The Bridgehampton Citizens’ Advisory Committee met on July 19, 2010  to discuss  the issue of  safety at the location commonly described as “Ocean Road Beach”,  located at the  Southern terminus of Ocean Road/Atlantic Avenue in the unincorporated hamlet of Bridgehampton. The CAC noted that Ocean Road Beach is used by increasing numbers of residents and non-residents, that usage increases each year, and that the greatest usage occurs during the period running from Memorial day through Labor Day. The CAC believes that the unsupervised and unprotected premises here identified have for many years resulted in  a dangerous threat to the safety and well being of all who visit this location, whether by automobile, by foot, or by any other means of transportation.

Consequently  the Bridgehampton Citizens’ Advisory Committee voted unanimously to request the Town Board to take steps to permanently alleviate the dangerous conditions that prevail at the “Ocean Road Beach “ location during the summer ocean bathing season, including the provision of life guards and other appropriate services and facilities.

The Bridgehampton Citizens’ Advisory Committee met on July 19, 2010  to discuss BNB Ventures IV, LLC  Property Situate : 2488 Montauk Highway , 10 Lumber Lane, 2510 BH-SH Turnpike : SCTMs 900-69-5- 34,35,36. This submission was made pursuant to meetings held with the Planning Board on November 19, 2009 and the Town’s Landmark & Historic Review Board on December 15, 2009 where the two Town agencies found these revisions address the concerns of the previously proposed plan .

The Bridgehampton Citizens’ Advisory Committee unanimously  supports  the applicant’s revised plan  with a  caveat; the interfacing traffic issue at the Lumber Lane, SH Turnpike, Montauk Highway must be addressed by the DOT, and the Town of Southampton. Additional development at this location will increase the potential for serious accidents at this  presently very dangerous entrance and exit pattern.

Presentation and discussion concerning a proposed PDD Site Development Concept for 56 Flying Point Road Southampton NY  dated May 5, 2010.

Mr. Murphree presented the proposed site development as of May 16, 2010. He emphasized that all plans were premature and that applications have not been made to the Town Board as yet. The  Town has presented the proposed development plans to the Water Mill CAC  and, tonight,  to the Bridgehamprton  CAC. In general the viewpoints expressed at this meeting were shared by  the vast majority of those present. The planned site development, if approved by the Town,  will require a change of zoning within the structure of a Planned Development District.

Comments on the proposal:

I would just say that I would hope that the scale of the project is no larger than to justify some “reasonable” return on investment…and that it must satisfy the majority of the immediate residential neighbors at the same time.

In this regard, I would recommend that the developer provide financial projections under various scenarios, including under existing zoning regulations.   For example,  projected profitability under the original proposal, a year or so ago, and under the new proposal.  So long as the older, smaller proposal looks reasonably successful, he might be required to scale back the project to its original size. The developer clearly must believe he’ll make a good deal more money with this big project, rather than building a business that conforms with the existing zoning.  But to allow him to build a super-large complex would increase his risk, and his chances of failure, I would think.

Also, it seems to me that there are such immense traffic problems already on County Road 39, that anything that significantly impacted traffic should be avoided.  I’m sure we all agree on that score.  Maybe part of the land should be devoted to some kind of bypass or some novel traffic solution. And I also think that the impact on all the other commercial businesses in Southampton Village needs to be considered.  There are several empty storefronts in Southampton Village already.

However any substantial commercial development at that location could, depending on its nature, have severe effects on Route  27 traffic, which is already overloaded.

If being PDD only means that part of it will be residential. I do not see that as a problem since the traffic consequences would be minimal. To my mind therefore the issue is what kind of commercial development

Numerous times the Town of Southampton has used this planning device to legalize and encourage the further over development of the outer town commercial zones  in ways that the infrastructure cannot support and the existing residents oppose.

———————

Our Town government seems to want to enable commercial and residential development without limits as it adds to the economic base and creates jobs in the construction industry.

The unincorporated hamlets, particularly those East of the canal are poorly equipped to deal with this strategy on the part of Southampton Town government. Having no formal or legal say in the matter our concerns, opinions and property rights are barely if at all weighted in the establishment of these PDDs.

It all goes to the larger issue of to whose benefit the Town resources are being utilized?

OF course the hamlets themselves are not without blame here, by remaining unincorporated and failing to often have a clear stated view as to what they want for  the future of their hamlets (as opposed to a lot of conflicting opinions all “anti”), they leave themselves wide open to the Town taking over their development future.

So ultimately taking control of our land use and the how the future Bridgehampton will look and live rests on either establishing our own municipality or having a real enforceable hamlet plan that reflects the will and rights of the residents and can limit the actions of the Planning Board and ZBA.

To date we have taken neither of these steps and the results are visible every day.

————————

Pretty decent discussion last night, but it takes a while to get to the meat of things. I would suggest more than one meeting on the highway corridor would be in order, perhaps with a little more narrow definition of the subject to get and keep the discussion on track. People have a tendency to wander into their own area of preoccupation, which is fine in its way, but problematic with a limited time slot. The main issues found their way to the surface, but were not underlined enough.

