Jitney, Hamptons, Bus, Tickets
27east.com

226 Comments by Rickenbacker

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  >>  

Cuts To SEA-TV, Traffic Control In Southampton Town Budget Are Questioned

SEA-TV was created in 2005. It is entirely funded with about 20-25% of the Cablevision franchise fee. It has no funding from property taxes." Oct 25, 12 11:58 AM

Yes, meetings are available on the town web site, from the footage that was shot via SEA-TV. This also includes the Town meetings system where you can get clips of particular parts of meetings. All from SEA-TV. It all comes from the same place. The channel director is also part of the camera crew, and additionally fills in when the other part time and full time crew are unavailable or working on other meetings." Oct 26, 12 9:35 AM

PLUM TV No Longer Available In The Hamptons

I thought Frazier Doughterty was the founder of LTV? Is that a typo? Plum went off the air on May 6th. " May 8, 13 4:51 PM

27east.com To Implement Metered Subscription Plan

Why doesn't this article, and therefore the company, just tell the truth. Instead of writing silly things like "in its ongoing effort to improve reader satisfaction...", just level with your non-subscription readers and come out and say that the real reason you are making the change is to drive more revenue from people who are likely still looked at in-house as a bunch of freeloaders. The company is just closing the loop to derive more income from the site, and that may be a logical business thing to do.

But don't say it is in your readers' interest. It really isn't. It's in yours. " Jan 31, 14 4:15 PM

I have never been a fan of unmoderated comment sections, primarily because it becomes a sort of entertainment in itself and detracts many times from the article that supposedly was well-researched and professionally written. Attack the issues, not the people in the articles or the commenters themselves. This is not true of all comments, of course, but I believe many readers would like to see comments relevant to the issue at hand rather than the flaming that often occurs.

That said, if a company's policy is to moderate the comments, it may also be taking on an additional legal responsibility, something that this company has apparently decided it does not want to do. So, you have to weigh your exposure to have moderated discussion against the free-for-all bent of the unmoderated. " Feb 1, 14 2:29 PM

Southampton Village Board Concerned About Plan For King Kullen In Tuckahoe

Really? Every single one? And those studies were all prescient enough to describe the the potential of a 40k sq ft supermarket in 2014? Oh my...

Love to see some quotes from the studies, or some actual language from those studies that backs up your comment, which has absolutely no detail.

The property was cobbled together (by King Kullen, originally, not Morrow) from at least 4 lots, each of which had an as of right development envelope of 15,000 sq ft. Total for the 4 lots is 60,000 sq ft, and the developer is asking to concentrate that in one spot and the rest to remain open. Rather than 4 more car dealerships or some other less community-servicing business, rendering better service to the community is a pretty clear objective here. And it IS needed.

The opponents put their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Bishops Pond, the soon-to-be developed project by the Hess station, and the significant amount of additional year round residents in the Tuckahoe area are not served well by the existing supermarket choices in the Village. Yes, there are produce markets, high-end grocery, and specialty shops, but you can't put Waldbaums up there as a shining example of all that is needed in the outer-village area.

The article in the Press did a disservice to the debate. It was myopic, one-sided, and not very veiled attempt to cater to the Village's business (ie advertising) interests. It's not the Southampton "Village" Press. It just fanned the flames of the same tired old "mega" this-"mega" that argument, which is on its face ridiculous.

" Sep 7, 14 12:00 PM

Southampton School District To Host Meeting On Thursday To Discuss Potential Merger With Tuckahoe

That is a completely incorrect statement. I've lived here for over 34 years and have spoken to many on this subject and there are very few people I know who are not in support of this merger. It is long past time. It should be happening with all of the tiny, antiquated districts on the East End. This one is just the most obvious ones. Your 90% number is not in any way accurate.
" Sep 10, 14 8:21 AM

Southampton Village Board Concerned About Plan For King Kullen In Tuckahoe

Morrow did not purchase the individual lots and put them together. King Kullen did many years before Morrow got involved. The combination of the lots and the consolidation of the lot coverage is a sensible plan in an area that is seeing significant residential growth. To ignore that is to ignore reality.

The whole point of a PDD is to have a mechanism to look at current code and be able to, with all due diligence, make an exception for an idea that would serve the community, etc., and that addresses facts on the ground.

I don't think campaign contributions are worth discussing. If they are legal, then they are legal. There are many, many, well-heeled locals who contribute to local campaigns, so why are you so upset that Morrow may also contribute?

Far from a dead issue, this PDD actually has a raison d'etre, which is to fill a much needed void of service for the area.
" Sep 10, 14 8:46 AM

Southampton School Board Decides To Bring Tuckahoe Merger To A Straw Vote Again

I've thought about it. There are also people on fixed incomes in Hampton Bays, Tuckahoe, Sag Harbor, East Hampton, Springs, Westhampton, East Quogue, Riverhead, and their school taxes are ALL significantly higher than Southampton SD taxes - and will be post-merger, even after 10 years.

So, to be fair, Southampton, as a community, can afford the increase. " Sep 16, 14 4:18 PM

$300, a DECADE from now. Lower taxes for the next 3 years, then annual increases, which according to the current plan doesn't net a positive increase until Year six. No one is scamming anyone with regard to the annexation, it's way past time that something sensible like this occurs.

With regard to your health insurance, I'm astonished you were not more annoyed by your previous insurance carrier jacking their rates to skim a little more from you and then pass the blame onto Obamacare... but I digress.

