Sometimes I like to think that an individual can have an impact. That’s why I volunteer for so many different groups and committees. Most of the things I volunteer for are local to our village, school district, town or region. Beyond that, say at the county level, I think it’s probably a lost cause. While our governments — all of them — are supposed to be “servants of the people,” it rarely seems to work out that way. The higher up you go in the governmental food chain, the less chance you have of being heard.
On a local level, however, an individual or small group can still have an impact. If the Village or Town government is doing something you don’t agree with, or that just doesn’t make sense, there’s a good chance they’ll listen if you point out the error of their ways. One group of which I am a member, the Sag Harbor Citizens Advisory Committee to Southampton Town has had some small sucess at influencing some recent developments in just this way.
But today I’d like to talk about one effort that didn’t work out quite so well. As you probably already know, a new restaurant will soon be opening at the site of the old Gingerbread Bake Shop on the Sag Harbor-Bridgehampton Turnpike. When the plans for the new establishment, which will be called Bayburger, were presented to the Town Planning Board, we, the CAC, had some concerns, which we brought to the Planning Board’s attention through letters and direct testimony. We were concerned, and still are, that the size and scope of the Bayburger proposal was out of scale with the intended location.
In the 1970s, as long-time residents of the area will tell you, that spot on the Turnpike was home to a small, low-impact, fast-food restaurant called The Whaleburger which did primarily take-out business. The Whaleburger had, at most, six indoor seats, no outdoor dining and a drive-thru window that no one is sure was legal. Although there were never more than a handful of cars parked there, Whaleburger went ahead and paved their entire property to within ten feet of the neighboring private houses, which was permissable under the zoning regulations at that time.
Now jump ahead thirty years and we find that since the property was once used as a restaurant current law says that Bayburger is an “in kind” use and the only zoning laws that apply to it are the ones that were in effect in the 1970′s. This, even though instead of six seats, Bayburger will have 90 inside, plus a 40-seat outdoor dining area. In addition, there will be a large, brightly lit parking lot, and a drive-thru window for ice cream sales. The proposed parking lot will extend to within ten feet of neighboring homes, and will have no fence or tall shrubs to screen the restaurant from its neighbors. The proposed hours of operation are to be 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Liquor sales are a possibility. Although the new owners won’t say if they’ve applied for a liquor license, they also won’t say it’s out of the question. This is not your father’s Whaleburger.
The CAC, and many other groups and individuals, believe that, if allowed to go through as proposed, Bayburger will exacerbate the steadily growing traffic problems in the area, create noise and lighting problems for its residential neighbors, and have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. We made specific requests of the Planning Board to bring pressure on the developers to modify their plans for the seating, lighting, parking lot, outdoor dining area and the take out window. In the end, though, we were ignored. Minor changes were made to the number of outdoor seats and the height of the lights in the parking lot. Otherwise the Bayburger application flew through the Planning Board approval process as if it was preordained. The Southampton Press reports that at the end of the process “[Chairperson] Finnerty, pointing out that all major issues had been resolved, indicated that the board would grant preliminary approval for the application at its [next] meeting.” I’d certainly like to know what those major issues were that the board so effectively wrapped up, because exactly none of the issues that the CAC brought to the boards’ attention were resolved to our satisfaction.
I think it’s important to mention here, though, that things don’t always go this way. The Planning Board did respond to public input recently when it took a principled stand in the case of the car wash proposed by the Reid Brothers, just a short distance away from Bayburger on the Turnpike. In that instance they ruled that that proposal required a SEQRA Type 1 environmental impact statement, which may greatly change what is ultimately built at that location. So, the question arises, why did the Planning Board stand firm in the case of the Reid Brothers application, yet roll-over for Bayburger?
I believe the answer is that they were afraid that if they got tough with Bayburger they would be sued by the developer. In the case of the Reid proposal, they were on much stronger ground, legally speaking, and were following the advice of the Town’s own planning department. On the other hand, with Bayburger, the law — specifically the law that said that a restaurant use was “grandfathered in” for that location — was leaning in the developer’s favor. Fearing a lawsuit, the board was unwilling to push too hard for even some common sense restrictions, like increasing the size of the buffer zone between the restaurant’s parking lot and its residential neighbors.
So, given the laws they have to work with, the Planning Board’s unwillingness to come down harder on the owners of Bayburger while unfortunate, is understandable. However, it does point up a shortcoming of the existing laws governing this situation. I’m not opposed to the idea of “grandfathering” businesses in the location where they have been doing business when the zoning in that area changes. That’s right and fair. But, Bayburger is of a different ilk because:
- the current owners did not own the property when the zoning was changed;
- the property in question has not been in continuous use as a restaurant since the zoning change, and,
- the restaurant they propose to open is of a completely different size and scale from the one that pre-existed the zoning change.
These circumstances should have a mitigating effect on whether or not a business is considered “grandfathered” under our zoning laws, but they don’t. That our recommendations were ignored by the Planning Board was distressing. That Bayburger, and others are able to exploit a loophole in an otherwise useful law, thereby creating a virtual “anything goes” zoning situation for themselves, is entirely unacceptable. The loophole needs to be plugged as quickly and effectively as possible.