The highway corridor seems to be getting pounded by opportunistic developers who have clever lawyers and other consultants, who show them how to manipulate the laws and system. Wayne Bruin, Charos’s attorney, was a planner with the Town for years and I am almost certain had a lot to do, along with Doug Penny and Fred Thiele, with drafting the PDD law. I believe the law is well- intentioned and very useful in some cases. It’s application is the problem!

——————————————

I believe the issue here is not the PDD law itself, which has more good attributes than bad ones. Perhaps it could use some tweaking to improve or limit it’s abuse.It is designed to encourage good site planning and a richer and more interesting mix of uses. The key to its use is the community cost/benefit clause, which the Town Board must decide in each case. In the example of the PDD at the  North Sea junkyard project, the virtues were more clear: much needed “affordable housing” for a junkyard in a relatively benign location. The final execution may be debatable, but the concept was clearly beneficial! An “easy” one!

The problem with Tuckahoe and Charos is that the sites are both located along an over-loaded highway corridor, encourage the spread of strip- type development, and are primarily commercial centers (the housing is a token effort at best). It is my opinion, and I think most residential stakeholders out here would agree, the last thing we need is more consumer-oriented commercial development. One of the problems is, retail space brings in double the income per square foot compared to rental housing of the apartment type.

One of the reasons I moved here from south Florida was to get the hell away from that type of mall- dominated lifestyle. We have a traditional village-center structure here. We should be encouraging and reinforcing that, rather than allowing willy-nilly opportunistic land speculation.(The elephant in the room with this is that parking in our centers is so limited)  But are we really interested in becoming a shopping area destination for non- residents? That is the only way these retail businesses can make the limited season numbers work!

In the case of Charos, the site is already badly developed, in a somewhat central location, and the owner is saying “more will be better”. The Tuckahoe site is mostly undeveloped and not at all central to an existing center. Both will bleed activity away from the existing centers by encouraging a quick, auto-convenient stop for weekenders and day-trippers. The prospect of jobs will also be dangled and of, course the increase in tax base. These are shallow benefits. The real problem is what the developer will claim as his “right to use” and the fact that the courts will grant them if the Town resists. And of course the quandary  for decision-makers is to have to take the least damaging option and hope for the best.

The politicians and their planners have probably already reached that foregone conclusion and are going to focus on tweaking the site plans to get the least impact and best mix of uses they can. They are simply not in a legal or financial position to question the very exististentional nature of these projects as they are being proposed, which is what they should be doing. The traffic issue will be raised and cleverly swept under the rug in the environmental impact statement. It is too amorphous to be understood: it is a “death of a thousand cuts” problem. It has become too big to solve anyway, so why take it out on the individual land owner?

Planners  are not in a position to choose, only to tweak! They have no choice but to play the game and see to it that everyone keeps his cards and hands on the table.

The problem is the initiative is with landowners, developers, and their hired consultant guns, not the planners and politicians. If you have ever watched what happens during the development of a community master plan, you will realize that. The result is hardly worth the paper and man-hours expended. It is a codification of the system as it is: land not as a community resource, but a commodity.

I would like to think that we could do something about these two proposals, but the best influence we can probably have is to pressure the Planning Board to simply strike the best deal they can by limiting the retail footage and getting as much housing and open space the developer will tolerate. If we have any traffic impact mitigation tools available, which I am not aware of at the Town level, that might soften the blow. The Town has little jurisdiction over County roads.

Frankly, I am more interested in encouraging good mixed uses in our Village centers, such as housing above stores, than this kind of sprawl.

——————

Very well put…almost like you knew what you were talking about!  Thanks for the thoughtful writing. I think you were getting to  my question about what really motivates the town planners? So many people have moved here to avoid congested suburbs/cities but no one in town hall   seems really  to care. Thery are talking  about taking an ugly intersection. But that haphazard development is probably better (I like that ’50s car dealership on the south side for instance) than some over-sized development with an entrance on what is essentially a small residential road (Flying Point). And let’s not forget that more development means more energy consumption

Unless some green elements are introduced.

I am sort of shocked that the intersection isn’t being treated as a whole especially when one considers that it really is the entrance to Southampton and a lot of traffic moves through there. Also let’s not forget that The Parrish beaks ground in the Fall I think on a new museum….my guess is they’re hoping for lots of visitors and that can only mean more traffic.

I wonder if the Town would ever consider a PDD for the entire intersection?

——————-

I agree completely. I was shocked to hear  that they paid some consultant $100,000 to draw up that early Charos site plan.What the hell was that all about? Did I hear that correctly? Usually the developer bears such costs and then some, in the form of impact fees.

By the way, the suggestion for a roundabout at that intersection is very interesting. Perhaps Charos and the outfit across the street could fork over something toward the improvement of that intersection, since they would be contributing so heavily to its congestion. Would that not be the very minimum one could expect?

You know, if we cannot stop this type of development cold in it’s tracks, which would be my first choice, why can’t we find a way to make it so expensive for them with impact fees and mitigation, that they think twice about investing here and go to Brookhaven or some other Town that loves this type of comercialization?

The Town’s leadership is just too easy on these developers! If we can’t just say “no”, let’s make them pay plenty for asking, rather than bending over for them ,which is what I see happening.