It IS about the kids, it IS about the community coming together, it is also worthy of financial scrutiny, but the words "scam" and "redistribution" are bs words used to screen what really shows in your posts, which is that you don't see the overall picture and are only focused what you think it is all about...you. " Sep 17, 14 2:15 PM

UPDATE: Tuckahoe-Southampton Merger Fails At Polls

You live in a strange place chief. Look at the districts around you. Southampton has it pretty good, tax-wise. This vote against the merger is just another example of people voting against their own self-interests. Watch now, as your taxes begin to creep up in any case, now that money from Tuckahoe is likely to bleed away. The funds needed will either come from raising taxes or from cuts that undercut academics. Tuckahoe has it bad, yes, but no one was saying that Southampton had it easy. Could have used that extra money, and the $4mm in savings. But no, couldn't see past your next tax bill, or the very real possibility that NY State will step in and make changes without regard for the 10-year phase-in. Oh well, we live and we will learn, all of us.
" Nov 18, 14 10:04 PM

Breakwater Yacht Club In Sag Harbor Finds Itself In Lease Disagreement With Mayor

The mayor is a bully, plain and simple. He pushed his weight around with the Yacht Yard, all the while saying there was a public use, though none has ever been articulated as an actual alternative. Now Breakwater is undergoing the same problem with this mayor. Elections are coming in June... time for someone to go." Jan 21, 15 6:04 PM

Tuckahoe Shopping Center Returns, With Supporters

It seems that what you are saying then, is simply "No development". Is that even a solution? No, it isn't. As of right, it’s a commercially developable series of four parcels, so you can’t have "no development" as an option for much longer in any case. As of right, you can have restaurants (Applebee's anyone?), furniture stores, car dealerships, each up to 15,000 sq ft, etc, according to the Press. Which development types serve the community better? If you are simply on the side of "no development", then you are deluding yourself, and I'd agree with the statement, that by that taking that position you would be "burying your head in the sand." " Feb 5, 15 2:35 PM

What is interesting about the previous comment is how lacking in “obvious-ness” it is. The traffic studies, including the most recent one, and the comprehensive plan from the 70’s are not the laws of Moses (wisdom of the ages?). They are understood to be working documents to be amended over time as facts on the ground change. The 15,000 sq ft restriction was for the four parcels, and if all were developed, according to plan, would equal 60,000 sq ft, as of right. The current 58,500 sq ft proposed development is less than the maximum already allowed as it covers all 4 parcels.

The recent traffic study did say you what you mentioned, but also addressed this particular project and did not warn against it. Instead it deferred to the 1970 Comprehensive Plan as having stated that as population grows over time it would be appropriate for future Town Boards to consider additional shopping center changes of zone for certain areas - outside of the village - which at the time the plan was written were locations yet to be determined.

The creative proposal to build a modern grocery store and shops in a consolidated way (meeting most of the corridor study’s guidelines) is not anti-zoning, nor is it anti-community benefit. It is just the opposite. Further, any “commercial” development, from a repair shop, restaurant, pizza shop, deli, laundromat, grocery to whatever else is on that stretch of roadway now, was inherently built for that particular developer to make a profit. That’s what commercial development is, otherwise why bother? So, to call it a “profit sham” is just not true. This project has gone through all the steps necessary to get a full hearing, and if it goes through, it will be because it passed muster for the community of today, and not because of collusion or the perception of monarchy on the Town Board. " Feb 6, 15 11:03 AM

This concept of “precedent” in this case is not accurate. Just because the town board might approve one project does not mean they have to consider and/or approve a future shopping center zone change, should one come before them on CR 39. Even if it were considered, the new development would have to go through the same years-long steps, including a DEIS, traffic studies, face several rounds of public scrutiny, and additionally prove that there is a need beyond what we would already have with the first project, since it would by then already exist. The whole concept of setting a precedent, that suddenly we will be deluged with more zone change applications for shopping centers, is a canard. In fact, I’d challenge you to identify a series of available lots on CR 39 that would even support something similar.

The extra open space currently owned by the developer is zoned residential (R-20), not highway business. There would be next to zero chance, ever, of having that built on as commercial space. I also don’t remember Bridgehampton Commons being expanded by utilizing residential open space, it was expanded by purchasing the Drive-In, already a commercial lot. The same is likely with Tanger, assuming the extra space they expanded on was commercially-zoned." Feb 6, 15 8:53 PM

Certainly everyone has a right to sue, but to what end? If this project is approved, then there will already be a shopping center there, so the next developer proposing something like it would have the additional burden of having to prove to the Town, to the public, and other parties who do the due diligence on these things that there would be some additional need for yet another grocery store in the same area, which just isn’t realistic given some of the things that are being discussed in the article and in these comments. You can’t just sue your way to development, that’s not how the process works.

I have no stake in this development. I simply believe it's way past time we have better services delivered to an area outside the village. I’ve lived between Shinnecock Hills, Water Mill, and the village for over 25 years, and longer than that overall. So, I have been here long enough to see the changes, the neglect, the new construction, the increase in traffic, etc. There are many, many people who want to see this grocery store built and who will also patronize it when it is. For the target shoppers, the current drive to alternatives is much, much further than 4 miles. This isn’t over-development, it’s smart development.

The old IGHL property which the developer owns is zoned residential (R-20). It does not have the right to be commercialized. For what it’s worth, I’d be against changing the zone on that property as much as you would be and would be just as vocal about it. " Feb 8, 15 1:03 PM

The job of the Town Board is not only to “protect”, but to serve the best interests of its constituents, which includes all of the residents. In this particular case, the needs of the regional community living within the vicinity of this project will be met by what has been revealed to be a well-vetted and well-thought-through shopping center which also meets the guidelines put down by various comprehensive plans, traffic studies, and the stone-cold realities of increasing population and housing that are already in place or approved (note that some of this locally intense density, Bishops Pond, Fairfield, specifically, were approved by previous town boards).

The quality of life for many, many residents will be improved, I would think, by the building of a decent grocery store closer to home. And as many have said, we all go to the grocery store now, so traffic increases along the roadway will actually decrease in volume as a result of the significant reduction of miles traveled. In addition, delivery trucks are already on the road now, and this new development will simply create another stop for them on their way east to other existing outlets. Sure, there will be some uptick in traffic at this particular point, but it will be nowhere near the “gridlock” and other forecasts of doom and gloom that the development’s detractors make. " Feb 9, 15 9:15 AM

OK, so first, this isn’t a “village” project. This shopping center will benefit more people who live outside the village. Also, where were “you" for the past 5 years when the nearby Bishops Pond residential compound was proposed? Did you become apoplectic over the ever-expanding amount of residents there that would clog your “formerly quiet and serene” village streets? No, you didn’t. Don’t they have to travel those same village roads to get to Waldbaum’s now? Yes, they do. Where will the new residents of soon-to-be-built Sandy Hollow and Fairfield developments go? Where will the new development’s residents on Moses Lane go? Where will all the residents of all the new Farrell build-outs go?

