Sag Hampton » Property Rights

The Five Top Problems Facing Sag Hampton

Saltbox — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:22:00 +0000

Over Development / Inappropriate Development
Simply put, over development is the poison that will kill the golden goose. As we all know, people love this area because of its natural beauty, open vistas, fresh air, and rural feel. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that suburban sprawl, McMansion ghettos, charmless villages filled with chain boutiques and real estate offices, condos lining the waterfront, mega-yachts clogging the harbors and bumper to bumper traffic are the antithesis of the characteristics that made this place desirable. Yet, all that and more just keeps on coming. So, as we approach full build out — a scenario that’s not nearly as far away as you might think — it is ever more imperative that we speed up our progress towards that “goal” (full build-out) by dramatically reducing the amount of land available for development through upzoning and open space preservation.
The Automobile
If you live in the remote reaches of Northwest, or somewhere towards the middle of Deerfield Road in Water Mill, you better have a car so you can get to work, shopping, or the doctor’s office, because there just isn’t any other way to get there. Looked at the other way around, the fact that we almost all have cars, has made it possible for us to build houses in these remote areas. Without cars, most of us wouldn’t put up with the inconvenience of living so far from the hamlets and villages where essential services are located. This, in a nutshell, is the cause and effect of the suburban sprawl that is rapidly destroying the beautiful vistas, unspoiled woodlands, pristine coastline and rural feeling of this area. Getting people out of their cars is a worthy goal on many levels, but one that seems almost impossible to achieve. One technique that has some hope of working, is smart growth: pushing development in close to the hamlets and villages through intensive upzoning of areas further away from the hamlet centers, and incenting developers to build and re-purpose properties closer in. This has the effect of increasing density to the point that some forms of public transportation make sense, thus getting people out of their cars, at least some of the time.
The Cost of Living
A community consisting entirely of wealthy second-home owners is not a sustainable community. As the cost of homes (and everything else) rises, working people are driven out of the community, as are the businesses they need to sustain them, and which are in turn, sustained by them. Eventually, the community itself is gone, replaced by a make-believe version that only exists for a few months of the year, and has no ability to provide the underpinnings of a real community such as a volunteer fire department and ambulance service, police department, and local government. Wealthy part-time residents don’t volunteer to serve in the fire department, or run for local office. Police can be brought in from somewhere else, but will not be as effective as a force made up, at least partially, of local residents. When local family businesses close, because their customers have been driven out of the area, what will replace them? Who will we turn to for groceries, hardware, and other household necessities? Ralph Lauren? Starbucks? Corcoran?
Provincialism/Nimbyism
Either we all bail together, or we all sink together. Don’t want that windmill in your neighbor’s yard, or that wind farm off your coastline? Well then, tell us where we can locate them, or sit back and watch your house disappear under the rising ocean. Don’t want that bicycle path running next to your estate, or cutting across your greenbelt? Well then, you’ll just have to put up with more automobile traffic and the massive amounts of pollution it generates. Don’t want affordable housing in your community? Then say good-bye to your community (see #3 above). This problem isn’t unique to individuals either; it also applies to local governments. One example of this type of provincialism with which I am familiar is in the area of transportation. In order to solve the area’s transportation problems, it is necessary for all five east end towns to work together. Local government officials understand this, and yet only pay lip service to the concept. One town doesn’t want ferries. Another doesn’t want buses. Another wants to sue the one that doesn’t want ferries. Villages block improvements to roads because the businesspeople in those villages are afraid their bottom lines may be hurt if a few parking spaces are lost. The net result is that we’re all so busy protecting our backyards that we don’t notice that the house is burning down.
Loss of Place
A sense of place is not something you can fake. I’m a big fan of historic preservation, but when I see the facades of historic buildings acting as camouflage for obscenely swollen McMansions tucked away behind the original modest structures, I am keenly aware that something important has been lost. When local agriculture, once a mainstay of the East End’s economy has come to mean horse farms for polo ponies and jumpers, a way of life that defined this area has slipped through our fingers, along with the definition it provided. When what was traditionally an artist’s community has more art galleries than working artists, it’s an indicator that the community’s balance has shifted away from individualism and towards commercialism. When the vast majority of the people who work here come from someplace else, a large hole has been torn in the fabric of the community that robs it of its sense of place. An authentic sense of place is what makes a community vibrant. For generations, people have come here because eastern Long Island was a “real” place. Once that’s gone — and we’re pretty darn close to losing it — well, once that’s gone, what’s left is Disneyland.

Why Isn’t the Village of Sag Harbor Supporting the Sag Harbor Gateway Study?

