As noted here: link, I said I would have more to say about the proposed GEIS for the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike at the entrance to Sag Harbor. Well, I’m finally getting around to saying it.
If you’re not already aware of it, let me mention here that several Sag Harbor-based groups have formed a coalition to lobby the Southampton Town Board to institute a GEIS (General Environmental Impact Statement) for the area on the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike between Scuttlehole Rd. and Jermain Ave., in response to a flurry of recent development proposals, and potential development in that area. I belong to one of those groups, the Sag Harbor Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), and support this idea, with some reservations, which I’ve gone into in the earlier post cited above.
I believe a GEIS is a good idea right now, because it could head off the possibility of the Turnpike becoming yet another unsightly corridor road lined with ugly strip-type commercial development for much of its length (see County Road 39). Recent proposals, along with the general boom in Sag Harbor’s business district have created an urgent need to re-evaluate what is currently allowable in the areas bordering the village, especially those with commercial zoning. But, mandating a few scattered GEIS’s here and there is not a comprehensive solution to the problems of over-development and snarled transportation that the entire Sag Hampton area is facing. The good news is that the groundwork for a comprehensive solution has already been done. It’s the SEEDS (Sustainable East End Development Strategies) study undertaken by the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association (EESMA) and its study group, the East End Transportation Council (EETC).
I know, that’s a mouthful, and one with way too many acronyms. But what would government be without acronyms? (I’m afraid to hear your answers to that rhetorical question. As long as I’ve already gone parenthetical, let me mention here that I share the position with another Sag Harborite, as the Village’s representative to EETC. However, since I’ve been on the Council for less than a year, I can take no credit for the SEEDS process, which was largely complete before I got there.) Now back to our main story…
Although the EETC’s mandate is to look at transportation issues, they wisely realized early on that they could not solve the East End’s transportation problems without also looking at land-use patterns. The SEEDS study did just that, viewing land-use and transportation as inextricably inter-related, and only addressable on a regional level. The summary report issued at the end of the SEEDS process has a lot to say about the kinds of things that should be considered in a GEIS of the Turnpike. But, more importantly, SEEDS advocates what might be considered a regional GEIS for the entire East End from Westhampton/Calverton to Orient/Montauk. Obviously, I can’t even begin to do justice here to a study, the summary report of which runs to 45+ pages, plus countless charts and diagrams, and a CD-ROM full of appendices; but, I will point out a few points that I think apply directly to the proposed Turnpike GEIS.
1. The SEEDS concept plan recommends focusing mixed-use development in and around hamlet centers, but avoiding “…linear corridor sprawl that is emblematic of undesirable and inefficient development patterns most notably in the ever worsening traffic congestion experienced along key corridors in the East End.” By this, they mean avoid long, undiversified strings of commercial sites along major “corridor” roads, each with its own driveway, and unattractive roadside parking lot. Instead, SEEDS suggests, require adjoining businesses to place connected parking lots in the rear of the buildings, with shared access, thus limiting the number of places traffic enters and leaves the road, improving traffic flow. In addition, by putting the parking in the rear, the visual attractiveness of the area can better be preserved. Further, SEEDS recommends breaking up the commercial “strips” with other types of development including village-style single-family homes and townhouses, both market-value and affordable, as well as office-type development, parks and open-space.
2. Traffic mitigation strategies are also key. SEEDS suggests “…improve[ing] hamlet pedestrian, bicycle, and parking facilities, including high-visibility crosswalks, bicycle lanes, and paths, and parking management plans…” Sidewalks are also mentioned as a key traffic-calming device.
3. Gateways, marking the boundary between developed and undeveloped areas are considered critical to the ability of the towns and villages to stop the ever-outward spread of new development. SEEDS recommends specific allowable uses for gateway areas including cultural/commercial uses such as visitor centers and affiliated small-scale retail establishments, small inns, and high-value, but small lot single-family residences that overlook the nearby open space.