This shopping center proposal is not a PDD. It was first proposed that way, but it was subsequently dropped, years ago, as was the residential component of the original plan. Today, we see a refined, compact shopping area that is tightly focused on the grocery and a few supporting shops. How does that make it a monstrosity or a “mega"-palooza? And, most perplexingly, how can you explain your abhorrence to anything that sounds like “profit” in a commercial zone? All commercial properties are improved as part of a drive to make a profit. That’s not a dirty word, it’s what separates residential from commercial. " Feb 9, 15 9:52 AM

I might actually agree with some of what you have to say - if what was being proposed was an Airport for the driving range, or a permanent Six Flags amusement park for the Elks Club property, where community benefit would be far outweighed by corporate interest. But that’s not what we're talking about.

We are instead talking about a modest-sized modern grocery store (at 40,000 sq ft, still relatively quaint by modern supermarket standards), which will provide hundreds of existing residents (who already travel the local roadways to shop for food) a much-needed alternative, closer to home. The scale of this project is entirely appropriate to the needs of the actual community, and in fact, significantly smaller than the eastern and western alternatives.

The references to the ongoing and denser residential development in the area was not to say that any one on its own would deliver significant traffic, but that together, and as a trend, this is something that we will continue to see. And all those new residents, without this project, will also go through those same village streets.

You made the issue about profit, not me, look at each one of your posts. I’m just saying that the whole strip of roadway is commercially-zoned and, inter alia, that means it is a profit-driven section of town. Ask any business along CR 39 if that isn’t true. But again, the developer is not proposing a an airport, amusement park, nightclub or casino... it’s a grocery store.

I have a question. Why is it, if other commenters are not in line with your thinking, that there must be something wrong with them? Why do you assume they have to be “paid minions”, wax McCarthy-like, or stand as some “establishment” totem left over from the summer of love? Is it not possible, in your universe, to have reasonable people, who are also taxpayers, disagree about things rather than having to resort to name-calling? Is it useful to label politicians as “queen” and “scoundrels”? It just seems that the needle on your monotone record is skipping back over the same old groove, over and over, while most of us have long moved on to MP3’s and streaming. " Feb 10, 15 8:08 AM

I alluded to this in an earlier post: you (witch hazel and david h) argue from a position of either saying “no" to any development, or, if you are addressing the value of this development, are compelled to imagine a dystopian future where your “walmarts", “targets", ‘malls”,”megas", “monstrosities", and "traffic nightmares" are the only natural outcome for CR 39.

Of course, none of that is true or based on anything quantifiable. You can’t have “no” development, because, as of right, there can already be 60,000 sq ft of development placed on that same space without a zone change. You are entitled to your own opinion, but the nightmare scenarios you describe are not based in reality or do the demonstrate any “curiosity” into what effort it would take to blindly create that future.

The opponents of this plan do not own the traffic issue. It is also owned by the town board, and the developer, as well as the rest of us, and traffic solutions have been worked through time and again in nearly unlimited ways around the country. Smart people can devise effective ways to alleviate some of the congestion that currently exists or might hereafter be caused to exist, whether this proposal is approved or not. If what you are truly worried about is simply westbound entrance to the site, I’m going to bet that the traffic engineers, the developer, and the county will work something out that will be safe, keep traffic flowing normally, and pass muster with the town board. This mythical issue of clogged village streets is simply that: an unquantifiable, fear-inducing scare tactic. Any of us coming from Water Mill, North Sea, Tuckahoe, or Shinnecock Hills won’t be using village streets, and that’s just simple geography.

Lamm is not naive, and neither am I. The community benefit is clear, and the overwhelming amount of supporters who have taken the time to speak at the recent public hearings have reiterated that. There were more than double the amount of supporters than opponents in both meetings. These were local people, who live in the area. Please don’t negate their opinions, they matter as much as yours. " Feb 12, 15 5:10 PM

Hence the request for a zone change for a specific modification to the "defined law". It's not mega, it's not a mall. From a non-legalese point of view, it provides all the common sense community benefit that has been discussed. I respectfully disagree with you witch hazel. I hope this application gets approved!" Feb 16, 15 11:34 AM

UPDATE: Wednesday Afternoon Crash On County Road 39 Caused By Driver Who Fell Asleep

It's not a mega-mall, nor is it a PDD. The traffic there will be managed as part of the plan to upgrade the area to make it safe for the grocery store. Stop fear-mongering. " Feb 25, 15 10:14 PM

Why is it that, if I disagree with your opinion, that I must be somehow corrupted? Does your worldview not allow for people who don’t disagree with you? This accident could have happened anywhere. How about a couple of years ago when an elderly man careened into the front door of Barrister’s, sideswiping about 5 cars in the process. Should we have closed Main Street to shopping? Accidents occur all over the area, even on backroads and village streets, this isn’t particular to that spot, although it’s completely obvious why you would try to connect the dots to suit the narrative. " Feb 26, 15 10:47 AM

To obbservant, david h and witch hazel, again, if you on’t agree with someone's pinion on ab issue, why can’t you simply debate it without personal attacks on commenteus? And why not stick to facts rather than pump-up-the-volume hysterics? That’s what I asked above, and that comment was just answered ny you with e(er more invective.

What’s stunning to me is all the bad information you throw around as fact, I suppose qn tho hopes that someone might believe you (or get wrightened). This application is a change of zsne, from highway business to shopping center business, it is not a PDD. It also doehn’t come back ant ack, aseyou ha e said, itnw s pitce d once as a PDD, withdrawn, and then submitted again as a significantly smaller concept but which requires a change of zone. It’s taken years because - that’s what it takes - a gauntlet of hurdles to overcome - including publ c input - to get change. Overall, this project is a significantly smarter approach to developing this section of the highway and will serve many more needs than what canbbe built as-of-right Would love to hear what other property you would think might be more appropriate for this other than the ones proposed. I suspect you won’t answer that because what underlies the comments you three post have been all about “no development ever” rather than any solution that would make the best use of what ca, constructed there.


