Our Report on Friday, February 13, 2009, Public Hearing on the zoning code review at the Village Municipal Hall:

Mayor Ferraris began the meeting by saying that more proposed amendments at this point would include the following, announced by Trustee Scarlato: definition of a tennis court is being amended, offices are allowed on 2nd floor business Main St spaces, B&B & daycare facilities are being dealt with-an owner w/in 500 ft will have to be notified if either is being established, rather than only immediate neighbors. Some use changes to 2nd floor uses have been made, and C of Os will be required within 30 days of occupancy rather than before.

Mayor Ferraris mentioned that Tim Culver & Dave Lee had questioned the Architectural Review Board's input, and said that any enlargement between 2,000 & 3,000 SF will be subject to the ARB, which will seek to ensure that that enlargement is in character with the historical look of the village only.

The Mayor said that he and the Board had decided, for this meeting, to better explain changes of use in the zoning code by using flow charts to explain how applications would work. Rich Warren, the Village planner, then presented 2 charts showing tables with existing use vs. proposed use, less than or equal to 3,000SF, or greater than 3,000SF.

In the case of a space that is less than 3,000SF, with a change being from permitted use to permitted use with no increase of parking or sewage, such a change will be exempt from review. If there is an increase, then a site plan application will be submitted, but if the change is minimal, a building permit will be allowed with a waiver. If a building is being expanded, it will have to go through the ARB, and that will also bring up the same conditions of exemptions and waivers as stated in the code, but most will be allowed through the exemption process unless, as had been stated, there was an increase in parking or sewage that necessitated greater examination.

Spaces greater than 3,000SF will will not qualify for an exemption and will have to go through a site plan application, although a waiver is still a possibility if all requirements are met, which will be available by request from the Planning Board.  Warren emphasized that 89% of the number of uses listed in the code are permitted, so the vast majority of permitted uses in the retail category will be exempt.

Ted Conklin of the Sag Harbor Business Association wanted to know if the SIC definitions used in the code had been collapsed into "dry use", e.g., categories. He had perceived the use charts as leading to bureaucratic hurdles and asked if this were no longer true. The Mayor & Trustee Scarlato said that there is no difference from before, it had just not been understood. Ted mentioned that the issue may not be about the flow chart itself, but how it works in actual application.

Tim Culver, attorney for Ted Conklin, said that this meeting and the previous have been incredibly helpful. He asked if you go from one permitted use to another would you have to apply for a C of O? The Mayor said it will be exactly the same as today, since it's a new owner that triggers need for a C of O. He mentioned that Save Sag Harbor wanted some control of uses, but that they decided against further control. Culver asked how, operationally, how does a shoe store change to a hat store? Scarlato answered that renovations will trigger need for a building permit. The Mayor asked Rich Warren to give a specific example of change of one store to another. Warren said that there will be no site plan review, but a change of use may need a change of C of O to reflect change of use. There is standardization on the definition of what is a clothing store, what is a hat store, etc. and that it is important to modernize our zoning code. There won't be a planning board review mandated, there will just be a record of the use changing. He said that this can be done at the village Municipal Building counter with the building inspector, probably while you wait. The Mayor asked if this were consistent with previous procedure; Warren said yes.

Conklin asked a question on behalf of Bob Evjen, president of the Chamber of Commerce and not present at the meeting, in regard to a procedural issue, and stated that Evjen wants flexibility to maintain the Village's vibrancy. The question was, if the sensibility of a particular use is personally disturbing to the building inspector, what would prevent the inspector from blocking a permit? Who has authority over this possibility? The Mayor said that it will be the ARB who will review these proposed changes, if they were deemed aesthetically disturbing or not in keeping with the village's character. The Mayor said that this has been in the code forever. Anthony Tohill, village attorney, said things are being improved in this revision since the 1994 code.

Ted Conklin said he wants to see changes that have been discussed so far in published form, and the Mayor promised that these new promised changes will be incorporated but that the village cannot afford to publish changes to the code for very single meeting.

Laura Grenning wanted clarification about why she now has to mention use at all since, having established two businesses in the builiding, she never had done that before. Scarlato said that she was supposed to have notified village in both instances.  The Mayor repeated that there was no chance of a change being turned down if the change was permitted use to permitted use.