Saltbox — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:35:00 +0000

It would seem, at first glance, to be a no-brainer. The Southampton Planning Department recently completed a study that recommends changing the zoning of a small area along the Sag Harbor-Bridgehampton Turnpike (the “Gateway” to Sag Harbor) from Highway Business to Hamlet Office. Since this area lies outside the Village’s borders, its zoning is under the control of the Town. It was the Town-appointed Sag Harbor Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) that initially suggested that a study be conducted; however, it was only after the study received the active support of the Village’s Mayor that the Town agreed to go ahead with it. Given that the study had the support of the Mayor, the CAC, CONPOSH, The Friends of the Long Pond Greenbelt, and other organizations, it would seem, as I said, a no-brainer that the Village would now endorse its findings, and encourage the adoption of the recommended change in zoning. Yet, the Village Trustees recently passed on an opportunity to make such a recommendation to the Southampton Town Board. Why?

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.

In Praise of Listening

Saltbox — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:31:00 +0000

I once worked for a company that wasted a lot of time in meetings. It wasn’t that the meetings themselves were a bad idea, it was just that the meetings never seemed to achieve the intended results. Ultimately, the company hired a consultant, who, after observing one of our meetings for about fifteen minutes, told us why our meetings failed. “You don’t listen to each other,” he said. This turned out to be, in a small way, a life-changing experience for many of us. Listening with complete attention is a rare talent. For most people it is a skill that needs to be learned through exercise and regular practice. To help us along in the early stages, the consultant gave us a rubber ball. He then declared that during our meetings, only the person holding the rubber ball could speak. You had to raise your hand to signal that you wanted the ball, but could only raise your hand after the current speaker was done. Hands raised while someone was speaking were ignored. The speaker was also told to wait 2 beats (about two full seconds) after finishing before passing the ball to the next person. Subsequent speakers were expected to follow up on the comments of the prior speaker. Going off-topic was frowned upon. These exercises were designed to stop us from jumping in with our own comments while someone else was still speaking, and to ensure that the meeting participants were, in fact, listening to the speaker, and not thinking ahead to their own responses. Listen first, comment later, was the message.

The consultant also introduced us to the idea of listening as a form of respect for the person speaking. He told us a story about an African official who was offered a job at the United Nations in New York. Although proficient at English, and highly regarded by his superiors and peers, after only a few months on the job in New York, this diplomat asked to be allowed to return home. When asked why, he said that he could not live in a place where he was treated with such contempt and disregard. After further questioning he explained that in his country to walk by a person on the street, or in a hallway without greeting them was an insult. It was as if you were saying, “you are nothing, you are dead to me.” Of course, in New York, this was an everyday occurrence, and the cumulative effect on the African was to send him into a deep depression from which the only escape was to return to place where his worth would be appreciated and confirmed. While not completely analogous, the story was meant to illustrate for us the disrespect that others in our culture feel when we don’t listen to them. By not listening, we are in effect saying, “your ideas are of no importance to me.”

We live in a culture where respect is traditionally shown by paying thoughtful attention to the words of others. Unfortunately, the traditions of our culture are breaking down, and it is now common to hear people interrupting other speakers, and even shouting them down at public meetings. Government officials too, often show disdain for the public by limiting input at meetings or disregarding the feedback they receive from knowledgeable sources. (While it may be tempting to think that I’m referring to a specific government figure here, I’m not. This trend is widespread enough that you can substitute the name of any politician you wish and have a good chance of finding that the shoe does indeed fit.)

By way of bringing this home to Sag Hampton, let me tell you that I recently witnessed an example of how things should be done. I want to send a shout out (as my son would say) to Pat and Michael Trunzo for their willingness to sit patiently through many meetings, quietly listening to what was said, and quite obviously, absorbing much of it. Mike and Pat have attended at least three meetings of the Sag Harbor Citizens Advisory Committee to Southampton Town (CAC) at which we talked at great length about the need for careful planning of future development at the southern gateway to Sag Harbor on the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike, the need for more affordable housing in the area, and our envirnomental concerns for Ligonee Creek at the southern border of the Village, and for the Long Pond Greenbelt that abuts this area. The Trunzos own undeveloped land in this area. Taking advantage of their presence at our meetings, the CAC has pushed to find out what their intentions were vis a vis developing the parcel they own, and prodded them to consider building green and including affordable housing units, in whatever they ultimately do with the land.