We allaembrace that there are traffic issue that need to be rectified. But the “mega" nonsense goes nnwhere for me and is grossly out of context. The loss of “rural quietude” is also a nonstarter if you real y look at there area around the development. The physical facts of multi housing Bishop’s Pond, Sandy Hollow, Fairfield, an pther rroposedodevelopments nearby point to a cpanges in density that already exist. The rntelli ent thing, Iathink, is to meet the challenge and do it in a way that benefits more people. Personally, I will be traveling less to get to a grocery store ionthis is built. I’m all for it. " Mar 1, 15 12:44 PM

To obbservant, david h and witch hazel, again, if you don’t agree with someone's opinion on an issue, why can’t you simply debate it without personal attacks on commenters? And why not stick to facts rather than pump-up-the-volume hysterics? That’s what I asked above, and that comment was just answered by you with ever more invective. 

What’s stunning to me is all the bad information you throw around as fact, I suppose in the hopes that someone might believe you (or get frightened). This application is a change of zone, from highway business to shopping center business, it is not a PDD. It also doesn’t come back and back, as you have said, it was pitched once as a PDD, withdrawn, and then submitted again as a significantly smaller concept but which requires a change of zone. It’s taken years because - that’s what it takes - a gauntlet of hurdles to overcome - including public input - to get change. Overall, this project is a significantly smarter approach to developing this section of the highway and will serve many more needs than what can be built as-of-right. Would love to hear what other property you would think might be more appropriate for this other than the ones proposed. I suspect you won’t answer that because what underlies the comments you three post have been all about “no development ever” rather than any solution that would make the best use of what can constructed there. 

With all the population/building growth over the last few decades (I hope there is no debate about that), there also needs to be a concomitant growth in infrastructure to support it (which hasn’t kept pace). The as-of-right zoning on those parcels already allow for car dealerships (Ferrari?), furniture stores (Raymour & Flanagan?), and restaurants (Applebee’s?), among other things, all completely permitted uses on that same property, up to 60,000 sq ft of buildings and their respective parking lots. I don’t want any of those, do you? None of that is going to support community infrastructure, either. But a modern grocery store, which really looks to be targeted to those living outside the village, surely does. 

We all embrace that there are traffic issue that need to be rectified. But the “mega" nonsense goes nowhere for me and is grossly out of context. The loss of “rural quietude”  is also a nonstarter if you really look at there area around the development. The physical facts of multi-housing Bishop’s Pond, Sandy Hollow, Fairfield, and other proposed developments nearby point to a changes in density that already exist. The intelligent thing, I think, is to meet the challenge and do it in a way that benefits more people. Personally, I will be traveling less to get to a grocery store if this is built. I’m all for it. 
" Mar 1, 15 12:46 PM

This project, of course, would in no way be comparable to the experience of 58 in Riverhead. That's just ridiculous. Suggesting that CR 39 and 58 have some sort of similarity is simply designed to induce fear and divert attention from the fact that there is real need for something sensible to be built on that location, something that actually serves the local non-village community.

Let’s look at what you are saying when you throw out the 58 comparison. Stand anywhere on 58 and look in both directions. I’ll bet you that between the big box stores, their parking lots, and the roadway in between, that there is nearly 2,000 feet or more of width from the rear of one lot on one side of the street to the rear lot line on the other side (in fact, you can Google map it and measure the distance yourself).

On CR 39, it’s only about 500ft, 25% of Rt 58's width. Rt 58 is 4x wider and supports an exponentially larger building envelope than CR 39. So, to say that CR39 could ever support the density of buildings and come anywhere near the buildout of 58 is complete and utter fantasy. " Mar 8, 15 10:49 AM

Myrtle Beach? Sea Isle City? You are comparing a NJ boardwalk and the the SC mecca of miniature golf to CR 39? This isn't an open land grab, it's development of already zoned commercial space. Those are such bad examples, I just need to stop here." Mar 11, 15 9:19 PM

Clarity On County Road 39 Traffic Patterns Continue To Frustrate

I don’t agree. I think the new shopping complex is much-needed (and wanted) and will not “destroy” anything. In fact, I’ll bet it will lead to a better quality of life for the community, and that any future proposed commercial development on CR 39 would have to meet or exceed this development’s high bar.

Do you think the community is well-served with the corpses of the auto museum, carol’s restaurant, the treasure inn restaurant, the empty boat showroom, a rundown motel, and shanty-town auto repair buildings? And that’s just the first mile. There is a reason that some of these buildings stand in disuse or in ruins, and it’s because a business case hasn’t been made to remake those properties into something viable. This development is the first real plan to address this shortcoming, and in doing so will probably increase your neighborhood property values.

The traffic “strangulation” you refer to is just speculation, and not a foregone conclusion. This is why the board was so insistent at this juncture that the traffic engineers get in front of them with concrete plans on how they plan to mitigate issues before they come up. Let them do their work. I think opponents and supporters alike are interested in how traffic flows will be managed if this is built.

No one is “trashing” the Comprehensive Plan. The very plan itself contains built-in language which anticipates future change of zones (to shopping center business) as the situation dictates. It is actually part of the plan, not an aberration of it.
" Mar 15, 15 2:45 PM

Thank you. I am very appreciative of the recent comments in this particular article, as they actually look at the issues at play without overarching hyperbole. What a relief. I see and am sympathetic to both sides of the traffic issues discussed here, and admit I am no traffic engineer and would rather the experts get the job done so we can see what’s in the plan. I had heard that the two traffic engineering firms met and were working through issues. The town board even offered more time to the developer, but he chose to get it done by the next meeting. So, I’m hopeful we’ll see something concrete by the next hearing date.

