The Slippery Slope To Sameness

The Slippery Slope To Sameness

I planned to write on another topic this week until the bombshell dropped about CVS moving into Bridgehampton’s historic epicenter. For those who may have missed the memo, the CVS corporation has decided that the intersection of Montauk Highway, Lumber Lane, Ocean Road and the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike, already a quagmire of motor vehicles of every conceivable description, is the ideal location for its new store. The confluence of these busy streets and highly trafficked highways at this location already tests the best of drivers, forget those who are frantically maneuvering to get through the intersection late for that tennis lesson or dinner reservation.The proposed two-story, neo-Greek Revival building originally designed by East Hampton architect Frank Greenwald was reviewed in this column two summers ago in my inaugural “Works in Progress” column. At that time construction was on hold due to financing issues still reverberating from the global banking crisis. Mr. Greenwald’s design called for 5,300 square feet of professional office space on two floors, cloaked in a white clapboard edifice, with building details and design elements echoing its noble 19th-century neighbors, the Topping Rose House and the Nathaniel Rogers home.

When ownership of the property changed two years ago to BNB Ventures IV, Mr. Greenwald’s participation was abruptly ended. A Hauppauge-based firm, VHB Engineering, was retained, and is now the firm in charge of the design. According to its website, “VHB has enjoyed a longstanding relationship with CVS as a partner on its development team.”

Among the services VHB routinely provides to CVS are environmental assessments and traffic investigations, both of which are cogent topics to the local Bridgehampton community as well as to the Town of Southampton.

Fast forward to three weeks ago where, at the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, a presentation for occupancy by CVS was offered up to stunned committee members and attendees. While little of the architecture has changed in the last two years, the concept behind the building’s purpose is radically different.

It’s one thing to have a professional office building which would function during a normal workday, then go largely dormant at night, during holiday periods and on weekends. It’s another to have a fully functioning convenience store with the quotidian comings and goings of the general public 14 hours a day, 364 days a year. And where exactly does CVS plan to park its staff and the hundreds of daily shoppers drawn to this building site of minimal size?

The Southampton Town Code and Planning Board have well-defined criteria for onsite parking regulations. For a retail building now projected at 8,800 square feet, there are considerable onsite parking requirements. The site plan presented to the CAC provided for only eight parking spaces, two of which were designated for handicapped use.

Another area was designated for service and deliveries. Good luck keeping shoppers frantic for that SPF 50 sunscreen and six-pack of Vitamin Water from parking there as they typically do elsewhere. It was also unclear from the site plan and tight turning radius into the small lot behind the proposed building if fire trucks could easily and quickly negotiate into it in an emergency.

Eight onsite parking spaces for an 8,800-square-foot retail building is a paltry amount. Clearly the intention is to piggyback on to the existing parking spaces behind the building in the already crowded public lot, of which six spaces are being eliminated to provide access to the new building’s rear entrance.

The primary exit from this public parking lot will remain as now onto Lumber Lane, where it angles for less than a car length to a stop sign, then merges into the Turnpike, a tight and almost impossible maneuver as it now stands. Good luck to the hapless shoppers who do score a parking space behind the new building, as one could grow rice waiting to turn out of this already heavily congested area. And forget ever being able to turn left onto Lumber Lane.

A revised site plan drawing with all the streets converging on this intersection, with the turn lanes, stop signs, traffic lights and medians noted, would be the first step in getting a comprehensive view of the obstacles facing this application. The site plan presented to the Bridgehampton CAC could best be described as preliminary and partial in nature.

One question for the Planning Board to ask, when the CVS application comes before them, is how many shoppers an hour does CVC anticipate for this location? I’m certain that after two years of negotiations for a 25-year lease, CVS knows exactly how many shoppers it needs to be a viable store. This information is critical in evaluating the impact on Bridgehampton’s already burdened and often overwhelmed traffic infrastructure. The aforementioned traffic studies and environmental assessments undertaken by VHB are important documents which Southampton Town, the Bridgehampton CAC, and concerned members of the public should see.

The question basically comes down to this: is a 7/Eleven posing as a pharmacy the right fit for Bridgehampton now or ever? The answer is clearly no, particularly at this ridiculous location. This is a slippery slope to sameness, the sameness that is found throughout most of the country today. To maintain its unique and universally regarded charm, Bridgehampton should not just be the latest notch in the CVS belt of high-growth markets.

Since the news broke, not one Bridgehampton resident interviewed has been supportive of this corporate maneuver. Interestingly, nor have the powers that be in local government. Why then, would a corporation want to locate a new store in an area in which the opposition was so steadfast? Why indeed ...

Next time: “A Signage Epidemic”