Susan Stroud wanted to understand whether the ARB has ability to judge interior space changes? Tohill said the Preservation League has always included this kind of legislation in code as per the fact that the ARB does have the ability to judge interior alterations if these alterations are visible from the street. These alterations would have to be deemed by the ARB to be architecturally incongruous with the historic character of the village. The ARB cannot, however, judge the merchandise found in the store, even if these items are visible from the street. For example, if there was a painting of a nude in a storefront, the ARB would not have the jurisdiction to have this piece of merchandise removed from the storefront. But, if this same store had a built-in display case, painted in a bright orange, and the display case was visible from the street, the ARB could request it be removed or altered. Normally, this type of code enforcement is driven by resident complaints to the building inspector. The building inspector would then notify the store and ask them to receive ARB approval for the display.

Nada Barry asked where the use list was obtained, and about the waterfront district's accepted uses? Why would an art gallery, instead of a souvenir or gift shop, particularly if the gift shop were related to the water, be allowed? Where would a farmer's market be allowed? etc. The Mayor stated that the table of uses says that if a yacht yard has always existed, it is grandfathered. But in this instance a yacht yard is included as special exception. A marina, e.g., would necessitate certain special exception standards, and for waterfront uses there are specific demands. The farmer's market was described as being just a use of village property, not a permanent business. Barry asked if she could have her gift shop on Long Wharf? Scarlato said the idea came from the differentiation of one retail store to another, and to control the kinds of retail use, they decided to separate them using the same use standards in place by Southampton & other towns.

Joanne Powell commended the efforts to revise the code to protect the village and offered comment on 3 areas. Affordable housing in Sag Harbor, she said, is seen as ideal by other communities. She feels housing will be lost by use of 2nd floor spaces as offices and other retail uses. Funding for affordable housing may occur, but there is now not enough space for said affordable housing. Powell doesn't find a definition for multiple dwellings in the code; since this use is prohibited, she suggested a distinction be made between it & apartment use. She also thinks parking areas should be considered part of lot coverage, and would like to see a definition of paving to be included in lot coverage.

Tim Culver again thanked the Board, and asked them to speak on the question of non-conforming use to conforming use. Scarlato said that that is under discussion, and feels a lot of progress has been made.

Conklin said that the Sag Harbor Business Association appreciates the work Board has done, and knows that the code will be passed. He asked the Board to recognize that businesses are vested parties and should be the parties most under consideration. He mentioned their long-time participation in village. He stated that everyone is looking for the same thing, which is sustaining the character and makeup of Main St. His concern is an implication of too much bureaucracy. He said that he would like to express the general consensus of the SHBA that the SHBA will work with the Village on the code. He also complained that we don't have a comprehensive plan. He would like a broad conversation about what we all want the village to be like 100 years from now, and added that there is not a scintilla of evidence to say that an Office District is necessary. He would like to see the village and its government commit to a visionary plan for Sag Harbor.

Stephen Longmire asked how long will public comments will be permitted? The reply was that comments are not closed after this meeting but that a date for it is pending, most likely to be some time in March.

Barbara Roberts asked if the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidelines were mentioned in Code? Tohill said that that will not be done in code, but will be brought up in various permitting processes on a case-by-case basis.

Robby Stein wanted to better articulate a question he'd asked at the last meeting, by example. The question was: if a house burns down, will there be a new setback mandated? because such a thing could change the character of the Village. In rebuilding, the property owner could elect to move the building back, but the ARB might want to persuade the owner to move it forward. Tohill said that he had not been asked this question before and would ponder it.

The mayor then asked how long it would take to redraft and reprint the Code.  Attorney Tohill said that he could speedily get to the necessary changes. This will include the revisions made by the board and cleaning up some of the codicils that are vague, all of which have been discussed in the past two Public meetings.  It was determined that it would take several weeks to redraft and reprint the document and make it available. A Public Notice of this version of the code would then be announced in the press at least 10 days before the next meeting. The date for this to be done is no later then March 5.

