Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise notice, privacy and traffic concerns as board reviews JWD4 three‑lot subdivision
Summary
The Southampton Town Planning Board heard a presubmission for a three‑lot subdivision by JWD4 LLC in Bridgehampton that would preserve half the parcel as an agricultural reserve; neighbors raised notice, pool‑visibility and vehicle cut‑through concerns. The board extended the written comment period to 45 days.
Southampton — The Town Planning Board on June 25 took up a presubmission conference for JWD4 LLC’s proposed three‑lot subdivision in the hamlet of Bridgehampton, a plan that would split an existing roughly 250,000‑square‑foot parcel into three building lots and an agricultural reserve that preserves 50% of the land.
Carl Benasa, speaking for the applicant, described the layout and lot sizes, saying the plan would retain an existing house and renovate a barn. “The purpose of this is to design a sort of communal living for a family. There is no intent … to sell these,” Benasa said, describing lot one at about 15,433 square feet, lot two at roughly 65,321 square feet and lot three at about 44,246 square feet with associated frontage and an easement for vehicular access.
Neighbors told the board they had concerns about notice and potential impacts. “We were not notified by mail,” said Martha Green Saunders of 700 Lumber Lane, who added that a future swimming pool and increased vehicle traffic could affect privacy and lead to people cutting through adjacent properties. Saunders asked the board to ensure notice requirements and buffering were addressed.
Lauren Sky, an adjoining owner, cautioned the board about setting a precedent, noting a prior three‑lot proposal encountered problems because a parcel fell short of a six‑acre threshold and said sewage and permitting had been concerns in that earlier review.
Board members questioned whether any structures were being built before subdivision approval and asked about existing egress across neighboring land. Benasa clarified that the existing house and barn are being incorporated into the plan and that the parcel meets R80 lot‑area requirements; he said he would speak with the owner about vehicle access across adjacent property.
Procedural outcome: the board closed the presubmission conference and extended the written comment period to 45 days (motion by Glorian; second by Dennis). The vote was recorded as five in favor, two absent.
What happens next: the extended written comment period gives neighbors and agencies additional time to file comments with planning staff; the application will return for formal review after the presubmission period closes.