While they didn’t give away much in terms of what their plans are, they obviously heard what we were saying. This came to light at a recent Town Board meeting at which a resolution to authorize a planning study of the gateway area was introduced and passed by the Board. I wasn’t there, but I am told by a pretty reliable source that both Trunzo brothers were in attendance, and that during the public input session Pat Trunzo spoke elegantly in support of the study and its aims. Many, in fact most, landowners, I suspect, would have viewed this study as a threat to their property rights, and railed against it. Instead, we saw two men who took the time to listen to what others in their community had to say, and in the end, validated those community members by acknowledging publicly the value of what had been said.

I don’t have a crystal ball, and so can’t predict what will ultimately happen on the the Turnzos’ land, though now we have reason to hope that it will be developed in a manner considerate of the community’s concerns. At the moment, though, that’s not what’s uppermost in my mind. Right now, I am just grateful to two people who made the effort to really listen.
———————————————————————-
Currently listening to: City Hall by Vienna Teng

OK, So Where Do We Put the “Affordable” Housing?

Saltbox — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:19:00 +0000

Someone was quoted recently in a local paper as saying — and I paraphrase — “sure we need affordable housing in Sag Harbor, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to put it in the new condos that are going up on the waterfront or in the Bulova building.” This was not the developer speaking. Well, if not there, where?

It’s not like we’ve got an abundance of choices. Sag Harbor’s a small place…hell, the whole East End is a small place. In the panel discussion on affordable housing that took place last Sunday, NYS Assemblyman Fred Thiele made the point that open space preservation and affordable housing are not in competition. He correctly noted that most of the land that is being preserved is not where we would want to see new development, affordable or otherwise. On the other hand, open space preservation does reduce the stock of buildable land, thus limiting the possibilities for new development of all kinds. In an area such as this, where geography has already limited the supply of buildable land, preserving open space increases the pressure on developers to make the most of what remains. I’m not saying preserving open space is bad, just that it has an impact.

So, back to Sag Harbor; where you can virtually count the buildable lots on the fingers of one hand, and workforce housing is disappearing faster than parking spaces on Main Street on a summer Saturday. If the Village is going to increase the supply of moderate-price housing, can they afford to be picky about where those units are located? Can they in effect say, it’s OK to put affordable units here, but not there? The answer is no, and there are many good reasons why, some of them (alright, most of them) are legal, but some relate to good planning, preservation of the character of the village, and, of course, economics.

Most importantly, though, legally it just can’t be done. Any law designed to create more affordable housing must apply even-handedly to all property owners. Singling out properties in a certain area for affordable housing is certain to bring about a successful legal challenge to that law in court. Developers have rights, and they are usually not shy about exercising them.

It’s a bad idea on a social level too. Do we want to turn Sag Harbor into a village where all the rich folks live on one side of town and the rest of us (not just the poor, but everyone who’s not rich) lives on the other? Bad idea. Sag Harbor has always been an economically integrated town. Mess with that and you destroy the character that makes people want to live here. You also end up putting an unfair economic burden on land owners in one place, while bestowing a financial windfall on developers in another. In short, trying to manage where the affordable housing will be is a non-starter.

Mayor Ferraris and Trustee Scarlatto announced not long ago that they were undertaking a review of the Village’s zoning code, with an eye toward amending it in some way that might include creating more affordable housing units. I have a suggestion that will help them avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned above, and also has a fair chance of actually creating a significant amount of affordable housing even in Sag Harbor. It’s called mandatory inclusionary zoning, and I’m convinced it’s the best way to go.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning is hard to say, but not that hard to understand. What it means is that the Village modifies the zoning code to say that in all new developments that include over a certain number of units, a certain percentage of those units must be affordable. The number of units that triggers the law, and the percentage are up to the Village to decide. Hopefully, they will come up with some sort of “fair share” formula so that the burden of including affordable units is evenly spread among developers and among developments in all areas of the village.

I came to the conclusion that this is the best way to go, after reading an extensive legal note entitled Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning–The Answer to the Affordable Housing Problem, written by Brian R. Lerman of Boston College Law School. Published this year in the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, it includes an analysis of current laws on the books in various states, cities and counties around the country, and the legal decisions that have upheld or limited those laws. His review of virtually everything that has been tried to date, leads to the inescapable conclusion that only mandatory inclusionary zoning is both effective at creating a substantial number of affordable units, and able to withstand legal challenges from all sides. Mr. Lerman concludes: “To effectively create affordable housing, a community should adopt a mandatory inclusionary zoning regime.”

By the way, I’ve singled out Sag Harbor, because of the Trustees’ stated intention of reviewing the zoning code and of trying to find ways to create more affordable housing. However, everything mentioned above applies equally well at the Town, County, and especially at the State level. I know Assemblyman Thiele is an active advocate for affordable housing, and is pushing hard in Albany. However, his efforts are being stymied by an few intractable State Senators, Ken Lavalle among them. If this issue is important to you, I suggest giving Mr. Lavalle a call and explaining to him how urgent the need for affordable housing is in his district and urging him to rethink his position.