These are all important ideas, but I’m really not being fair to the SEEDS report by extracting specific ideas without explaining how they were developed, or the overall concepts that underlie them. This study took nearly four years to complete, and takes into consideration the best thinking of your local planning departments, county and state agencies, and regular East End residents and business people. It is a brave, thoughtful and exciting blueprint for sustainable future growth on the East End. The SEEDS report is in the hands of your local government officials now. Ask them if they’ve read it and what they plan to do about it.
The SEEDS report sounds interesting. It seems like this might be the beginning of the way to finally do things right in this area.
Do you have any idea how local officials, developers, realtors, and other interested parties feel about the report? Also, what would be the next step? Do local entities relinquish any control by adopting SEEDS measures?
It might indeed, however, first the local towns and villages have to agree to reference the SEEDS concepts in their planning.
During the SEEDS process, input, opinions and feedback were gathered from government officials, transportation providers, planners, business people and the proverbial man on the street. There was a lot of input, and by and large, the SEEDS report is based on what people in this area want and think will work. So, while nothing is guaranteed, the report should meet with broad approval, as it contains no surprises.
The next step is for the various East End towns and villages to enter into an inter-municipal agreement that in some way moves the process ahead. One thing I neglected to mention in the original post is that in its implementation, SEEDS must be a regional effort. No one town or village can bring about the necessary changes on its own. Except in as much as there will always need to be compromises worked out between the various government entities, none should have to relinquish any soveriegnty.
I was wondering how the GEIS and SEED effort relates to Southampton Town’s Master Plan and the 1999 Comprehensive Plan, how the Town’s Department of Land Management has responded to the Sag Harbor effort. I don’t have a great deal of knowledge about the comprehensive plan but I know they came up with 350 action items, do any relate to the Sag Harbor development plans?
I generally agree with the idea of a regional GEIS
In spite of well-intentioned study projects like SEEDS that advocate for better land use, and even the creation of the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) to take open space out of development, the Southampton and East Hampton Town populations are on pace to grow by another 20% this decade, as they have in the previous two. That will result in a whopping 60% plus population growth on the South Fork from 1980 to 2010!
We need to keep in mind that the “smart growth” advocated by SEEDS is still growth. When you couple our full-time resident population growth with the rapid rate of second home building for part-time residents and the continuing rise in seasonal tourism, you can see why our environmental problems have become so acute. And I see no reason why they won’t get even worse in the next few years.
While I applaud attempts to slow or even cap development on the South Fork, there does not seem to be much will to do so. When you boil it all down, individual property rights trump community rights more often than not, and there is still plenty of legally zoned land available for development in our area, as well as easily acquired variances if not.
In my opinion, we need to start dealing with the impact of a much larger population NOW, because it is already here. And when the baby boomers who own most of the already built second homes start retiring and become full time residents, it will get much worse. Remember, nearly half of all homes on the South Fork are second homes; in other words, our full-time resident population could double without building another home!
That’s why I’ve shifted my focus recently to public transportation development and advocacy. When you talk to residents about the negative impact of this expanded population, it is almost always characterized in terms of traffic issues on our roads and parking problems in our Villages and hamlets.
So, I believe we need to develop a first class public transportation system on the South Fork and the East End, consisting of coordinated rail and bus shuttles that can help some residents, workers, second homeowners and tourists move around without using their cars. If we can get 10-20% of the vehicles off the roads, especially during peak periods, we can reduce or eliminate our severe traffic and parking problems and make things better for everyone, even those who continue to drive.
A group of East End residents has developed and advocated for a service known as East End Shuttle™, as well as our own East End Transportation Authority to operate it. All of our initial research and development work can be found on our website at http://www.eastendshuttle.org. In January, we expect to begin a one year feasibility study funded by a grant from New York State with matching funds from the five East End Towns to prove out the technical and operational aspects of our concept.
I’ll keep you advised of our progress.
Hank de Cillia, Executive Director
Five Town Rural Transit, Inc.