I recall the discussions with Suskind, et al, concerning the Barnes & Noble proposal, and although there were competitors against the plan for obvious reasons, I did not discern any community support (other than Suskind if I recall correctly) for the PDD proposal.  The Supervisor’s position may be politically savvy, but it is a prescription for monkey business and abuse.  Thus, I do not believe that PDD should be a planning device, period.

—————–

There was plenty more, but a summary would be accurate if it reported that the reaction to this PDD and indeed to the whole concept of  using PDDs as a planning tool was mighty dubious.

TOPICS FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BRIDGEHAMPTON CAC on MONDAY JULY 19 AT 7:00 PM AT THE BRIDGEHAMPTON BANK .

A  CAC member  went to the Planning Board meeting on June 25

Kopp LLC has shrunk the size of that agricultural barn on Mitchell Lane to 4000 square feet from 14,000 square feet. Still lots of questions about purpose of this and one of the neighbors was there to raise some objections.

The Citerella item was withdrawn. I’m not sure what they want to do now. Does anybody else know?

Richard Warren from Inter-Science Research Associates of Southampton made a presentation about the new BNB building on the corner of the turnpike and Montauk Highway. They have really changed the design, pushed the building back further and done a pretty good job of listening to community comments. Rick Warren of Inter-Science is happy to come to the CAC in July and give a presentation. We have 30 days to comment on these plans. Note this is the corner of the intersection that encompasses the Beverage Center, Starbucks, and other buildings Further development on this corner will have a severe impact on that intersection.

Fred Cammann Chair Bridgehampton CAC

Affordable Housing Authority

Richard Blowes, the Executive Director of the Town of Southampton Housing Authority and Ann Gajowski, the Business Manager of the Authority  came to discuss with us the role of Affordable Housing in the Town of Southampton. The Housing Authority is a newly formed agency assigned to develop a plan for Affordable Housing throughout the town. Because the various villages and unincorporated hamlets of Southampton enjoy a wide variety of population demographics, Mr Blowes and Ms Gajowski are endeavoring to meet with each CAC and other local groups to discuss the  needs for local  Affordable Housing and to identify possible locations for Affordable Housing projects . Mr. Blowes emphasized that the town has yet to develop a comprehensive plan but has constructed  a few Affordable Housing projects, although  on a pretty limited scale. Therefore the data arising from these projects, although useful, is still pretty sketchy. .

It is accepted by all present that in Bridgehampton, as well as in the rest of the town, there appears to be a need for Affordable Housing. The question arises where do you build it? In Bridgehampton, as on the rest of the South Fork, the major obstacle to building Affordable Housing is the extraordinary high assessed value of parcels leading to high property tax assignments in most of the villages and hamlets. Therefore the availability of lots for affordable housing projects is severely limited. As a result in Bridgehampton  many of our younger residents, especially those who seek to raise a family,   simply cannot afford to rent or purchase housing  within our community.

In the climate of the present economic downturn there may be an opportunity to obtain parcels of land through tax foreclosures, although this prospect is pretty unlikely on the South Fork. It offers a certainly an un-cheerful solution, since it infers that one  family must leave the premises to make room for another family to move in. On a more positive note, the construction of Affordable Housing units may prove a boon to local contractors and subcontractors if the Housing Authority is permitted to limit construction bidding contracts to local businesses; however, such limitations are difficult to come by and in the past our local contractors have been underbid by businesses from the West who come from areas  where the property assessments are less onerous.

Rehabilitating existing run down properties for potential Affordable Housing does not end up adding to the density  of available housing and may well  cost more per square foot than tearing non code structures down and starting from scratch.

As it has happened in other communities, it may be  possible for the Town to rent Affordable Housing units to qualified tenants while encouraging a future purchase program with the town sharing in any capital increase in the value of the properties..

At this time in our local economy the main obstacles facing an Affordable Housing program include the cost of obtaining land, particularly on the South Fork and  the availability of funds for Affordable Housing projects coming from the local government facing huge budget problems. The local banks, although supportive of any programs to promote Affordable Housing,  remain reluctant to jump into the residential mortgage business  even for those who have high credit ratings.

Mr. Blowes and Ms. Gajowski will return to our CAC,  as they develop the data for possible provision of Affordable Housing throughout the town as well as on the South Fork.

Jeffrey Vogel asked for suggestions about the CAC website: aboutbridgehampton.com.

The site is rarely used, but it should be an important venue for comments from residents of Bridgehampton. We need to find some way of contacting our fellow Bridgehampton neighbors about zoning, code, budget, traffic and other issues that we discuss at our meetings. Otherwise we lack the influence necessary to inform the Town about how these issues are affecting our community.

The debate concerning the formation of a Regional Transportation Commission continues.

This is one of the main issues facing Bridgehampton as well as all the other Southampton Town communities. We need feedback from Bridgehampton  dwellers. Ian MacPherson reported  that there is still a bill pending in the State Assembly recommending an expensive bus/rail  program directed towards easing the traffic problems. He points out that this approach appears to be the sole measure being considered. The CAC has doubts that the concept is physically or financially feasible. In its April meeting the CAC passed a resolution expressing its hope that other concepts for traffic easing be investigated by  the planned Commission . The CAC feels that the proposed bus/rail concept besides costing  a lot of money, will do very little to reduce traffic congestion on the East End. Once again some members ask that the building of bypasses be investigated. Other members feel that clearing a route for an additional South Fork highway interconnected with North South  roads is probably impossible. The required pathway is simply not available without purchasing large amounts of private property for  a right of way. The actual cost of constructing a fourth road on the East End would be well beyond  any presently conceived budgets.