Who’s the Bad Guy?

Saltbox — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:56:28 +0000

I attended a meeting recently where a group of concerned citizens was discussing whether to advocate for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the area around the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike from its intersection with Scuttlehole Road to the traffic signal at Jermain Avenue. They are concerned that there are several development projects underway in this area, and possibly several more waiting in the wings. Those in favor of this idea argued that while the Town and Village governments have rules and procedures in place to regulate individual development projects, no one was looking at the whole picture. And so, while the impact of each project on the environment and the character of the area might be mitigated by these regulations, the overall impact of the combined projects might still have an adverse effect on the area. Only one member of the group disagreed with this position, and he simply voted against it but did not explain his reasons for doing so.

There were, however, dissenting voices; those of the land owners, two of whom attended the meeting. While not members of the group, they were permitted, if not encouraged to speak at the meeting. Unfortunately for them, neither was a particularly eloquent or effective speaker; and so, while they get points for showing up, their comments did not appear to have much of an effect on the others at the meeting. Essentially, each landowner made one point. The first landowner said, his was a good plan. It improves, he said, on what’s there now, and if he was not allowed to develop the property the way he wants, he may sell it to someone who will do something worse. The second landowner simply said. We’ve spent a lot of money and we just want to do what we want to do. Since it’s not illegal, we should be allowed to do it. Unsurprisingly, no one present found these points very compelling.

Personally, I found their arguments so lame, that I feel compelled to mention a few things here that I think they should have said. I will qualify my support by letting it be known that I am definitely in favor of a GEIS; but, I have qualms. First, I’m guessing that neither of these property owners sees themselves as a bad person. Both are undertaking projects that are known to have support in the greater Sag Harbor community. If they are permitted to proceed, they will provide services to the community that will be welcomed by many. They will most likely upgrade the appearance of both the structures and the landscaping that are now in place. Jobs may be created. And, in the end, the owners of these properties are just people, trying to get on with their lives as best they can — not that different from you and me.

Secondly, one must take into account the financial risk they are taking. Starting a business, or expanding and existing one is expensive. Just getting the plans on paper costs a lot of money, and things just get more expensive from there. Delays and changes are costly. Increased costs eat up crucial capital and increase the possibility of failure. Today’s dream of a successful business could end up as tomorrow’s appearance in bankruptcy court. While it seems unlikely that anyone from the developers’ families will go hungry, no one likes to see his dreams come crashing down due to circumstances beyond his control.

So, I have qualms. From the landowners point of view, we, the citizens who are impeding the progress of their efforts to create a viable business are the bad guys. Nevertheless, the community and the environment must be protected, and so I still favor a GEIS; though I probably differ from some in what I expect to be the outcome of the GEIS. One possible outcome would be a change of zoning from the current highway business designation to something more restrictive. This is where I think the landowners neglected to mention their strongest argument. I believe a change of zoning at this point would be a perversion of justice as we know and practice it in this country. Property owners do have rights, and while those rights may be abridged by the needs of the community at large, they may not be annulled. The locations in question have been used for commercial purposes for as long as anyone can remember. Some argue that better uses for the property could be found. No doubt they could. But this will not, and should not happen, unless the owners of the property wish it so. A change of zoning that prohibited commercial uses of the properties in question would, in my opinion, be unconstitutional. So, if the owners want to run businesses at those locations — and they do — the rest of us better get used to the idea.

Why then, have a GEIS? As I see it, the reason for a GEIS is to restore balance. Developers tend to think big. “How much development can I cram on this parcel?” and “What is the maximum return I can get from the money I invest here?” are both natural questions for developers to ask. As it turns out, both these developers are thinking big…too big. The impact of these projects as proposed on the delicate environment of nearby Ligone Creek and the Long Pond Greenbelt must be mitigated. Too, the impact on the character of the area on the Sag Harbor Turnpike that comprises the southern gateway to Sag Harbor Village will be irrevocably altered. The balance between commercial development, residential development and undeveloped woodland along the Turnpike is approaching a tipping point. Without careful management we could soon be looking at another mess like County Road 39.

So, a GEIS is necessary to establish the appropriate parameters for development in the area. With a GEIS in place, the Town and the community can negotiate with property owners all along the Turnpike and arrive at a level of development that will protect the community while still allowing property owners to realize a reasonable return on their investments.

I’m going to stop here, because I’ve concluded my thoughts on the rights of property owners vis a vis the rights of the community. There is more to say, however, about the proposed GEIS. I will come back to that issue in a later post.