The only thing I’d add to the comments above is that this application isn’t a PDD. It’s a change of zone application. Is it spot zoning? Technically, yes, it probably is, but not in the way we usually think of it. This is a type of spot zone that was genuinely anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan of 1970, as a positive, where it addresses the possibility that a change to shopping center business (specifically) might be practical in the future. It is not spot zoning in the spirit of wanting to building something like a rehab or an affordable housing complex in the middle of R-20+ residential zones. All spot zoning is not wrongheaded. This also goes to precedent. Since the Comprehensive Plan speaks to a specific change of zone, unless it was another shopping center business zoning proposal, what other like-kind thing would someone propose? And if it was another change of zone request for a similar project, I don’t think many public supporters would be for it in any case, since it would be redundant and unnecessary.

I do disagree with the point that there won’t be a reduction in traffic on CR39 because of reduced trips to HB for food shopping. I really think there will be over the course of a day, as I’ve been one of those who has done that many times. I know many other people who have said the same thing to me about that same trip, which would be eliminated if this gets approved. But we aren’t traffic engineers, so it’s just an opinion and am ok to agree to disagree." Mar 17, 15 1:45 PM

UPDATE: Wednesday Afternoon Crash On County Road 39 Caused By Driver Who Fell Asleep

Agree with what you say above. However, just wanted to point out that there is no apartment housing in this application. The original PPD proposal contained apartment housing, but that was withdrawn. The remaining land which the developer owns, which is zoned R-20, is not affected by this application, and the developer has stated to the town board that as a condition of a zoning change approval he will not attempt to develop that land (the former IGHL property) commercially. " Mar 18, 15 8:58 AM

Clarity On County Road 39 Traffic Patterns Continue To Frustrate

Please quantify that. Where do all the people who live in Bishop's Pond go to shop for food? Don't they currently use village side streets? We all go to the grocery store. Where are all those additional village side-street-traveling people coming from? They can't be coming from Water Mill, North Sea, Hampton Bays, Tuckahoe. Then, from where? The village? The beach?And why would village residents do that anyway when the village supposedly has such a sufficient set of stores now, according to those people who claim that? And where do you get off again with "mega". Let's reverse your question - have you ever lived anywhere else?" Mar 20, 15 3:50 PM

I was asking about your claim that village side streets and Hill St would have increased traffic, which I don't see. Shoppers coming from the outlying areas I mentioned won't have traveled to the Tuckahoe Center via village streets. So, who comprises the increased traffic over village streets? I think that is just fantasy traffic that will not exist, assuming village shopping options are sufficient for village shoppers, which opponents seem to think is the case." Mar 22, 15 11:12 AM

Alternatives To Tuckahoe King Kullen Proposal Are Debated

I don’t agree at all. The Havemeyer’s and McGann have been at just about every hearing, and each time they get up they assert variations on the same themes. For the Havemeyer’s, it’s an acknowledgement that we need a new supermarket (one of the few opponents who are reasonable enough to actually say this), but do not think that this particular location is the right place (which is the disingenuous part of their argument, since they clearly know - Fred was a Town Trustee - that there are no suitable alternatives, as was confirmed later by Kyle Collins). With McGann, what started out as just raw village protectionism that included a not-so-veiled threat of a village lawsuit has now morphed into focusing on an unfounded perception of loss of property values, and her own, unquantified perception of what traffic impacts will be on village streets (an opinion which was obliterated at the last meeting by the detailed, and well-researched presentation of the traffic engineer).

Even supporters are concerned about the traffic on CR39, but the traffic in the village? Come on….who are those additional shoppers who are not already in the village going to a grocery store now?

I agree with what was said in a previous comment, that the supervisor, having heard this same unsubstantiated information many times over from the same people who should know better, finally probed their assertions. Under scrutiny, their weak positions were shown to be what they are, and then collapsed on the fluff of their own words. That these three didn’t like the hot-seat defending their positions was a breath of fresh air, from my perspective. " Mar 26, 15 4:06 PM

The above comment is an utterly absurd statement. A mall is defined as a shopping complex of greater than 400,000 sq ft and beginning at about 40+ stores (see the International Council of Shopping Centers website). If you’ve even lived anywhere but here it would be very clear to you that a mall is a completely different facility and a “neighborhood center”, something between 30,000 - 125,000 sq ft (Tuckahoe is just 58,500), and typically anchored by a supermarket, is what is being proposed. It will also not expand over time, as there is no room to expand.

The adjacent property owned by the developer is zoned residential R-20, and the developer, several times now, has stated unequivocally that he has no interest in commercially developing that parcel, and would make his approval on this application contingent on keeping it zoned residential.

It is amazing, that after so many public hearings, and so many refutations of these two canards, that someone still tries to claim otherwise. " Mar 27, 15 10:28 PM

Destroyed Mansion Was Gilded Age Beauty

Not sure "Gilded Age" is correct. The Gilded Age was a period of the late 19th century, ending certainly before WWI. This house was built in 1926 according to the article, which would make it more a "Jazz Age" home. Am I wrong about this?" Mar 27, 15 10:34 PM

Alternatives To Tuckahoe King Kullen Proposal Are Debated

You should consult the International Council of Shopping Centers website, which is where Wiki editors sourced the material. Nowhere does the ICSC call neighborhood centers "malls". Dictionary.com delineates between mall and shopping center. Merriam points out that that it is "many" stores, likely in one building. You can parse this all you want, but no sensible person would look at this application as a mall in the way reasonable people understand it. " Mar 28, 15 11:52 AM

With all due respect to the idea of slowing growth on the East End, for the purposes of this supermarket proposal, the horses of slow-growth opportunity left the stable a long time ago. We haven’t just seen “slight" growth in residential buildout since 1970 — we’ve seen significant growth, and rapid buildout, and there are more residential projects approved and coming. The Town and Village could have been discussing how they might work together on dealing with the resulting services demand many years ago, but they didn’t. When a Fresh Market was proposed at the Glennon location just a few years ago, it was voted down by the village board. Citarella only got in because most people didn’t realize the site was the former A&P before A&P moved to the new/old spot where Waldbaum’s is now. Had it not almost been grandfathered in, there would have been a big fight over that too.