The next meeting of the Bridgehampton CAC will take place on Monday June 28 at 7:00 in the bank meeting room. The main subject of this meeting will be a review of a  Planned Development District  proposed by the town for the intersection of the Montauk Highway and County Road 39 .

The Watermill CAC   is studying  this program and has many reservations which the Bridgehampton CAC may share. The impact of an extensive expansion of commercial buildings and businesses at this location will have an enormous effect on the traffic problems we presently face on the South Fork. Ms. Rachel Verno, the Chair of the Watermill CAC and other members of the Watermill CAC have kindly agreed to meet with us to discuss the proposed PDD at our next meeting and will bring maps and other supporting documents . We will also invite a town representative to attend the meeting to  hopefully identify  the required community benefits that the Watermill and Bridgehampton communities will reap  from this PDD in spite of its obvious contribution  to the already serious traffic problems.

The following resolution was passed and was sent to the Town Board

The Bridgehampton Citizens’ Advisory Committee met on April 26, 2010  to review  the Town Board   proposed boundaries for the unincorporated hamlet of Bridgehampton. By unanimous vote  the CAC agreed that the map submitted by the town presents the best compromise and delineation  of the borders that encompass the hamlet of Bridgehampton.

Consequently we endorse this action by the Town Board in affirming the official hamlet borders and express our thanks to Councilwoman Nancy Graboski  for her efforts  and guidance in this matter

Jeffrey Vogel on behalf of the Bridgehampton CAC

Background:

The Town, with the guidance of Nancy Graboski, has spent quite a period of time trying to establish informal boundaries for the numerous unincorporated hamlets that make up the balance of Sotuhampton’s land that is not withn the boundaries of incorporated villages. This project has been a particular wish for the Bridgehampton community dating back to our investigation into possible incorporation in the wake of the “Dunehampton Village” threat to our shoreline identification about six years ago. The resulting incorporation of Sagaponack Village as protection against the Dunehampton invasive effort led members of our incorporation committee to ask the town to establish their boundary definitions for Bridgehampton.  The results you will see are mainly the delineation of the Bridgehampton School District. Fred Cammann and Jeffrey Vogel have maps if anyone wishes to see the boundaries. It is also on website under the “New Hamlet Plan”

The following resolution was passed and subsequently  sent to the Town Board

We, The Bridgehampton Citizens’ Advisory Committee do not consider a bus/rail system will serve the East End’s interests since vehicular traffic is fundamental to our area and we therefore request that other options be considered directed towards   reducing congestion including consideration of  hamlet bypasses.

Ian MacPherson on behalf of the Bridgehampton CAC

Background:

Although this resolution is brief and broad, it in general reflects the consensus arrived after a lengthy review of the proposed Peconic Transportation . Here are some CAC  comments based upon the bill proposed by Assemblyman Thiele. There are a number of ways to “skin this cat”. We think the problem has not been adequately researched

————————————————————————————————————-

while I whole heartedly agree that a rail/bus system doesn’t offer much to Bridgehampton and from our perspective is a massive waste of tax dollars in a time of the need for austerity and restraint in spending. I don’t think that a “bypass” is ever likely to come about  either and think that it will only result in a lot of litigation and legal fees. I do think that putting some of the freight on the rails might help and be cost effective.   Other than that I think that only much higher transport costs are the only “solution” to the congestion. IMP “more road = more cars”

—————————————————————————————————–

Whereas the CAC in reviewing Bill A06743A and the underlying SEEDS and Volpe reports notes:

• that a bus rail system is proposed for the South Fork as a means of reducing congestion because the ability to expand existing highways is limited and the construction of new highways is not feasible
• that according to the SEEDS and Volpe reports the amount of traffic which will be diverted from the roads to the bus rail system is insufficient to solve congestion on the East End now, and will be even less so in the future as development continues.
• that the ability or inability to improve roads or construct a new highway is entirely a matter of  Community choice and investment feasibility
• that vehicular traffic is fundamental to our region
• that a seamless bus system would be the most beneficial means of achieving a greater measure of mass transit

The CAC therefore at its meeting on April 26^th 2010 unanimously resolved that:

We do not consider a bus/rail system will serve the East End’s interests

In order to achieve material reduction in road congestion on the East End other options must be considered including a bypass for the hamlets on rte 27

————————————————————————————————————-

The part time home owners and the weekenders are not going to take buses or rail to get to their weekend and summer homes and they are not going to take public transportation during the summer to go from Bridgehampton east or west for dinner, or lunch, or the beach, etc. etc..  And they are a cornerstone of our economy.

And when the housing market picks up in the Hamptons the contractors trucks are not going to go onto a freight carrier from Speonk to Montauk.

WE NEED ROADS, REAL WIDE ROADS, to handle the traffic we have invited to the east end.  And if we can’t build roads, then we will have to live with the congestion as the effect that the economic pluses that the traffic brings.

