Critics of country club beach plan petition Zoning Board of Appeals

By NEAL RENTZ

Critics of the Waccabuc Country Club beach club’s renovation project may have one final opportunity to have the project altered later this month.

The Lewisboro Zoning Board of Appeals is slated to address residents’ petition for rehearing of the club’s project when it meets Wednesday, Jan. 22. The ZBA has provided approvals for the project, including variances in 2023 and the project has been approved by the planning board.

Residents recently petitioned the ZBA for the rehearing.

Tara Owen, who is among the neighboring residents who criticized the club’s project, said last week that a unanimous vote of ZBA members was required for the public hearing to be reopened. 

“We are not able to speak” at the Jan. 22 meeting, Owen noted in an interview last week.

The purpose of the petition by residents is “to ask the zoning board to reopen the matter,” Owen said. 

Owen has also criticized the planning board, which she said did not allow the public comments during its approval process for the club. There were no public comments made during the 14 appearances the club had before the planning board over two years, she said. 

Residents opposing the club’s project have contended that the public could not address the ZBA for nine months during meetings, and public notices of the meetings were vague and misleading. 

“We were never informed and denied a voice in a commercial development that will fundamentally alter the residential character of our three lakes,” Owen stated in a recent -mail to project opponents. “The rehearing gives us the opportunity to help right that wrong.  It won’t restore the 41 trees already removed or replace the 33,248 square feet of wetlands buffer already disturbed but it would give us the opportunity to have a say in how a recreational and entertainment venue for up to 345 guests will be operated and regulated moving forward.” 

The club is located on two parcels on a 9.1-acre property at 19 Perch Bay Road, Waccabuc. The site is in a residential R4-A Zone.

Owen said the beach club is permitted to be in operation each year from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day. She is concerned that the beach club could hold events outside of their operational schedule now. 

The project includes an addition to the club’s existing boathouse, construction of a new snack bar and construction of an expanded-access drive which is needed to provide handicapped-accessible parking spaces. Additional site upgrades are proposed to make the site compliant with accessibility requirements.

Several other residents who live in the neighborhood have said the project has harmed their quality of life. 

“Nothing like this expansion and its future use exists around here and for a reason. Lewisboro is a quiet community. Not just for the residents living on or near Lake Waccabuc but by all the communities nearby. Sound can be heard from far away,” South Salem resident Rich Cohen stated in a recent email to his neighbors and the ZBA. 

“There are really no other businesses or event space like this in the area,” Cohen wrote. “The only two that come to mind are Le Chateau and The Hammond Museum, which are far enough from neighboring residents that there aren’t issues or concerns expressed like the ones myself and other community members are sharing.”

Asked for a reaction to the criticisms of its project, the club provided its response to the petition for rehearing made by their attorney Michael Sirignano. 

Sirignano stated in his Jan. 13 letter to the ZBA that the club had learned that “a number of town residents have ‘petitioned’ your board of appeals to rehear our successful application.”

“I submit this opinion letter to your board in opposition to this ‘petition’ so that you have the benefit of the controlling legal principles and the correct facts,” Sirignano stated in his letter. “As you will see, there is simply no legal or factual basis for compelling your board to rehear the club’s variance application.”

Sirignano stated through a rehearing the board could reverse, modify or annul its original order through a unanimous vote of all members present at the meeting, “provided the board finds that the rights vested in persons acting in good faith in reliance upon the reheard order, decision or determination will not be prejudiced thereby.” 

Sirignano stated that there are five factors that “mitigate strongly” against the ZBA’s rehearing and reconsidering its approval for the club. 

Sirignano wrote that none of the residents who signed the petition participated in public hearings on the club’s plan. 

Residents had the opportunity to challenge the ZBA’s actions by filing an Article 78 lawsuit in state Supreme Court, but did not do so within 50 days of the ZBA’s action, Sirignano stated. 

Sirignano stated that New York State courts have consistently ruled that a board cannot open a matter “after a property owner’s rights have been vested by reason of good faith reliance on the earlier decision rendered.”

Sirignano stated that the residents petitioning the ZBA were wrong in contending that new facts about the project have been revealed by the club following the ZBA’s approval and the facts were withheld from the ZBA during its public hearing.

Sirignano also stated that the ZBA at its Jan. 23, 2023, public hearing carefully reviewed the club’s project. While the ZBA this week noted that the project was approved Feb. 24, 2023, its chair Robin Price Jr. declined to comment on the issue.

Planning Board chair Janet Andersen last week addressed how her board handled the club’s application. 

“The planning board issued a site development plan, wetland permit and town stormwater permit approval for this project in May 2023 following a public hearing that opened in September 2022 and was continued over several months,” Andersen said. “Before this approval was issued, the zoning board of appeals granted a required approval for the expansion of this facility, also after a public hearing.”

“The concerns being raised regarding the operation of the facility are outside of the planning board’s review and approval purview. That is, the residents allege concerns over which the planning board has no enforcement authority,” Andersen said. 

“The planning board properly discharged its responsibilities in evaluating the project and issuing the site development plan, wetland permit and town stormwater permit approval in 2023.”

Andersen added that her board followed all requirements regarding the notification of residents about the project.