The village might also have been more visionary before Rite Aid and CVS were allowed in, but they weren’t. They let it go. Time has passed. And you can’t dig up cemeteries either, so unless there is some rule change on that, I don’t see how the current Waldbaum’s building gets any larger while still having sufficient parking.

At the same time, the outlying areas continue to grow, and even the 1970 Comprehensive Plan was prescient enough to state that as population increases outside of the village, it would be appropriate to look at new non-village areas to better serve the community. That time has surely come.

Delaying the change of zone application while we wait for the Town and Village to dance together is going to go nowhere, and cost everyone a lot of time and money. It is also quite likely, after studying the reports and presentations that have been given so far, that the Village is not ultimately going to see any significant impact, either in loss of business, increased traffic, or prestige.

We also don’t want, as a community, to only address the services demand we have today since any new project of this scope should also be looking into the future. This spot, this use, is totally appropriate for this time, as well as the future. Stop shortchanging us with the view that we have all that we will ever need. That is plainly not the case. " Mar 28, 15 5:12 PM

Well, bigfresh, you are inaccurate on all counts. I have lived in the community for many years, in Shinnecock Hills, the Village, North Sea, and Water Mill, over the past 30+ years, so I think I can speak to some of the issues at play with the experience of having witnessed many of the changes since I arrived here. Why is it that when someone disagrees with you they must be a “shill” for the other side? It is not possible that reasonable people can have a different opinion from yours? I respect YOUR opinion - I simply don’t agree with it.

I made the statement about costing a lot of time and money because if you follow the imaginary possibility that the Town and Village would want to work together to find a more suitable location (which doesn’t exist), it would cost the developer, the Town, the Village, more time and money to draft, study, and implement an alternate plan. Just look at the traffic engineering. On the current plan, both the developer and the Town have hired separate studies, so the taxpayers do pay. In the Town/Village scenario, add yet another traffic study among other planning costs, and that’s only part of the new EIS that would have to completed. We pay the Town employee salaries, so the additional time they would spend on an alternate site is also footed by the taxpayer. They would be diverting attention to yet another study when their time could be better used on other important issues.

Obsservant, in many of her posts, keeps harping on the fact that the developer will “profit" from the center. And I would just like to point out, again, that profit is the very nature of commercial development, which is what the land is currently zoned for. Nobody builds commercial property with the intention of losing money. Name one commercial property along any of CR39 where the owner’s intention is to lose money.

About the field on Tuckahoe Rd - It’s vacant, sure. But it’s already approved for a new housing development, called Fairfield. Yet another group of “residents” that will be served by this new supermarket. " Mar 29, 15 10:53 AM

Nope, you are right it isn't the responsibility of the Town or Village. So the Town only need address the application before them, not the one some may fantasize about that almost certainly doesn't exist, as it would just be a distraction. And here we are.

For what it's worth, as a town resident, I think it's way past time to have something like this built. I'm not paid for my opinion. I believe as strongly as maybe you disbelieve that in order to fully support the community that is already here, with more to come, that we at least need to care for basic needs. A grocery store is a basic need, and as far as I'm concerned, we are incredibly underserved in this regard. The supporters support it, common sense supports it, and now quantifiable data about population growth and traffic patterns support it. It’s a good deal, and we should be encouraging the kind of developer who seeks to make our lives a little better out here. But that’s just my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, read, and heard. You don’t have to agree with me, but if we are going to maintain a diverse and robust community, you need to, at times, meet the needs of that community or it will stagnate, wither, and move on to other places. " Mar 29, 15 1:57 PM

Nature never made that statement defending the specious precedent argument. The approval of this change of zone does not set a precedent for any future development. Any future change of zone request would be based on the merits of that particular application, with all the study and public input that comes along with it, for or against. This isn't spot zoning the way you want to characterize it. This application isn't anti-zoning, either. The 1970 Comprehensive Plan addresses the eventuality of an application for shopping center business coming up as population density grows. This change of zone is not an aberration of current zoning, it is a built-in option established by current zoning." Mar 30, 15 12:11 PM

That may be so with true “highway business”, but this application is about changing the current zone to “shopping center business”. Whether the Plan calls for 15,000 sq ft. per lot is irrelevant, since the four lots that make up this proposal have a total as-of-right development envelope of 60,000 sq ft. The current plan offers to build 58,500 sq ft, so it is below the as-of-right maximum. The numbers, at least, don’t lie. The consolidation of the mass, 100 ft off the roadway, as part of this COZ request, is entirely appropriate.

Then this from the 1970 Plan:

"Convenience business centers will be located in existing hamlet areas and new centers shall be located at reasonable intervals throughout the community as the design of subdivisions evolve the detailed development pattern in local areas."

and this:

“…it is anticipated that, as new residential development occurs, some new neighborhood convenience Shopping Center Business facilities will be appropriate. These should be carefully located with respect to the residential development pattern, at reasonable intervals through the community and on sites not in excess of between five and ten acres."

As I mentioned before the ICSC designation of a shopping center between 30,000-125,000, anchored typically by a supermarket, is considered a neighborhood center. This is not an aberration of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan saw this coming someday, made allowance for it, and that day has clearly arrived. " Mar 30, 15 8:21 PM

New Season Brings Same Old Traffic Delays For Eastbound Commuters

Yes, that's the Fairfield development, approved a number of years ago and comprised of 50+ new condo units. " Apr 28, 15 3:19 PM

Traffic Questions Continue To Confound As Board Closes Tuckahoe Center Hearing

The uncertainty I think stems only from the fact that the project is not yet approved. The grocery store “tenant” has nothing to sign on to since technically, at this point, the center does not exist. It has been bandied about that it would be KK for a long time, so much so, that people are depending on it, however, there have been many who have suggested that a Trader Joe’s, Fairway, or some other store be considered in addition to KK. At one hearing, there was a nod to the developer on a question about that from one of the public speakers, and he didn’t give an unqualified yes or no, mainly because he can’t yet. I don’t think he has ever called it the King Kullen Center, but the Press has many times alluded to it because they themselves never asked the developer that question and have always made the assumption in print that it would be a KK.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, the likelihood of the grocery store actually being a King Kullen is like 90%. The issue of whether it is or isn’t, is, to my mind, not all that relevant to the larger need for a modern grocery store located outside the Village. " Apr 30, 15 11:52 AM

To compare the recently approved PDDs with this change of zone application is to create a false equivalency. Yes, it is unfortunate that the many years those other projects have been in discussion happen to have gotten their approvals at about the same as this one may, but this project is the ONLY one that serves the community in general. The others are PDDs targeted for a very specific demographic, which are a very different animals. The Tuckahoe Center is not trashing the Comprehensive Plan, either, it is actually fulfilling an aspect of it. Don’t believe me? Read it. It clearly states that while traffic is always a concern on CR39, as density grows outside the village, that it would be entirely appropriate to classify certain highway business zones to shopping center business.