This procedure was read into the record by Trustee Scarlato, which stated that the Village had complied with all Code Revision Requirements, which include the SEQRA review, Public Hearings, and Required Notices, including demonstration of the requirements needed for a Comprehensive Plan.  A motion was made and passed that on March 19th at 5PM a public hearing would again be held to discuss the published code.

The revision of the zoning code has passed!

Here's our report from last Friday, May 29th's, meeting:

Tiffany Scarlato referenced the history of the process of the revision; the hours of writing, discussing, opening the discussion to the public, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement concerns presented, etc. No adverse environmental impacts were noted by any authorities when land, water, cultural and other resources were  considered. Further, she read, the State Environmental Quality Review Act requirements were met, and noted that all parts of applicable NY State rules & regulations have been met and all surrounding villages & towns have been notified of the revision.

Mayor Ferraris stated that since the comprehensive plan, revision of zoning code, and consideration of GEIS requirements have been met, the Board, noting that further amendments of Chapter 55 revision need not be made and that a negative declaration has been filed on SEQRA and published in the Sag Harbor Express, is formally approving and passing the revision of the zoning code (Chapter 55). The proper papers are now to be filed with all pertinent authorities.

The revision of the zoning code was passed and carried.

Mayor Ferraris thanked Tiffany Scarlato, Rich Warren and Anthony Tohill especially for their hard work during the formulation and enactment of this code revision, and mentioned how it was a process done both for and with much input from the people of the village.

It should also be noted that further amendments may be made in the future, as needed.

Save Sag Harbor applauds the passage of this revision! Our attorney will review the finalized Zoning Code and will get back to us with his thoughts. Look for an update in a future newsletter.

What is the Village working on?

This is the text of the October 24, 2007 Worksession Meeting Notice:

The Sag Harbor Village Board of Trustees and the Zoning Committee will hold a special work session on the second floor meeting room of the Municipal Building, Main Street, Village of Sag Harbor on October 24th to present the preliminary findings and recommendations of the commercial district to the property owners within the Village Business (VB) District.

As part of an overall zoning code update, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Sag Harbor has commenced an evaluation of the Village Business District zoning provisions to assess whether the existing code sufficiently protects the historic, commercial character of the Main Street core commercial district. On September 27th, a progress report to the Trustees was made by their consultants, Anthony B Tohill, Esq. (Special Counsel to the Village), and Richard E. Warren, AICP (the Village Planning Consultant). The purpose of the meeting was to: (a) outline the issues that have been raised; (b) discuss some of the initial results of the research that was undertaken; and (c) begin dialogue regarding potential recommendations to address the issues.

In general the Issues of Concern were identified as follows:

1. A.Protecting the existing historic character of the "core" commercial district, changes to which would threaten the "identity" of the Village of Sag Harbor.
   

2. B.Maintaining appropriate size and scale of commercial uses.
   

3. C.Protecting against change in uses from a retail/shopping district to one which contains non-retail uses.
   

4. D.Maintaining the diversity of uses which support the vitality of the shopping district.
   

5. E.Encouraging the location of businesses providing services and products used by Sag Harbor population.
   

6. F.Establishing provisions to encourage affordable housing within the area for the local workforce.
   

7. G.Ensuring that the infrastructure of the Village (parking, sewage treatment, roads, services, etc.) is capable of supporting future development or changes in the Village.
   

8. H.Managing the recent influx of attached unit condominium and apartment projects that could potentially change the character of the Village.
   

9. I.Maintaining the historic character of the Village by establishing comprehensive and appropriate development regulations.
   

A detailed inventory of the existing commercial district was presented at the meeting, along with a series of draft recommendations. The meeting included a discussion regarding the avenues available to the Village of Sag Harbor to appropriately control changes in the Sag Harbor commercial district that would negatively effect the vibrancy of the existing historic character of Sag Harbor and its special "sense of place".

A series of Preliminary Recommendations were presented, as follows:

1. 1.Refine the boundaries of the Village Business District (VB) to follow what is considered the "core" of the commercial downtown shopping district.
   

2. 2.Create a new zoning district–the Office District (OD)–which provides opportunities for development and use for professional offices, financial institutions and the like.
   

