Ruling quashes Sag Harbor measures for affordable housing, citing 'incomplete environmental review'

Sag Harbor's affordable housing initiative failed to survive a legal challenge, an outcome that village officials said puts a proposed 79-unit, mixed-use development on hold at least temporarily.

Mayor James Larocca said the legal pushback to the affordable housing measures reveals a “fault line” between established homeowners and the “next generation" in the village.

“That’s where my disappointment lies — that these well-to-do, well-heeled people comfortably living in homes that are affordable to them so aggressively and so dramatically worked to shut down our affordable housing initiative," he added.

Suffolk State Supreme Court Justice C. Stephen Hackeling cited an “incomplete environmental review” in his April 10 decision overturning a pair of laws the village board adopted in June. The laws changed zoning in the business and office districts to allow high-density housing.

The organization Save Sag Harbor and seven village residents filed the lawsuit in October. It claimed the zoning change would increase traffic, noise and storm water runoff, reduce the property values of nearby homes and “irreparably alter the character of the Village."

Attorney Claudia Braymer, who represented the petitioners, said her clients repeatedly have said they’re not against finding a solution for affordable housing. She noted their lawsuit didn't challenge a third law passed in June that was intended to expand accessory dwelling units.

“Affordable housing plans deserve the same kind of scrupulous review that any other project would get. The law requires that review to occur as early as possible in the process," added Braymer's co-counsel, Jeffrey Bragman.

The judge's decision said the State Environmental Quality Review Act requires municipalities to review environmental considerations “at the earliest possible time.”

The village board determined its laws wouldn't have significant adverse environmental impacts and issued what’s known as a “negative declaration” at the same time it adopted the measures on June 14, according to court filings.

But the judge's decision indicated two of the three parts of the environmental assessment form connected to the proposed legal change weren't filled out at that time.

When the new legislation was filed with the state on June 23, it also had a "planning analysis" for the legislation dated June 22 — eight days after the vote.

In addition, Larocca didn't sign the third part of the assessment form until July, the ruling also says.

"Clearly, the record in this instance indicates a de minimis, incomplete environmental review was undertaken at the same time (if not after) the decision was made to adopt the subject Local Laws," Hackeling wrote.

Larocca, who isn't seeking reelection in June, said the village board is taking time after the court decision to regroup and plans to discuss the issue at the May 9 meeting.

“This was a stunner,” he said.

The mayor added that he believes an appeal process would be too costly and lengthy.

“I’d rather turn our attention to what failings there may have been or perceived to be in the legislation and work from there,” Larocca said.

East End YIMBY, a community group that advocates for affordable housing on the East End, worked with the village to adopt the now-overturned laws.

Group founder Mike Daley said the lawsuit surprised him since the zoning changes largely had been supported in the process leading up to approval. He said he hopes the village looks to "cure the faults that may be in the legislation."

The petitioners said in a January court filing that the village board failed to consider the impacts of the proposed multistory, mixed-use apartment project on Bridge and Rose streets. Developer Adam Potter submitted the project application one day after the village adopted the laws.

The petitioners also argued village officials knew adopting the laws would pave the way for the large development and an environmental review should have factored in the project. 

Village attorney Elizabeth Vail countered in court papers that any application such as the Potter project still would need to undergo multiple levels of scrutiny from municipal boards, including an environmental review.

“This case is about established property owners rejecting affordable housing initiatives in their community,” the attorney wrote.

By Joe Werkmeister

joe.werkmeister@newsday.com

Joe Werkmeister covers the towns of Southampton, East Hampton and Shelter Island. He is a graduate of St. Bonaventure University and previously worked as the editor of two North Fork community newspapers.

---