The “preservation” reasoning for opposing this project is DOA as well. Let’s review again what is around this location, a long defunct auto museum, two failed restaurants (been closed for more than two decades), a ramshackle collection of auto repair businesses, an outdated motel, and a number of vacant and under-utilized properties that are zoned “commercial”. What about this are you really trying to preserve? Did you move out to the area for this kind of quality?

These properties are not zoned residential, they are not targets for CPF (though the driving range and the Elks property may eventually be, or may have development rights purchased in order to preserve them). They are commercial properties, and if one can say that as-of-right development of the parcels in question could be more auto dealerships, chain restaurants, big box stores, why isn’t a supermarket a better idea? The problem with the opponents is that, to a one, they never offer any reasonable solution to this issue other than to say they don’t want it and to chastise supporters on this unending debate about convenience and need. It’s a silly argument. Anyone who lives out here year round can see that the so-called little trek to HB or BH to shop can very quickly, in one direction likely, be an onerous slog.

Also, Sandy Hollow, Bishop’s Pond, Fairfield, and the last open farm field in Tuckahoe which is now approved for single family homes, all surround this particular project. Any person with access to Google Maps can see that between the canal and Bridgehampton, the most likely and appropriate place to put a modern supermarket is in the area of this application. In fact according to the zoning, with requires a minimum of 5 acres for a shopping center, there are only 2 other options, none of which are suitable. There is need, and it has been established over and over by supporters who have publicly spoken, emailed the trustees, or just “get it” that community infrastructure out here is woefully underserving all the new building that is going on.

Which bring us to another point. Since there are so few likely properties for a development such as this, by opposing this one what are you really saying? That, five, ten years from now, when there could be even more people out here, that NO new supermarket could ever be built EVER outside the village and that some quaint, outmoded idea that everyone needs to squeeze into the small village streets to get to Waldbaum’s is the only solution? That’s not smart planning, that is myopic thinking.

It’s not that the younger generation is playing some “card”. They just see a future differently than maybe you do. They already know we have $1 billion in preservation money to preserve open space and help with historic structures. But this section of road is not in the historic district, will not ever be “preserved” in the way we understand it, so let it go. This project will not only serve the community, it will raise the bar on the quality of other commercial properties along this same stretch should other renovations come to pass. " May 1, 15 12:46 PM

Turkey Bridge, I think you are editorializing pretty wide of what I said. The original PDD included an apartment housing component on the IGHL property, and there was a larger scale to the shopping/office center as originally envisioned (think the King Kullen development in Hampton Bays). Since it was clear early on that strong local opposition, primarily on the housing piece (right out in front, let’s address it, neighbors didn’t want more school children in Tuckahoe School, wonder why?), and the fact that the project had created a sense of establishing a “Tuckahoe Main Street” which frightened some village businesses, the PDD could not move forward.

That was in 2010. This significantly scaled down project, focusing only on the shopping component with a grocery store anchor and a small number of supporting stores and bank (the IGHL property is not part of this application, and as a condition of approval, there will be no zone change request for it in the future), falls within the natural scope of Comprehensive Plan-based zoning, something that town boards have agreed on for many years. The zone change application still had to survive the gauntlet of EIS, public input, traffic studies, etc, etc, but in the end we get a better realized result. That’s how the process is supposed to work.

Your love of the “trashy” part of CR 39 as preservationist is really amusing, as it is the gateway to our Southampton. Doesn’t always work for me, nor most of the other people I know who live here. Who wants to preserve trashy? Better to recycle. My original point scared you, but it shouldn’t. These zombie properties on CR 39 will eventually get renovated, and hopefully the people who do have better business plans than the previous occupants did. With the town zoning and building codes in place now, and with the bar that will be raised in aesthetics, cross-access, green building, we should be thankful that this one large project is setting the stage for more graceful CR 39 upgrades down the line, smaller and in keeping, as they should be.

That said, this is the only shopping center I’d be in favor of on CR 39. After this, it’s done. I’d oppose anything redundant. Somebody else comes in with a good design plan for an as-of-right development on existing highway business property, bring it on, as the area could use some better ideas along this stretch.

The fact is, commercial property is designed to be commercial, not preserved. We have $1 billion of CPF money to do that part now. It’s great we still have the driving range and the Elks property (one or both of which actually might be preserved sometime soon). In Hampton Bays, isn’t Slo’s and the miniature golf area something that harkens back to a bygone era? They still exist, but the rest of CR39 will never be that way again. We no longer have Robert’s Ice Cream, the Bridgehampton Drive-In, the Auto Museum, and countless other small mom-and-pop places that we all used to like. That was then. The cost of property is too high for those things now. It would be nice if some of those things were still with us, but economics and reality have set in. " May 3, 15 2:41 PM

I agree with you certainly that the change in application comes with a difference in what it takes to win approval. I doubt the vote-count was a huge part of the calculation since the two projects are so different from each other, but I’m sure the zoning issue entered into their thinking when trying to figure out how best to make a plan work on the commercial part of the property. The developer didn’t craft the zoning or the comprehensive plans, so why is it a problem if they pitched a project that met not only the spirit of current zoning, but also added newer ideals such as cross-access, green-building, and landscaping setbacks far beyond what is required by code?