Maybe we can’t have it both ways.  Maybe we need to compromise our lofty goals.  I think this regional authority is a waste of taxpayer money, at a time when the state can’t pay school aid (See NYT today) and is cutting hospital subsidies.  Lets get our priorities straight in these tough times instead of continuing with our high flying ideas as if these were the good old days.

I happened to be at the bus stop this morning from 7:45AM to 8AM and observed traffic going east, which was slow and heavy.  A preponderant majority of the vehicles were either workmen in trucks or laborers in cars.  Some were clearly commuters in moderate cars, people going to work.  My conclusion is: these people aren’t taking light rail or the like, nor are they bus riders.  I think we are wasting public money and time on anything other than dealing with our needs for roads, roads, roads.  Add what I saw this morning to the summer time when substantial revenue is earned by local businesses, and I can’t see any other answer.

I really like your addition of the bus system because I think it’s important to try to encourage mass transit.

You are largely right about the trade parade, but actually, many workers could easily use any public transit system.

If bus service were fully expanded EW, you probably could reduce radically NS service.  Bus increase requires no infra-structure increase and allows for future hard structure alternatives, but it would have to be part of a bypass for auto travel to be meaningful, and it would have to have time-efficient uploads with LIRR someplace west of here.

Jitney and LIRR with transfers to a regular light/mono rail would capture some day-trippers, but those services are focused on Manhattan. There’s a lot of island in between. I have customers and suppliers from the in between who can only use cars as it now stands.

while I believe you are right in your assessment of the truck and car traffic I would urge you to look at the bus in the afternoon which is packed…

t might take a while but could/would attitudes about driving your own vehicle change if there were other options.

It might be crazy but if there were a monorail out to Montauk why would we need the LIRR if the the two met somewhere west of here?

I personally only care about the congestion (and the road condition), so I personally would like to see a bypass. Short term I see no value in an LiRR light rail coordination with a shrinking bus service.

Long term (after many of us are gone), I think the viability of our kind of mixed seasonal and year-round community will develop and get more dense and crowded. Petroleum based personal transport will become obsolete (too expensive – China’s entry as the biggest user almost guarantees that). I want a bypass to move the folks who live and play east of us, so they don’t bother me. Having had a gallery on the North Fork, I have seen it works.

I agree that a light rail based on LIRR service will not do much in the short run, or, I would add, in the long run. Sooo, if we push for a monorail (which I believe would have a longer viable value than an expanded LIRR light rail), we probably can’t get it. But the package includes a by pass (good for most of our short term needs). So the antiquated NYC commuter LIRR service doesn’t change until the absurdity of it collapses it, but the bypass does get used to alleviate traffic for a decade or so.

Why did the MTA not wish to continue the service which addressed the potentially high volume demand commuter periods, and why has the MTA never sought to establish a frequent local service?

Why choose a rail system, where much of the capital cost will be spent outside NY State, and not assist local employment.?

Volpe estimates that the system fare recovery will be between 6 and 13% of operational cost. Is it the expectation that subsidies would derive from MTA taxes collected on the East End on the rational that any mass transit system would be eligible? If so could they not also be applied to a bus only system?

Since the bill states that the issue of congestion must be addressed promptly and adequately to safeguard the economy, why is the bill focusing on the Shuttle when Sean Pierce of Volpe told Ian MacPherson of the CAC that the Shuttle was not designed to reduce congestion, but that if it did do so, it would be welcome?

In view of these questions the CAC  respectfully request that the bill provide for consideration of other solutions, including an all road solution to an environmentally satisfactory design, with a seamless bus system, as preferred by the North Fork?

One such possibility is the joint use of the LIRR corridor, from CR39 which was recommended for investigation by the Land Committee of the Southampton Town Transportation Task Force in 2002, which, even if it only ran to Stephen Hands, could reasonably be expected to reduce rte 27 traffic by 50% and eliminate use of residential streets as by-passes

Consideration of such options, if carried out with the thoroughness of the Volpe Report, would be, according to Volpe, not only a requirement with Federal Regulations for Federal Financing but would also ensure that the community is able to choose the most beneficial solution.

A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM

Those present were    Richard Bruce, Fred Cammann, Jenice Delano, Jeffrey Mansfield,Weezie Quimby,  Michael Kapon, Steve Long,  Cathie Gandel, Christine Smith, Alejandro Saralegui, Jeffrey Vogel, Peter Wilson

B. The following resolution was passed and sent to the Town Board

RESOLUTION March 23, 2010

The Bridgehampton CAC  (CAC) firmly supports the revival of the Mecox Yacht Club as proposed by the group headed by Jeffrey Mansfield.  The Club has been a beloved part of the area’s heritage since the beginning of the last century.  Many of our towns oldest families have enjoyed the virtues of sailing via the use of the Club…the Halseys, Hildreths, Ludlows, Thayers, Toppings, Louchheims, Ritzs, Wesnofskes, and McCoys to name a few.

The revival of the club will be a boon to the community as a whole, but it would be especially beneficial to the children of the area. Learning to sail will get our children off the couch, and from behind the video game screen, while giving them physical exercise, self-esteem, confidence, and teaching them the spirit of competition and good sportsmanship.

