St. Gabe’s owner sets timeline for chapel’s fate

The owner of the St. Gabriel’s property has set a deadline for the fate of the chapel that has been on the grounds for nearly eight decades.

At Tuesday’s Town Board work session, Councilman Jim Colligan said he had spoken to the owner of the 25-acre property, Richard Hogan. Mr. Hogan plans to demolish the chapel, according to the councilman, along with other structures, if fundraising has not reached $100,000 in four to six weeks to pay for moving it off his property.

Mr. Colligan said that fundraising has taken in about $30,000.

Town Attorney Laury Dowd said no demolition would occur in the estimated time frame, since most of the structures are in a regulated area and would need wetlands permits before action is taken, which would stretch beyond six weeks.

Mr. Hogan bought the property, which fronts onto Coecles Harbor for $15 million and plans to develop it into a community of five high-end residences.

Some of the stained glass windows in the chapel would be saved and incorporated into a new building, and others might be donated to the Shelter Island Historical Society, according to Mr. Colligan.

Town Engineer John Cronin, after an extensive on-site examination in March, submitted a report to Supervisor Jim Dougherty stating that the chapel is “generally sound structurally” and has “no obvious structural issues that would preclude removal … from its foundation.”

The town doesn’t have a process to designate structures for historical preservation. Mr. Dougherty said Tuesday that he and members of the town’s Grants Committee had a conference call with Jason Crowley of the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities for information.

In other business: The board discussed the filings of three building applications for completeness. Greg Toner, a member of the Water Advisory Committee, asked if there could be a change of listings in the board’s agenda for future application reviews. Now they are listed by the last name or company name of the applicant when meeting agendas are published on the town website or printed and available at Town Hall.

Mr. Toner suggested that adding the address of the applicant, and/or the address of the site, should be included in the agenda listing.

It would help, Mr. Toner said, “to let people understand what you’re talking about. You may get more people from the area” in attendance at meetings. He noted that often people don’t know the names of neighbors — especially when it comes to new construction — but if they saw an address in their neighborhood of proposed changes, they might attend the meeting.

Councilman Paul Shepherd said he didn’t have objections to the idea, but Mr. Toner was missing the point. “We’re trying to avoid excessive input from the public at this point,” Mr. Shepherd said. “This is not a hearing, we’re reviewing the application for completeness” and not opening the matter for public discussion.

Mr. Dougherty agreed, noting that it was “a preliminary step,” and there are public hearings on every application.

“It’s not deliberately not put on,” Mr. Shepherd said. “It’s just never come up.”