Here’s some background for those of you who don’t follow the “planning” game as it’s played in the Town of Southampton, NY. PDDs, are usually proposed by developers who want to use a parcel, or parcels, of land in a way that does not conform to the current zoning of those parcels. Rather than ask the Town to change the zoning outright, which would be a difficult process, with little chance of success, the developer can propose that the Town create an “overlay district”  or PDD, that would not change, but rather overlay the existing zoning. A PDD applies only to the parcels in question, and, theoretically at least, does not create a precedent that might lead other land owners in the area to also demand a rezoning of their properties. In return for granting the PDD, the Town is supposed to receive some “community benefits or amenities” from the developer, perhaps some parkland, open space or the inclusion of some affordable housing on the site. Granted, this is a simplistic explanation, but I think it covers the most important ground.

The 12.4-acre site of the Tuckahoe project consists of 4.4 acres currently zoned for residential development, and an eight-acre parcel zoned for highway business. Neither of these zoning classifications allow for the type of mixed-use development being proposed. Consequently, the developer has asked the Town Board to consider creating a MUPDD, (Mixed-Use Planned Development District) in which such a development would be permitted.

The developer's preliminary plan for the Tuckahoe Main Street PDD

That’s the background. Now back to our story.

Not too long ago I was fortunate enough to attend a training session at the Project for Public Spaces in New York City. I owe my good fortune to the community group Save Sag Harbor for sponsoring my attendance there. The staff at PPS specialize in something they call placemaking, which is basically the art and science of creating livable places where people enjoy being. As Main Streets are very important places in communities, we spent a good deal of time in our training learning what makes a good Main Street work as an integral part of a thriving community.  Of course this varies from town to town, but it always starts with a sense of place. The Main Street of a town or village has to reflect the history, values and aspirations of the community it serves.

When confronted with an unsuccessful place, say a dying Main Street in an aging town fighting against a proliferation of strip malls and suburban sprawl, the staff at PPS always starts by asking the community to identify what it is that is important, meaningful and useful in their town. They ask, “what works? What doesn’t? What’s worth preserving? What needs to be changed? What’s missing?” Only the people who live in a place can answer these question. Planners, no matter how skilled, cannot. Armed with this information, PPS can then make suggestions as to how to supplement and modify the working parts, integrating everything into a seamless whole that then has a chance of becoming a successful “place.”

Given the importance of the Main Street to any community, I could not help but apply some of my training in analyzing the “Tuckahoe Main Street” PDD. Three things were immediately obvious. First, this is not a Main Street in any traditional sense of the word. Second, the entire plan was conceived by the developer’s planning team without significant community input. Third, this was not a livable place where people would enjoy spending time. How could it be when the dominant feature was a 474-space parking lot?

I could go on for many paragraphs criticizing particulars of the design, but there is no point. The entire plan is ill conceived and should not go forward. But, I do not blame the developers for this. They are just doing what developers do. No, I fault our Town government for creating the tool that makes the kind of thinking behind Tuckahoe Main Street possible: the PDD.

Read the language in the section of the Town Code dealing with PDDs, and you would think this legislation is so pure and beneficial that only good could possibly come of it. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. The reason why PDDs don’t work is simple: they don’t start with the community. Rather, they are a tool used by developers to be able to build what they want by simply making a small sacrifice in terms of providing some “community benefit or amenity.” The benefit extracted by the Town is supposed to ameliorate the damage to the community caused by the creation of the PDD, but rarely turns out to be more than a bandaid slapped on a gaping wound.

PDD’s don’t work because they ignore the basic tenets of good placemaking. To reiterate: first, find out what the community values, needs and aspires to, then preserve what is good in the community. Next, find ways to incentivize the development of any missing and needed features. And finally tie it all together with good planning to create a unified, livable, workable community, where people will want to be. The way PDDs work now, is to start with some “concept” put together by a developer that may or may not have any relation to anything the community actually needs. Then this “concept” is massaged into something that passes as “beneficial” in some way or another, and foisted on the community, often exacerbating existing problems. This is “planning” stood on its head. It starts with the result, and then tries to twist it to fit the need.