In a time when few too many of our beautiful potato fields remain, and historically significant structures are bull dozed to make way for mega-mansions, here is a chance to preserve, and use in a practical manner, a piece of our community’s history.

In short, we ask that you also support the revival of the Mecox Yacht Club because it is a valuable part of our area’s heritage, and so that it may be enjoyed for future generations to come.

C.  Discussion Concerning the CAC’s relationship with the Southampton Town Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and Planning Board using the MIACO (Bulls Head Inn) development project  as its most recent experience.

This application  has been in the works for over 3 years The CAC has joined with the project site neighbors  and with the Group for the East End in worrying about the zoning implications, appropriate uses for the site, and size of the  planned expansion of the  buildings and usages on the site of the Bulls Head Inn.. The CAC has filed numerous questions, resolutions, and oral testimony with the Land Management Department, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals during the three year application process. All have been accepted with varying degrees of interest, The Planning Board has approved the final Environmental Impact statement  which is virtually unchanged from the original application filed three years ago. We cannot discern any meaningful reactions to the questions nor to the alternative suggestions offered by the Neighbors, CAC, nor other interested parties including the Group For The East End.

The Planning Board voted to approve the application in its entirety in December of 2009 with only one dissenting vote, from  Jacqui Lofaro, who is, coincidently the only member of the board who lives in Bridgehampton.

The MIACO application was then forwarded to the ZBA. Three members of our CAC went to the  ZBA meetings on Thursday February 4 and  seven members  attended the meeting on Thursday February 18.  It was apparent to us that the application to the ZBA was prompted by the applicant’s need  for a change of zoning from residential to commercial for one of the two lots that make up MIACO.

The Bridgehampton CAC made the following presentation to the ZBA.

March 4, 2010 Presentation to the Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals in the matter of MIACO LLC; application 1000020  900-71-3-7 &8  Bridgehampton

GOOD EVENING.  MY NAME IS FREDERIC CAMMANN.  I AM A LONG-TIME AND FULL-TIME RESIDENT OF BRIDGEHAMPTON AND AM SPEAKING TONIGHT IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF BRIDGEHAMPTON.

I AM GOING TO LEAVE WITH THE BOARD TONIGHT EXCERPTS FROM WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CAC TO THE ZBA AND OTHER BODIES OF THE TOWN SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR THE CAC’S OBJECTIONS TO MIACO’S PROPOSAL TO REDEVELOP THE BULL’S HEAD INN AND AN ADJOINING LOT.  THE PROBLEMS THAT THE BRIDGEHAMPTON CAC IDENTIFIES  CAN BE BOILED DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING THREE.

ONE:  ECONOMICS.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS THAT MAY BE INHERENT  IN OWNING AND OPERATING THE BULL’S HEAD PROPERTY WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT ITS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT IN  REQUESTING THE ZONING VARIANCES IT SEEKS IS THAT, WITHOUT THOSE VARIANCES, APPLICANT’S COMMERCIAL USE OF ITS PROPERTY WILL BE UNECONOMICAL.  WHILE THIS MAY BE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, THE CAC BELIEVES THAT THE APPLICANT WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AWARE OF THE ECONOMIC HURDLES
HE FACED IN HIS PROPOSED USE OF THE BULL’S HEAD PROPERTY AT THE TIME THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND  SHOULD NOT NOW BE HEARD THROUGH THE PROPOSED APPLICATION TO REQUEST VARIANCES TO HELP IT OUT OF WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN AN  ILL-JUDGED INVESTMENT.

IN ADDITION, THE CAC IS CONCERNED THAT, IF THE APPLICANT’S REQUESTS ARE GRANTED AND THE PROPERTY IS REDEVELOPED AS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES, THE PROJECT MAY INDEED PROVE TO  BE UNECONOMIC AND,AS A RESULT, THE PROPERTY MAY BE ABANDONED OR SOLD BY APPLICANT. EITHER  SUCH ACTION RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ONGOING MAINTENANCEOF SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER STRUCTURES THAN THOSE PRESENTLY ON THE SITE.

TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAC THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE CAC’S  SUGGESTION THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENT PROJECTIONS OR OTHER SUPPORTING  FINANCIAL RESEARCH  INDICATING THAT THE PROJECT CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.

TWO:  PRESERVATION

THE CAC  BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO  “PRESERVE” THE BULL’S HEAD INN. WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THE INN WILL NOT BE RAZED, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE  PROPOSED CHANGES ARE SUCH THAT THE PROJECT, FAR FROM “PRESERVING” THE INN, EFFECTIVELY CHANGES ITS NATURE AND APPEARANCE.

THREE: ZONING.

