Chabad Nears End In Village Board

Edging closer to a final decision on the Chabad of Southampton Jewish Center, the village’s Zoning Board of Appeals heard what might be the final arguments from opponents last Thursday.

In order for Chabad to operate as a house of worship and community center on Hill Street, it needs a special exception permit from its current residential zoning status. Among other variances, the applicants are seeking relief from the requirement to provide total onsite parking.

Representing a handful of residents opposed to the center, attorney David Peirez primarily rebutted arguments made by the applicant’s attorney Jeff Bragman and the team of experts he produced last month.
Peirez said Bragman’s presentation was misleading, taking particular offense to the “mumbo jumbo” talk that Chabad has constitutional protection concerning local zoning laws.

Last month, Bragman invited Nathan Lewin, a constitutional expert, to speak on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Lewin explained that the law prohibits local zoning from impinging on the religious exercise of churches or other religious institutions.

Last week, Peirez introduced attorney Kevin Plunkett, who has also discussed RLUIPA. “The RLUIPA statute, passed in 2000, is not a sword but a shield,” he told the board. Plunkett noted lawmakers recognized that local land use laws “are not to be trumped.”

But on Monday, Bragman dismissed Plunkett’s assertion. “They’re trying to fight a rear guard action, saying it’s not as strong as it is,” but, in fact, the statute holds up, he said.

Peirez also addressed traffic, parking, and design issues. He dismissed the applicant’s traffic report, which concluded that there is sufficient municipal parking space available, thereby negating the requirement for additional onsite parking.

He challenged the expertise of the report’s author, engineer Steve Schneider, who last month disputed the proficiency of the opposition’s traffic expert Martin Cantor, a Certified Public Accountant.
Peirez submitted a new engineer’s report to the board, a thick document detailing Chabad’s impact on parking and traffic on the surrounding area as well as its “serious potential impact on wastewater management.”

“Schneider is a qualified engineer with 30 years of experience,” said Bragman, adding, “there is no evidence of traffic impact in this case.”

Peirez presented an interpretative plan of what the opposition believes the property could look like if the board approves Chabad’s design. The illustration showed over 60% of the site surfaced. The problem of stormwater runoff is exacerbated as more soil and shrubbery are removed, he noted.

The attorney further charged the applicant with failing to honestly describe Chabad’s activities to the Suffolk County Health Department. Peirez said the building was depicted as an ordinary residence for Rabbi Rafe Konikov and his family who celebrate Shabbat, and “from time to time,” invite friends over for a “small private meal.” Meanwhile, he added, a room downstairs in the house can hold over 100 people for religious services.

“It can’t be part residential and part prayer,” said Peirez, adding later, “I submit you can’t trust this applicant.”

Bragman maintains that he submitted the same report to the health department that he did to the village. And he reminded that they have agreed to lower their occupancy numbers to a maximum of 65 people between June and August, the busiest time of year. They have requested permission for three separate events that would draw up to 80 people.

“That wasn’t even a pop gun, no less a smoking gun,” said Bragman.

Paul Hunt, an attorney and resident of the village also alleged the applicant was not candid with the intended synagogue use of Chabad. Building applications filed in the late 1990s depicted a residential use for the building, he said. But Hunt listed Sabbath services, community outreach, classes and various programs on Chabad’s Calendar. “What is a synagogue? A synagogue is a Jewish church,” he stated. “There is no doubt that what came out of it is a synagogue.”

“This is an attempt to distract them [the board] from the real issue. There is only one issue in this case and that is impact, and our argument is that there is none,” said Bragman.
Presented with new information to review, Bragman requested an adjournment until the board’s next meeting to make what are expected to be his closing arguments. The board will reconvene on this issue on March 23 at 7:30 p.m. at village hall.