decision by no means signaled the end of the controversy over what to do with the property.”