That’s what’s happening in Tuckahoe right now, and it’s a sham and a crime. The people of Tuckahoe deserve a say in whether their “Main Street” serves them or the needs of some developers and out-of-town merchants. This PDD should be denied. Then the entire PDD process should be revised to make it more responsive to the needs of the communities in which future PDDs are proposed.

What do you think? Leave a comment below telling me why I’m wrong or right, or how my ideas on this subject can be improved.

A little background may be in order. Highway Business is one of, if not the most, permissive of zoning categories. Virtually anything is allowed, car dealerships, lumber yards, car washes, warehouses, and more — basically the same mix of businesses that you currently find along County Road 39 in Southampton. It’s not pretty. The Hamlet Office category is quite a bit more restrictive, allowing a much smaller mix of low-traffic types of businesses, such as, well, offices. Private residences are also allowed. In fact, the character of an area zoned as Hamlet Office is, by design, primarily residential. Hamlet Office-zoned locales are meant to serve as transitional zones between the surrounding residential areas and the commercial hamlet centers. On the other hand, the character of an area zoned Highway Business is unapologetically strip mall. So, under current zoning, the area along the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike just outside the Village could end up populated with high-traffic, high-intensity businesses of the most unattractive variety. Again, think County Road 39.

As previously stated, in the study the Southampton Planning Department recommended that given the nature of the area, changing views of the community as to the types of development found acceptable in residential areas, as well as environmental concerns related to the proximity of Long Pond Greenbelt, Ligonee Creek and related wetlands, the zoning be changed, and that the preferred alternative should be Hamlet Office.

Now, you may have noticed that there are already a few businesses along this part of the Turnpike. What would happen to them if the zoning were to change? Nothing. They would be, of right, grand-fathered as pre-existing non-conforming businesses, and would be allowed to continue as such basically forever.

Yet, at least one of these business owners is not happy with the proposed change. Robert Reid, of Reid Brothers Inc., has voiced his opposition to the change, stating that it will limit his ability to further develop his property in some, as yet unspecified, way. He is, of course, correct in that if he should desire, say to develop his property in a way that would substantively change the nature of the business conducted there, it would not be allowed. Not long ago, Mr. Reid did propose such a change, but withdrew his plan when it was determined that the potential environmental impact was of a significant enough nature to require a full environmental impact study (EIS).

With that background in mind, let’s look again at the Village Trustees’ lack of support for Southampton’s Draft Gateway Study, which was undertaken at the Mayor’s request to protect the visual and enviromental integrity of one of the main entrances to  Sag Harbor Village. The only opposition to the study’s recommendations has come from two of the businesses in the study area (which, you will recall is outside the of the Village’s borders). Should that matter to the Village Trustees? Well, maybe…

Maybe it would if one of the business owners had offered his property as a staging area for the trucks and work crews at the recently approved Bulova Watchase condominium project. It would especially matter if that property owner was the developer’s only remaining option for a staging area, after having been refused access to other areas they had proposed for this purpose. Still, the business owner will be paid by the Bulova developers for the use of his property, so why should the Village be concerned about voicing approval for the Gateway Study even if the property owner in question, Mr. Reid, doesn’t care for it? I suspect the answer has something to do with the EIS that Reid never undertook for a project that looked quite similar to the use his property will be put to by the Bulova contractors. Reid’s previous proposal called for a “contractor’s” garage and storage area, that would allow contractors from out of the area to store their trucks, equipment and supplies at a local “depot,” which could then be used as a staging area for their work crews each morning as they arrived here from the companies’ home offices further west. That propsed use was deemed possibly too intensive for the location, and so an EIS was required before the project could continue. This time around, no study is required since no construction is involved, even though the propsed use is very similar to Reid’s original plan.

However, this use of the property, which is unrelated to the Reid’s current business there, flies in the face of the conclusions of the Gateway Study, which, if adopted, would prohibit such a change in use for a pre-existing, non-conforming business. It also, creates the potential for the type of serious environmental impact that led the Town’s Planning Board to previously require the EIS.