3. 3.Redefine the Permitted (P) and Special Exception (SE) Uses within the Village Business District (VB) to focus on supporting the retail and shopping trade by restricting the further expansion of office-type of uses within the "core" of the commercial shopping district along Main Street. This would eliminate offices, professional offices, real estate offices, financial services, banks and the like from within the VB District. All of these existing uses would become pre-existing and non-conforming.
   

4. 4.Develop a list of Permitted (P) and Special Exception (SE) Uses within the proposed Office District (OD) to encourage the utilization of this outlying business district.
   

5. 5.Create general and specific standard that are appropriate for those uses which are deemed to be Special Exception (SE) Uses.
   

6. 6.Develop a series of design standards for the Office District (OD) to allow development to occur in an appropriate size and scale with due consideration to the neighborhood.
   

7. 7.To encourage and support the local "small-town feel" of the commercial shopping district and maintain a diversity of shopping opportunities, it is recommended that the Village establish a maximum gross floor area (GFA) for any individual use of commercial space.
   

8. 8.To encourage and support the local "small-town feel" of the commercial shopping district and maintain a diversity of shopping opportunities, it is recommended that the Village establish a maximum gross floor area (GFA) for any individual use of commercial space. [repetition left in because it is in the original distributed print-out]
   

9. 9.In order to further encourage small shops to exist and maintain the diversity of the stores within the Village, it is recommended that the Village establish a maximum street or store frontage requirement for each use within the core commercial district.
   

10. 10.Develop regulations that encourage accessory apartments on the second floor (and above) in commercial buildings within the Village Business District (VB).
    

11. 11.Develop a provision which will permit offices on the second floor of a structure where such office is an accessory to a first floor commercial use, and establish a maximum gross floor area (GFA) for such an accessory office.
    

12. 12.Examine developing provisions which permit, on a limited basis, the establishment of seasonal outdoor seating for restaurant uses located within the Village Business District (VB).
    

13. 13.Evaluate and adjust the parking regulations so the requirements meet the needs of particular uses. In addition, it is recommended that the Parking Trust Fund provisions of the Zoning Code be evaluated to determine whether they are appropriate.
    

14. 14.Create a process which appropriately deals with the issues related to a "Change-of-Use" for properties within the Village as a whole, and more particularly within the Village Business District (VB).
    

15. 15.Create a new and more detailed Table of Uses for all zoning districts within the Inc. Village of Sag Harbor, and tie those uses to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code to allow for a standardization of use definitions.
    

16. 16.Define an appropriate Site Plan Review process. Coordinate agency reviews within Village. Adjust timeframes to make them reasonable. Establish a pre-application review conference as an option.
    

17. 17.Prepare a new zoning map for the Inc. Village of Sag Harbor, which clearly defines the new district boundaries, as well as the limit of the Village Historic District.
    

The work session to be held on October 24th is intended to allow for business property owners to better understand the issues that face Sag Harbor, and allow them to provide input into the process. We hope to see you there.

Report on the Briefing of Sept 27th, 2007

At a 2-hour meeting open to the public at the Firehouse on Brick Kiln Road on September 27th, Mayor Gregory Ferraris and the Village Board of Trustees were briefed by their planner, Richard Warren and their zoning attorney Anthony Tohill. Since it was a public meeting, quite a few members of Save Sag Harbor were present to hear the first glimpse of the work that the village representatives have been undertaking to try to deal with the growth and  changes in character threatening the village. The planner reviewed the survey of existing buildings and uses in the business district and the potential creation of 5 sub-districts within the Main Street retail and office district. Existing banks and other professional offices will be vested in, but this rezoning would try to retain the vibrant, social, alive-after-6PM character of the village, which is dependent on a healthy balance of retail and professional storefronts. It was suggested that maximum retail size should be considered in conjunction with a Master Plan for the area. Tony Tohill briefed the Board on the legal framework that must be used in the State of New York, including the ability to create development and design standards to preserve the Village's character and the inability of a village or town to ban specific formula stores. This briefing appears to be the start of the public process which may continue for several months. We appreciate everyone's hard work and look forward to hearing more.