THE CAC’S THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANT OBJECTION TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT IT EFFECTIVELY EXPANDS THE DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL  ZONE OF BRIDGEHAMPTON HAMLET  INTO A  RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREA. WHETHER PERMITTED BY VIRTUE OF A VARIANCEOR BY VIRTUE OF A CHANGE IN ZONING, THE PLACING OF  A PARKING LOT AND A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IN THE PRESENTLY RESIDENTIAL ZONED  LOT SEVEN EXTENDS A COMMERCIAL USE PREVIOUSLY LIMITED TO PROPERTIES PRESENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL AND FOR THE MOST PART  FRONTING ON THE MONTAUK  HIGHWAY

For the past  20 YEARS  The BRIDGEHAMPTON   CAC has always resisted  the  EXTENSION  of the  Bridgehampton commercial zone beyond its  present  boundaries to the North and South. WE BELIEVE THAT recent changes to the zoning codes for this commercial area enacted by the Town do not  support  North South expansion NOR INTRUSION  of commercial properties.  The CAC is, OF COURSE,  committed to opposing zoning variances, except in hardship cases.. THE CAC CONSTANTLY  seeks to protect the fragile character of BRIDGEHAMPTON.  Allowing commercial spread INTO ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE   works in opposition to that goal. IN ADDITION,REGARDLESS OF ANY PROTESTATIONS  BY THE APPLICANT,  THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL  UNDOUBTEDLY AND UNDERSTANDABLY BE CITED AS A PRECEDENT FOR  FUTURE VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.

IN THE APPLICATION THERE IS REFERENCE TO SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT FROM THE BRIDGEHAMPTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY . THE SOCIETY IS, OF COURSE, INTERESTED IN THE PRESERVATION OF ANY AND ALL HISTORICAL ASSETS WITHIN BRIDGEHAMPTON, AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT BULLS HEAD DESERVES TO BE PRESERVED. THERE IS ALSO NO QUESTION THAT THE SOCIETY HAS NOT AGREED THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ZONING CHANGE OF AN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LOT,  OR THAT THE PROPOSED  DRAMATIC CHANGES IN USE FOR THE  PROPERTY ARE APPROPRIATE

The questions that arose from this experience are relevant to most applications that are  discussed  our monthly CAC meetings, so it seemed prudent for us to figure out how we can overcome our frustrations in our interactions with the Planning and ZBA boards.  For the most part we are allowed only limited access to the boards through presentations limited to five minutes and written comments which are seldom, if ever,  referred to again;  whereas, applicants and their representatives are permitted unlimited time to present their side of  the application to be judged . Indeed applicants are invited, we believe, to work extensively with the board members or their staff   in advance of the board’s consultations.  In other words CAC input is treated as  negligible input by the boards. As one CAC member remarked, “ the CAC system was invented by the town  so as to give community members a safe place to vent.”. Our frustrations, it seems are often manifested in our attendance problems. (Admittedly we had an awful winter, so journeying out  for a Monday meeting was no pleasure.) We then had a productive discussion, exploring steps we might take to make our CAC participation more influential  in matters affecting the development of land and other  property uses in Bridgehampton. Since some of these steps involved possible reorganization of the CAC structure, we decided to adjourn our formal meeting before addressing  them.

The next CAC meeting will take place on Monday April 26, 2010… All are welcome.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM

Those present were    Richard Bruce, Fred Cammann,, Michael Kapon, Steve Long, Ian MacPherson, ,  Cathie Gandel, Helene Mahoney, Christine Smith, Tony Lambert, Alejandro Saralegui, Jeffrey Vogel.

The CAC welcomed Councilwoman Nancy Graboski and Town Board Candidate William Hughes.

Bill Hughes  discussed his lengthy service to the country in the armed forces and his public record. He has been a member of the Southampton Police Department since 1981, retiring now as Lieutenant and Commanding Officer of the Patrol Division.

Discussion concerning the status of the Budget and Finance Advisory Committee to the Town Board.

The Committee was formed  about mid 2009 at the request of then Supervisor , Linda Kabot. It consists of 16 members, including members of the administration and outside representatives of the  community at large, who offer their  banking and other financial experience. These outside  members serve at no cost to the public. Their mission, as assigned by the supervisor , is to obtain data from the concerned Southampton Administration  Departments  that will aid in formulating financial policy for the town in two areas; first the administration wishes to ascertain the fiscal results of past financial activities that led to a large shortfall in the capital budget allocations, and second, the administration wishes to address the shortfall itself. Along with the transition problems caused by  a change of administrations, the data appears not to have   been totally  available, although efforts are continually  being made to rectify this failure of communication.

A main problem lies in the way the data is accounted for in town financial  programs. In a nutshell, Southampton Town and other NYS  government financial reporting protocols differ in their  format from  normal financial reporting by  most non-government sponsored businesses. Therefore it has proven hard for the Town Comptroller or any of the concerned departments to furnish the necessary data from which  paths out of this financial morass  can be formulated. The Bridgehampton CAC and its Budget and Finance Advisory Committee representatives, Jeffrey Vogel and Ian MacPherson,  support Ms. Graboski in her efforts to continue the tenure of the committee. They, however,  requested that the responses for town generated financial data necessary for the effectiveness of the Budget and Finance Advisory Committee be more forthcoming. In addition both representatives asked that the meetings of the committee be more directed and follow specific agendas. We  feel improvements in these  areas will make the Advisory Committee far more effective in its mission to advise the Town Board about  practical fiscal steps they might consider to alleviate the crucial financial problems facing Southampton Town.

Communication between the Town Departments and the communities they serve.