Still, you may ask, why should the Village Trustees let this interfere with their endorsement of a change that would be of great benefit to the Village while costing them nothing? Well you may ask, and I hope you do. One factor which may be relevant is that prior to the Bulova project’s approval, much pressure was exerted on the Village government by the business community and others on behalf of the Bulova devleopers. At times, these folks made it seem that the entire future of the Village depended on the Bulova project being approved. As we all know, the project was ultimately approved, but perhaps that feeling of desparation persists. If so, it could be clouding the vision of our elected representatives to the point where they feel they must protect the interests of the developers, whatever the cost in other areas. Maybe, maybe not. It’s a question worth asking, though.

A very obvious example of how the important issues we face often intersect is the seeming conflict that exists between open space preservation and the creation of more affordable housing. In a nutshell, that conflict can be stated as every acre of open space that is preserved is an acre of land no longer available as a possible site for affordable housing. One might also say the inverse is true as well: more affordable housing equals less open space. Of course, it’s not that simple. Nothing ever is. The real conflict is not between open space and affordable housing; it’s really between high-end housing and open space. Rarely is affordable housing proposed in an area that is also desirable for preservation. Has anyone heard of a plan to put affordable housing in the farm fields of Sagaponack? Not likely. But those fields are definitely vulnerable to subdivision into lots suitable for a new crop of McMansions. When affordable housing is proposed, which as we all know is not very often, it is almost always in areas that are already well developed, and so not in conflict with open space preservation.

So, all is well, or so it would seem; but this happy little scenario gets turned on its head when viewed from the perspective of the aforementioned “well developed” area. Take for instance, Sag Harbor Village, which is almost at the complete build-out stage. In the Village, open space is at a premium, and many of those who live in the Village would certainly like to see as much as possible of what’s left preserved. So when, as recently happened, the owner of one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels proposes a mixed use development — one that will include both offices and housing — all of it affordable — we are faced with quite a conundrum. Adding to the complication is the fact that the parcel abuts the northern end of the Long Pond Greenbelt, and that it may be part of the migratory range of the endangered Tiger Salamander. So, do we encourage the Town to offer to purchase this property with money from the Community Preservation Fund, or do we encourage the developer to go ahead with his plans to create some desperately needed affordable housing for the community’s police, firefighters, teachers and others in the endangered species known as the middle class?

In my mind that’s a tough call. But, so far, we’ve only examined the intersection of open space preservation and affordable housing. If you thought it was going to be that simple, think again. What about that other major East End headache, traffic? As you undoubtedly already know — unless you never drive in the morning, mid-day, or afternoon — commuting workers are one of, if not the most, significant factor contributing to the congestion on our roads. Why do so many area employees commute to work here? Because, they can’t afford to live here due to a lack of affordable housing. So, it stands to reason that one way to reduce traffic would be to make more affordable housing available in the Sag Hampton area. And, where should this affordable housing be? Well, if we really want to reduce traffic, the housing should be as close as possible to businesses and other major public resources like schools, stores, and professional offices. Ideally this new housing stock would be built within walking or biking distance of the aforementioned community resources, i.e., in hamlet centers like Sag Harbor. All perfectly sensible, unless your priority is to preserve the tiny bit of open space that remains in the Village.

However, if you take a slightly broader perspective, it makes perfect sense to encourage hamlet centers such as Sag Harbor, East and Southampton Villages, and downtown Bridgehampton, among others, to accept both additional housing and businesses, because doing so reduces suburban and commercial sprawl and takes the development pressure off the more pristine outlying areas. This makes sense from a public transportation perspective too, as the more people that live and work in an area, the easier it is to serve those people with public transit. A public bus in Northwest doesn’t make a lot of sense; there just aren’t enough people and businesses there to make it worthwhile. But a bus that serves the Villages of East Hampton, Sag Harbor and Southampton, as well as the hamlets of Wainscott, Bridgehampton and Water Mill (especially if each of those hamlet centers also has some new affordable housing within walking or biking distance of downtown) makes a lot of sense. Buses such as these would not only ease congestion on our roads, but also reduce stresses on the environment such as motor vehicle-created air pollution. And, as we focus more  development in the hamlet centers we reduce the pressure to develop farm fields and wooded areas throughout the East End.

