Proposed Gates for Ferry Road Community Discussed by Harbor Committee

By Douglas Feiden

An automatic gate secures the inbound entrance to a one-way, 18-foot wide private access road that wends its way east, for a full block, alongside a closed-off, harbor-facing condominium complex. At the end of the internal road, a second automatic gate provides a secured exit way for outbound vehicles.

Sound like a walled-in community in Florida or southern California or a gated desert retreat in Arizona? Actually, that’s a description of the approach to the luxury rowhouse development planned for the 1, 3 and 5 Ferry Road parcels on a broad swath of Sag Harbor waterfront near one of the village’s showcase gateways.

“Both the egress and ingress would be gated in order to restrict access to non-residents,” according to preliminary site access plans for the project that were filed with the village in April as part of a revised, expanded Environmental Assessment Form.

The issue surfaced at the Harbor Committee meeting on Monday night [WEB: MAY 9] during the environmental review process for the proposed redevelopment of the 2.33-acre site, which sits between West Water Street and Sag Harbor Cove and also includes the white 1-800-LAWYERS Building.

“I am tremendously uneasy with the idea of a gated community right in the heart of Sag Harbor,” said board member Mary Ann Eddy.

[caption id="attachment_50946" align="alignright" width="570"] A rendering of the proposed 1, 3, 5 Ferry Road project in Sag Harbor.[/caption]

Representatives for Greystone Property Development Corp., the developer whose layout and circulation maps indicate the two gates, as well as a 6-foot-high decorative fence around the rear perimeter of the property, said they were required for “controlled access” to eight planned, two-story attached residential buildings.

“It’s a security issue,” said Courtney Riley, project manger for VHB Engineering and Surveying, a consultant to Greystone. “This is so people can’t go into their back door, in case someone is out walking on the street, or their front door.”

Ms. Eddy wasn’t persuaded. “I live in the village, and people can come right up to my front door or my back door,” she said. “That’s kind of the way the village is. This would be quite a departure from village culture.”

Board member Joseph Tremblay also cited the centrality of access and openness in village life: “It was kind of the spirit that Bulova was developed in, was it not?” he asked. “You could walk right up to it.”

Mr. Tremblay argued that the area was an important “viewshed” for the community, and that residents who don’t own waterfront property don’t have a lot of other places to enjoy vistas of Sag Harbor Cove.

“It terms of planning, it’s really a big area of the cove to block off,” he said. “So you want to minimize that as much as possible.”

Greystone representatives counter that the parcel now is largely inaccessible, undeveloped and contains overgrown landscaping and vegetation. The developer has pledged to create a paved pedestrian path through its property to provide public access to the public beach area north of the site and west of the bridge.

Noting there is “public access potential“ both north of the site and to its south and west, Harbor Committee Chairman John Shaka said, “We want to make sure we get this right and that public access isn’t denied in the middle, if appropriate.”

At issue is the riparian rights to the underwater land abutting the condo complex, an ownership issue Mr. Shaka said still needs to be “clarified.”

Attorney Dennis Downes, who represents the developer, says Greystone owns the rights, and that he’s awaiting a letter of consent from the Long Island Rail Road, a previous owner, which will affirm that.

As for the gates, Mr. Downes said in an interview, “This is not your average residential street. It’s in the middle of a busy commercial area, people go to the 7-Eleven 24 hours a day, and you need some gates to control people getting access to the property.”