May 29, 2012 6:07 PMA Wainscott couple has filed suit against East Hampton Town officials and their neighbor, farmer William A. Babinski Jr., claiming that a Planning Board approval of a barn on his 20-acre property on Beach Lane was illegal.
The suit, filed on May 17 in New York State Supreme Court by Thomas and Shelley Gilbert, lists members of the East Hampton Town Planning Board, the town’s Architectural Review Board and Mr. Babinski. It alleges that town officials didn’t go through the proper approval process when they signed off on the barn through its Planning Board and its Architectural Review Board, and should have asked the Town Board to sign off on it.
The Planning Board voted to approve the 1,380-square foot barn in April, despite the Gilberts opposing it at a public hearing, according to Jeffrey Bragman, their East Hampton attorney. Their main complaint was that the barn blocked their view of scenic farm vistas, according to the lawsuit. The Gilberts didn’t return a call seeking comment on Tuesday.
Mr. Bragman said the couple asked the Planning Board to relocate the barn to the south side of the parcel at the public hearing, but to no avail. He also said the Planning Board shouldn’t have approved the site plan since the farm contained illegal structures, a portable toilet and two shipping containers.
At some point, Mr. Babinski was able to obtain approval from the town’s Building Department to construct the barn. But Mr. Bragman said he requested that the town issue a stop-work order because he had learned that the project needed approval from the Town Board. That’s because the town and the Peconic Land Trust purchased the development rights of the farm in 2006, so the Town Board is required to sign off on any construction projects. A stop-work order was issued last week, said Mr. Bragman.
When reached this week, Mr. Babinski said he didn’t know the details of the lawsuit and said it was in the hands of his attorneys. He said the barn is needed to store agricultural equipment. Mr. Babinski farms a range of crops, including sweet corn, tomatoes, peppers, and strawberries.
“I think everything was done as best as we knew how,” Mr. Babinski said of the approval process for the barn.
The property was purchased in 2006 for the purpose of farmland preservation, noted Diana Weir, the vice chairwoman of the Planning Board. When it was purchased in 2006, it was decided that a portion of the property would be set aside for agricultural buildings to support the farming use.
“He has the right to farm the property— that was what was part of the agreement—and he is allowed to build structures on there,” said Ms. Weir.
Mr. Bragman contends that the Planning Board shouldn’t have approved a site plan for the second barn, given the fact that some of the structures there are illegal.
“It’s a failure to understand the planning process,” he said. “If you’ve got an illegal structure, historically the Planning Board would not move forward on that application.”
But Ms. Weir said the structures were slated to be removed.
“We have no issues with that on the Planning Board because the structures are being removed to put up the new barn,” she said. “[Mr. Babinski’s] been following the code and the law 100 percent. He has not done anything improper.”
The Town Board will hold a public hearing on whether to approve the barn at its June 7 meeting.
You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.
Already a subscriber? Sign in
If the Gilberts' lawsuit is deemed to be outside the limits of permissible arguments, it would be appropriate for Mr. Babinski to seek compensation from them (AND personally from Mr. Bragman) for all expenses AND attorneys' fees.
Let the summer games begin!
Call the Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle section back from summer recess.
that riles all of us local people up every summer.
I agree with EastEnd68..................less people like the "entitled" Gilberts, more barns!