The scenario I’ve just been describing is sometimes known as smart growth. It’s a highly-regarded strategy among planning professionals, but not always so popular among our local politicians. To be fair to the politicians, there are valid reasons for this lack of popularity, including the additional stress on our schools, sewage treatment plants, and other public services that come along with increased density. Unhappily, there’s always a trade-off. Housing affects open space. Open space affects transportation. Transportation affects the environment. Or, looked at another way, housing affects transportation. Transportation affects open space and the environment. Take your pick, or come up with your own formula. The combinations are endless…but not insoluble. The key is to start somewhere. We may not be able to say which of our concerns is the “most” important, but we can acknowledge that it is important to get started working wherever possible.  As we proceed we must pay attention to the collateral impact that any action we take will have in other equally important areas.

So, in the end, I told the candidate that affordable housing was “my issue.” It’s what I care about the most right now. I chose it because it is the most neglected of the major issues confronting Sag Hampton. I also told her I was concerned about the impact any development would have on open space preservation and the character of the Village, as well as being very concerned about threats to the environment. So, while I did pick one issue,  in so doing, I actually picked them all.

As readers of this blog know, I have often taken positions against mindless development in the Sag Hampton area…but not against all development, and in this case I had some doubts about the wisdom of opposing the possible changes at the Mobil station.

For one thing, the existing gas station is an eye-sore. If the proposal for a convenience store were to include an appropriate renovation of the existing building, and cleanup and landscaping of the property, it would, I think, be an improvement over current conditions. In addition, access in and out of the existing gas-station is an uncontrolled nightmare for all traffic on that road, including not only those entering and leaving the station, but also through-traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians. Again, if the addition of the convenience store were to include a well-designed traffic-access plan for the entire site, it would be a major improvement to both convenience and safety.

Further, the writer of the call-to-arms e-mail posited that traffic on Rt. 114 is increasing, and that the increased traffic poses serious problems both for the historic homes along the road, and the residents of those homes. This may well be true; however, it does not follow that a convenience store added to an existing high-traffic business on that road will substantially contribute to a further increase in traffic. Probable users of a convenience store at that location would be people who are either already on the road going somewhere else, or customers of the gas station. I do not believe that a gas-station convenience store on Rt. 114 would become a “destination” like the centrally-located 7-11 in the village.

Now, all that said, I’m not saying that I’m in favor of a convenience store at Harbor Heights. What I am saying is that citizens who are concerned about the future of our area — as we all should be — need to carefully weigh the merits of each development proposal before deciding whether to speak out against it.  Sometimes there are subtle benefits to a community in a proposal that may at first seem like a bad idea. An example from a few years ago perfectly illustrates how hard it can be to spot benefits that lie just below the surface.

Not long ago, a bike path was proposed that would run between Bridgehampton and East Hampton. Unfortunately, for a short distance this path would have cut across the southern end of the Long Pond Greenbelt. Now mind you, this is a bike path we’re talking about, not a road. No motor vehicles allowed. But, one or two influential folks who like to ride their horses in the area the bike path would cross, felt that the Greenbelt, while a fine place to travel on horseback, would be despoiled by bicycle traffic. You may agree, or you may think that bikes crossing a small section of the Greenbelt on a controlled path would be a worthwhile trade-off to help jump start a much needed alternative method of transportation, that might even get a few carbon-belching cars off our overburdened roads. Ultimately, however, the folks opposed to the bike path carried the day, and so while we preserved a small piece of our natural habitat, we lost the possibility of achieving something that might have resulted in a greater good for the entire area.

Both proposals — the convenience store and the bike path — illustrate how as we exhaust the possibilities for development on Long Island’s east end, the choices we have to make become increasingly difficult, and fraught with the possibility of missteps. What to oppose and what to promote becomes a more and more difficult decision every day. (Bulova, anyone?) As concerned stewards of this land we (temporarily) occupy, we have a responsibility to be aware of the myriad needs of the many communities with which we share this space — each with differing and often conflicting needs and requirements. Finding a balanced approach to development by keeping our eyes and our minds open to all possibilities is key to ensuring that Sag Hampton remains a livable, sustainable, enjoyable place to call home.