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.

But this year…this year they assure us they’ve got it figured out and the fund-balance, like little bear’s porridge, will be just right. As I said, learning on the job is good. I really mean that. Now, what about those accounting errors?  They are the other villain in this year’s budget scenario, yet the Board was a little less specific about those. However, the District’s new business official, Janet Verneuille, assures us she’s got a handle on it, and from the depth of knowledge she displayed at a recent budget presentation, I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I’m also inclined to giver her a word to the wise…it’s not necessary to try to defend or even explain the mistakes of your predecessors. They were their mistakes, not yours. Defending them makes them look like your mistakes. Correct, don’t defend.

Which, by the way, is advice the School Board should take to heart as well. In the current political climate — yes, the School Board is political — you can’t win an argument with the public. The public is angry, and that anger is not aimed at anyone in specific. Are you an elected official? If the answer is yes, just assume that the public is pissed-off at you. The best thing you can do is to publicly accept your role in whatever mistakes were made, apologize sincerely, and then be completely transparent about what you are doing to fix the problem. Don’t defend, don’t argue, and especially don’t get arrogant.

Unfortunately, when there’s a lack of leadership, defensiveness, argumentativeness and arrogance often appear to fill the void. Former Board President Walter Tice got it exactly right at Monday evening’s Board meeting when he admonished the board for expecting the public to, again, vote on a budget in which the dollar amount of the single largest expense — teacher’s salaries — is a guess that can’t even be revealed to the voters.  Tice advised the board to get the contract settled before the budget vote so that the public could have confidence that the proposed budget accurately reflected the amount the District would need to meet its obligations — not too little, and certainly not too much. That being a concept the board and administration have had difficulty with in recent years, they should carefully consider the wisdom of Mr. Tice’s advice.

The good news is that leadership can be learned on the job. All that’s needed to get the contract negotiation ball rolling again, is for one or more Board members to accept the fact that it is the Board’s job to get it done and to stop making it personal. As things stand right now, the animosity directed by some board members towards the teachers’ union is palpable, and that’s not appropriate. This is not an ego battle. Board members must put aside their personal feelings and their preconceived notions of whatever it was they thought they could “accomplish” in the negotiations, and actually start to negotiate.  A leader would recognize that “winning” is no longer the most important point. (It actually never was.) Preserving the vision, the quality, and the harmony of the District is what’s important now. A leader would know this, and would do whatever is necessary to make his or her colleagues understand it as well. I know that leader exists on this board. I just hope that he or she is ready to start learning on the job.

Present at this event were quite a few of the East End’s local and regional elected officials including the supervisors of the Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, Southold and Riverhead, County Legislators Schneiderman and Romaine, Assemblyman Thiele, every member of the Southampton Town Council, members of various other town councils, and representatives from the offices of Congressman Bishop and State Senator Lavalle. The only significant player not present was the Shelter Island supervisor. Among those commenting on the transportation plans presented at the forum, only the representatives for Congresman Bishop and Senator Lavalle did not take a position, saying they would have to defer to their bosses; County Legislator Romaine left early, before his opinion could be recorded. Riverhead’s Supervisor Cardinale arrived late, and having missed the presentation said that while he could not take a strong position either way, he would, at this time, defer to the opinions of the other supervisors. Only Legislator Schneiderman voiced a dissenting opinion. Everyone else present expressed support for the development of the rail/bus network plan.

Quite frankly, I was dumbfounded. After listening to the presentation, I was sure that the local officials would use the cover provided by the Volpe Center’s more reasonably priced alternative to avoid supporting what looks to be a very difficult to implement and costly project, the outcome of which is far from certain.  But, calling the more elaborate plan “visionary,” and “of greater long-term benefit,” the politicians quickly came to consensus. How often does that happen? I’m still shocked. It certainly tore a hole in my post of a couple of weeks ago in which I asserted that the provincialism that crops up in inter-town disputes was one of the biggest problems facing the East End. Needless to say, I was thrilled at this level of cooperation. I also support the plan.

At this point some of you are probably wishing for a little background. OK, here it is. Planners have been predicting total gridlock on East End roads since at least the 1970s, and starting around then have also proposed many ways to avoid it, most of which have proven unacceptable to residents and or government officials for one reason or another. In the mid 1990s, the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association (EESMA), created a new group, the East End Transportation Council (EETC) to again study the issue, which they did…interminably. Their work eventually culminated in the 2006 release of a study known as SEEDS (Sustainable East End Development Strategies). I won’t go into that here, except to say that development of a mass transit system of some kind was one of the recommendations of the study. During the SEEDS process, a splinter group formed among the SEEDS stakeholders. The members of this splinter felt that EETC was moving too slowly, and that it was time to jump from studying the problem to developing solutions. This group became Five Towns Rural Transit (FTRT), a non-profit devoted to the development of what was to become known as the East End Shuttle.

Through the dedication and hard work of FTRT, a plan was developed that included replacement of the Long Island Rail Road service on the East End with a more frequent light rail service that would shuttle between the stations and be met by a network of feeder buses to which passengers could transfer for short rides into nearby hamlets, villages and business centers. In 2007, Assemblyman Thiele and Senator Lavalle took up the cause of FTRT and were able to obtain a matching grant  for the study and further development of the East End Shuttle concept. The East End Towns came up with the matching funds, and the EETC was given the task of finding a group capable of undertaking the study. This turned out to be the Volpe Center, which was charged with fleshing out and analyzing the feasibility of the Shuttle plan, and also with coming up with at least one alternative, so that if the plan proved unacceptable, the Towns would have a fallback strategy.

The result of this work was presented on Friday, April 17th at Suffolk Community College in Riverhead. I won’t try to recap the presentation here, as I’ve probably already worn out your patience with this long-winded post. However, in summary, I think it would be fair to say that while Volpe was favorably impressed with FTRT’s shuttle plan, they concluded that it could be prohibitively expensive, and that the results — whether or not people would use it, and whether or not it would relieve congestion on our roadways — were uncertain. The alternative they proposed, was, in their words, more flexible, less expensive, and implementable in phases — all advantages over the shuttle plan. The big disadvantage of the alternative was that the buses would run on the same clogged roadways that we all use now, resulting in long travel times, while contributing to congestion on the roads.

After the presentation, many panelists and audience members spoke eloquently in favor of the shuttle plan, in spite of its possible drawbacks. Legislator Schneiderman spoke thoughtfully and presented some additional drawbacks to the shuttle plan that had not been mentioned by Volpe. Supervisor Russell of Southold, suggested that a hybrid solution, with different approaches for the north and south forks might be the best alternative — more rail on the south fork, more buses on the north. Ultimately, the idea of a hybrid solution — details unspecified — took hold of the group, and when it came time to arrive at a consensus, a hybrid solution embodying most of the details of FTRT’s East End Shuttle, at least on the south fork, was agreed upon.

I’ve skipped over a lot of important details in this post — financing for one — which I hope to get back to another time. For now, though, I think it is enough to say that occassionally, the people we elect do their jobs with thoughtfulness and diligence, putting the greater need ahead of short term political considerations, and we should all be grateful for that, and that the *!~@$*** congestion on our roads may eventually be remedied.

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.