You say "plenty of change is available as of right to a property owner” but we’ve discussed this ad nauseum. Are four lots, with 15,000 sq ft of building space each, or 60,000 sq ft total, comprised of (choose your combination), luxury auto dealerships (with front-side parking), out-of-town furniture stores, chain restaurants, motorcycle dealerships (only a special exception, doesn’t require a zone change), up to 4 curb cuts, no cross-access or traffic mitigation - better than a consolidated 58,500 sq ft shopping center, centralized with cross-access, rear parking, buildings 100 ft off the roadway, traffic mitigation and comprised of a 40,000 sq ft supermarket, 3,500 sq ft bank, and 15,000 sq ft of supporting stores (I don’t know what they will be, maybe a liquor store, nail salon, local merchant, maybe)? I’ll take the latter, as it serves the community far better overall and meets a definite need, as stated by many residents in the area at public hearings, even if you can’t see or hear it all the way from Quiogue.

That CR 39 “trash” isn’t treasure, no matter how nostalgic you are feeling. Maybe in some gauzy memory, when some of those places were still in operation, but there are no ghosts lurking within the rusting, leaking, broken down hulks of these late mid-century haunts.

I shouldn’t have to state the obvious, but you've again tried to twist my words. If there is a new supermarket built there, there will be NO reason to have another one built nearby. I would expect the same opponents would be opponents, and many of the supporters, myself included, would become opponents as well if something like that were proposed. Not for limiting competition, but because then there will simply be no need. So, no need, no precedent, either. No Nassau County, no Rt 58. Just give us residents what we need, and we will be happy with that. " May 4, 15 8:57 AM

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the point. I understand your perspective, just don’t think it was a cynical maneuver as you are suggesting. On the point about trash vs. treasure…no… it really is just trash in this case.

I apologize about the Quiogue remark. You are correct, we all have an interest in topics around the town and you have as much right as anyone to weigh in, even if you don’t personally live nearby.

But where you are, to my mind, off the mark, is by your assertion that this development would “break” any zoning rules. A PDD, by its very nature is a zoning rules-breaker, since it proffers to place something not envisioned at all by the existing zoning on a particular site. This application is not a PDD. As a simple zone change application, it is acting on the, if not “as-of-right”, at least the” as-envisioned” zoning rules laid out in the town’s comprehensive plan. So it is part of the zoning rules, not an aberration of it. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly stated that a shopping center business (SCB) zone change in highway business (HB) zones would be appropriate if density in areas increased significantly outside the village, something that town board members understood might happen in the future, from their perspective of 1972. This structure was also re-confirmed in the Corridor study finished just last year (though it didn’t weigh in on it one way or another). You have to agree that the residential density is there today, or you haven’t been really looking at the area. To group this development with a PDD confuses the issue when we are talking about zoning - the two things are very different. One is inserting a need where none was envisioned (PDD), the other is meeting a need based on actual changes on the ground.

And why do you feel the need to question my right to be strongly for this development? I don’t question or suggest your strong opposition is because you are somehow affiliated with a group having an incentive not to see it approved. What motivates me more than anything is the unquantifiable hyperbole and personal attacks hurled by opponents in an attempt to fear monger and claim disasters where nothing of the kind exists. Historically, I’ve seen how that nonsense actually sways people who aren’t really following along, so I’m just trying to look at what’s real and what’s not. For me, this shopping center will be a welcome addition to the people who will use it, and while it may annoy some who never wanted anything there in the first place, it will do a great service for many local people.
" May 4, 15 1:29 PM

I hope anyone else reading this sees that up to now I’ve tried to be reasonable with you in this dialog. But you continue to insinuate that I must have more to gain simply because my opinion differs from yours. Maybe it’s because I won’t back away from confronting your twisted logic. I have nothing more to gain. We need a better grocery store, this location is one of those rare ones left sufficient to be able to mount that better solution, and the fact is that the increasing density not only calls for it, but the comprehensive plan zoning actually saw it coming. The Town established a SCB zone and later a process to allow it to be considered. It’s not a new concept, you just don’t want to comprehend what is already established procedure.

You personally won’t be shopping at this center, for sure, since you apparently live far west of the canal. I, and many others will use it regularly, so while I respect your opinion, and your town-wide worldview, you do not have much standing with regard to what is actually needed in that spot. You have a right to your opinion, as I do mine.

Your census numbers are stupendously myopic, because, what they tell you is that most of the density being built is likely being filled with second homeowners, not year rounders who are finding it increasingly difficult to afford to live or stay here, therefore their census numbers are counted in other areas. As you are well aware, second homeowners do not only use their homes in the summer months, and many use them year-round or on weekends.

That does not change the fact that many, many more people live in, around, and traverse Tuckahoe than in previous decades. To say otherwise is to demonstrate a significant insincerity in your comments. And that, my friend, does motivate me to write in these spaces. " May 5, 15 9:05 AM

I don’t betray a prejudice, I am reacting to one – where someone, whose opinion I do respect, does not respect mine, or attempts to undermine their presumptive respect by always suggesting, hinting, or otherwise implying doubt that my (or any other supporters') opinion is somehow not their own, but comes only because of some sinister relationship with the developer.

You may believe I am near-sighted in terms of the recent spate of PDDs approvals, but they are not the same things as this change of zone request. I empathize with Turkey Bridge on that point, actually, but don’t believe this specific project should be mixed in with them. My opinion is based on the data that we have seen or even experienced by living in the vicinity, and also from the application, DEIS, traffic studies, and a ton of public input, for and against. I think the supporters have so much more concrete data to support their position, that weaker arguments made against it are sometimes motivating opponents to resort to hyperbole and personal attacks to amplify their positions.

It just doesn’t work especially when we call that BS what it is.
" May 5, 15 1:57 PM

Southampton Rotary Club Pitches New Clock At Lake Agawam

No disrespect to Rotary, but why a clock? Don't we all use our cellphones now as clocks, our watches as clocks, etc? It's not 1843 anymore. Don't all of our cards have clocks? Why on earth would we need a faux historic clock/marketing piece in the park? How did this idea get out of a rotarian committee?" Jun 10, 15 8:48 PM

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  >>