Access at Issue for Greystone Condos

[caption id="attachment_58893" align="alignnone" width="800"] Image courtesy Greystone Development Corp.[/caption]

By Christine Sampson

As Greystone Development seeks approval for a condominium complex at 2 West Water Street, critical questions over emergency responders’ access and public waterfront access remain without sufficient answers, according to the Sag Harbor Village Planning Board.

Kathy Eiseman, the Sag Harbor Planning Board’s environmental consultant from the firm Nelson, Pope and Voorhis, otherwise praised Greystone’s representatives for “an admirable job” in responding to the more than 100 comments and questions they sent the firm last month. However, the planning board needs answers to the waterfront and emergency access questions, and a handful of others, before it can finish its environmental review of the condominium project.

The proposal is for 13-units in a 36,564-square-foot building with an underground parking garage, rooftop pool and 13 boat slips nearby. According to a February 24 memo prepared by Ms. Eiseman that outlines outstanding issues, Greystone intends to market the condos as vacation homes.

On Tuesday, planning board attorney Denise Schoen put aside her legal hat for a moment to speak as a 15-year volunteer emergency medical technician. She told Greystone’s consultants, Katie Magee and Angelo Laino of the firm VHB Engineering, that the proposed distance from the access road to the waterfront – about 300 feet – is too far for first responders to be able to expeditiously help people in distress.

“I just don't want to see anything bad happen down there that I can't get to quickly enough,” Ms. Schoen said.

Ms. Eiseman’s memo notes the village’s Harbor Committee believes the proposal conflicts with Sag Harbor’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) in that “it restricts public access to the waterfront.” Currently, the only access provided to the waterfront Greystone’s plans is on the parcel the firm is expected to sell to Sag Harbor Village for parkland.

“It's going to become an issue when we deal with the site plan,” planning board chairman Gregory Ferraris explained. “I feel maybe we’re at the point where you should explore providing pedestrian access from West Water Street.”

In response, Mr. Laino said, “The applicant’s main issue with it is the fact that the site is so constrained due to relief of so much of the property that any easement access would be directly adjacent to residents’ windows, which would effectively allow the public to walk right outside someone’s private window.”

“You're not going to have windows on the east side of this building,” replied Mr. Ferraris.

Mr. Laino acknowledged that was the case, saying, “It’s something we’ll definitely address moving forward. We understand that’s going to be an issue.”

The planning board’s previous concerns over parking spaces were sufficiently addressed, Ms. Eiseman said. Greystone said it would provide 13 reserved, assigned parking spaces for the residents of the complex. Ms. Eiseman said her firm’s traffic engineer concluded that nearby municipal lots would likely be sufficient for the owners’ visitors and would not significantly impact competition for parking in the village.

The planning board adjourned the discussion to its next meeting, set for March 28, to give Greystone’s consultants time to respond to the latest round of questions. A public hearing on the project has been tentatively scheduled for the board’s April 25 meeting.