a Letter to the Editor of the East Hampton Star

August 3, 2020

Dear David:

I write this in my private capacity, and not as a representative of the town or the town planning board, which I chair. I have resided in Wainscott for over 26 years.

At the Aug. 1, 2020, Zoom meeting of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee, Mayor Donald Louchheim of the Incorporated Village of Sagaponack discussed incorporation, its costs, and its impacts on our neighbor across Town Line Road.

It seems clear to me that in considering the potential incorporation of Wainscott, the incorporation of Sagaponack, which occurred in 2005, does not form a valid basis for comparison. As Mayor Louchheim observed, Sagaponack is a homogeneous community, which cannot be equated with Wainscott.

Sagaponack’s 4.56 square miles cover an area from the Atlantic Ocean to the Long Island Railroad tracks. Wainscott’s 7.3 square miles extend from the Atlantic Ocean north to the boundary of the Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor. Sagaponack has a full-time population of approximately 320 residents and its land use is almost exclusively residential and agricultural; it has seven existing retail uses and a motel, but no manufacturing or commercial uses.

Wainscott’s full-time population is twice that of Sagaponack, and in addition to accommodating all types of residential lots and park/conservation lots, includes approximately 30 lots zoned central business and an even larger number of lots zoned commercial-industrial, near the town-owned airport and off Route 114.

While one might be tempted to argue that the taxes paid by Wainscott’s retail, commercial, and industrial uses would offset any tax increase which incorporation might impose on Wainscott’s residences, it is those retail, commercial, and industrial uses that are most likely to expose Wainscott taxpayers to legal fees that will arise when business plans are thwarted or limited by the application of an Incorporated Village of Wainscott’s zoning laws. These inevitable costs, which are open-ended and could continue for years, will be borne by Wainscott’s 650 full-time residents, with no certainty that litigation will achieve desirable results.

Of course, zoning-law disputes do not arise only in the context of commercial uses. The denial of a variance on a residential lot, as well, can result in the commencement of an Article 78 proceeding in state court. Also, to the extent that an Incorporated Village of Wainscott might wish to bond its obligations, which would merely forestall the payment of debts, legal fees associated with bonding will be incurred.

These expenses can only translate into increased taxes for all Wainscott taxpayers, far beyond that which incorporation’s proponents have been willing to acknowledge. Indeed, Mayor Louchheim reported that the Village of Sagaponack, which has kept expenses to a minimum and has contracted with the Town of Southampton for essential services such as police and road maintenance, has paid as much in legal fees as its annual village payroll.

When considering incorporation, Wainscott residents should bear in mind that even if the costs of contracting for essential services turn out to be more or less equal to the amounts which Wainscott residents pay now in town taxes for these services, the legal fees associated with enforcing zoning laws and defending the decisions of an incorporated village’s zoning board of Appeals, planning board, and architectural review board, which are essential to maintaining the character and heritage of Wainscott, which supporters of incorporation identify as among their chief goals, are potentially uncontrollable, and taxpayers in an incorporated Village of Wainscott will be required to bear those expenses on their own.

Very truly yours,

SAMUEL KRAMER