As part of the discussion about the mission of the Budget and Finance Committee CAC members  voiced their concern about the  effectiveness of communications between Town Departments and the CACs. The questions arose when we learned that the  discussions within the Budget and Finance committee were formerly meant to be kept confidential. It is a sensitive condition because the issues concern our pocketbooks and so we really would like to hear about the deliberations and at times offer our comments.

The value of CAC comments seems to us to be worth more than a cursory acknowledgement, since the members of each CAC suffer by or enjoy the effects of any change of ordinance  or change of property use application  within their hamlet.. The issue of mutual communication between Town Departments and the concerned CACs  on issues  that concern our communities is  limited. It is certainly true that often a member of the Town Board or an appropriate  member of the administration comes to our meetings and we discuss our concerns in a positive fashion. Our CAC still thinks there is work to be done in this area.  If at first creation the CAC model was tentative , it really has become an important and positive channel for the unincorporated hamlets to work with their overburdened elected and appointed officials

In most cases  applications come before the CAC and are  discussed  within our meetings at some length and are researched by members of the CAC.. Often the applicants, at their request or our invitation,  appear in person or through their legal/contractors/architect representatives. If there are opposing views  within the hamlet community, the CACs welcome their presentations as well. After discussions are completed, the CACs vote on resolutions, write letters to the  responsible boards, often attend and participate in public sessions that concern the  applications. In many cases  CACs feel that the response back from the concerned Departments and Boards is  lacking until results may or may not be published in the press. At any rate the to and fro flow of information after the submission of opinions by the CACs seems to stop more often than not., and the resulting action kind of just happens. A broad statement usually goes out, saying the decision making department has “taken into consideration the  submissions of concerned parties to the matter.”  . That type of response doesn’t encourage members of the CACs to concentrate on the next application which might impact its hamlet

Potential Sites for a Community Toddlers’ Playground  ( we invite comments)

As discussed in the December 27, 2009 CAC   meeting, the town has available funds for the construction of a playground. The quandary appears to be its site. The CAC reiterated  its hope that the Children’s Museum of the East End be selected. Steve Long, the director of the Museum  offered to conduct an informal poll of Bridgehampton parents through the Museum’s listings to be sure that this site would be acceptable .to most of the users. He also said that the Museum board wished to work with the Town to come up with and arrangement that would make the site agreeable to the town

Food Banks to address possible hunger issues in Bridgehampton and in the rest of  Southampton Town.

In recent meetings the CAC has questioned whether persons who come to or reside within the boundaries of  the hamlet and within Southampton Town are aided in relief from hunger. . Mr. and Mrs. McPherson reported on the church-wide program in Bridgehampton.. . The food pantry is located within St. Ann’s Episcopal Church property. It serves about 200 residents of Bridgehampton and is tended by members of the  congregations of  local churches .The pantry has sufficient  funds to continue its work through the remaining months of the winter and spring. Work still needs to be done in the greater Southampton community. As yet we do not know if the town can or will take some responsibility  in addressing whether the Southampton Town Administration  should have a program to provide adequate food for those who need it and either reside in or have other connections with Southampton. Is this an issue that should be treated in a haphazard manner, or could an organized, consolidated leadership be found  among the NGO and not for profit groups within Southampton Town.?

Assessments of property in the hamlet

December 28, 2009

Ms. Clare Vail, Principal Planner

Town of Southampton, Planning Board

116 Hampton Road, Southampton, NY 11968

RE: MIACO (Bull’s Head))

Dear Ms. Vail:

After having reviewed the EIS, the Bridgehampton CAC has the following replies:

Comment E-4 (page 26).  We object to the de facto down zoning.  The response is simply “(t)he comment is noted.”  Given the substantial objections to the down zoning, the proposed project should be rejected.

Comment E-18 (page 28) Sponsor’s answer is that “SEQRA does not provide for a lead agency to assess the financing mechanisms for a proposed action.”  We did not comment about the financing of the project.  We commented about the economic viability of the project and the effect on the community should it not be economically viable after it is financed.  We requested that the “sponsor should be required to submit evidence that the project is and will be economically feasible.”  Having failed to do so, we must conclude that our concerns are correct and that the sponsor has no answer to these concerns.

Comment H-1 (page 31).  Notwithstanding the lengthy response, sponsor does not answer the points we made: the project does not protect the historic and architectural integrity of the Bull’s Head in…”  Nor does the sponsor directly answer our position that having relied on the standards of the National Park Service, it should not ignore them.  What the sponsor’s responses show clearly is that the integrity of the Inn is not going to be preserved and there will be major changes.  For example, with respect to the barn being moved, the sponsor states that “the barn’s “new position closer to the main house would better integrate it into the property’s new use….” We submit that a new use and a change of an existing structure does not meet the criteria which the sponsor claims it is following.

We are impressed by the number and substance of the opposition to this project as presently proposed by the sponsor.  As the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Hamlet of Bridgehampton, we believe that our duty is to support those objections and place on the record our own objections.  We respectfully submit that after the sponsor provides and Index so that all can respond to the massive document, that the project be rejected in its present form.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIDGEHAMPTON CAC

Fred Cammann, Chairman

Stephen R. Steinberg, Member

.