PROPOSED One Ferry Road CONDOMINIUMS

As you may know, our friends at CONPOSH held a very informative meeting February 15th, 2008 at the Old Whalers' Church regarding a proposal from a developer who would like permission to build 22 condominiums, with 22 boat slips, beside the Sag Harbor/North Haven bridge, where the Harborview Professional Building now stands along the waterfront.  Many Sag Harbor and North Haven residents (and others!) have expressed concerns about the size and placement of the proposed development, noting that it will block traffic, water views, and possibly even access to the waterfront.  The review process will move forward soon, with most of Sag Harbor's boards involved. Many local residents would like to see some or all of this waterfront property preserved as a public park.  You can add your voice to this effort by contacting Mary Wilson, Community Preservation Fund Manager for Southampton Town, asking that she make the property (1,3 & 5 Ferry Rd.) a priority, and by contacting Southampton's Town Council (same address as in the above letter) with the same message.  Also, we urge you to copy Sag Harbor Mayor Gregory Ferraris on your messages, since he has expressed the hope that we might think about regional planning for the greater Sag Harbor area.

[date], 2008

Mary Wilson

Community Preservation Fund Manager

116 Hampton Road

Southampton, NY 11968

Dear Ms. Wilson,

I/We wish to express my/our concerns at the proposed development for condominiums to be erected at the base of the Sag Harbor/North Haven bridge. if constructed, this development would restrict access to the waterfront, alter and obstruct traffic patterns, increase environmental concerns, and certainly alter the aesthetic appeal of what is arguably the most beautiful gateway to Sag Harbor Village, enjoyed by all residents of the Village and surrounding areas, and by visitors.

I/We urge you to make it a priority, when the parcel becomes available, to begin the process of allocating Community Preservation Fund money for purchase of this land for use as a public parkland.

Yours most sincerely,

______________________  _____________________________        __________________

name                                  street                                                    city, state, zip code

This letter should also be sent to:

Mayor Gregory Ferraris

PO Box 660

Sag Harbor, NY  11963

(To print out this letter, simply highlight the text by passing your cursor over it. Then copy (Command-C on a Mac, Control-C on a PC) and paste (Command-V on a Mac, Control-V on a PC) it into any word processor or text program and print it out. We urge you to add personal information, opinions, and any necessary changes!)

Our report on January 29, 2009, very important DGEIS (Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement) public hearing:

Forgive the length, but believe us, this is the short version!

By way of introduction, Mayor Ferraris began the hearing by saying that the process for the revision of the zoning code to this point started 2 years ago in response to the possibility of large developments occurring in Sag Harbor, and the disposition of the Gruen Building on Main Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals had complained of a need for a better code, and felt it was a patchwork document in need of amending. Trustee Scarlato began the work on it, but it was decided that outside input was needed and so Richard Warren & Anthony Tohill were asked to contribute. Two public meetings were held late in the summer and fall of 2007. The majority of comments were about adequacy of infrastructure and the historical value of the village. Warren developed a document describing the concerns of individuals in relation to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, land use, affordable housing, reconsideration of zoning districts, establishment of size restrictions for new retail, etc. Twenty or so planning recommendations were therefore made, including but not limited to redefining uses to promote shopping trade, define a new district (the Office District), establish standards & tables for uses for properties, shift assessments from the ZBA to the Planning Board, adjust parking regulations, promote outdoor dining, modify the site plan review process, protect natural resources, consider affordable housing, etc. The Village held numerous informational meetings mid-2008, and received many comments which produced many revisions in code (reduced size of the OD, adjusted expedited site plan review process for sizes below 3000SF, removed the accessory apartments provision for the second floor of businesses) and now, an allowance of offices as a use of 2nd floor spaces has been made and is incorporated in the newest, but as yet unpublished, code.

Trustee Scarlato spoke, saying she has been pleased with the Board's interaction with the public. She feels the revision of the zoning code is fair, even-handed, and gives adequate guidelines to all the village boards.

The Mayor then suggested using the remaining issues mentioned previously by the Sag Harbor Business Association and Save Sag Harbor to open up a dialogue.

In brief (it was a 3-hour meeting!), Ted Conklin, Michael Eicke, Phil Bucking, Jane Holden and others raised issues about the code that they felt might in fact harm businesses and their ability to deal with the current economic crisis. While we are well aware of this, and share their concern that the code aid the growth of business without putting the Village at risk for development by big box and formula-based retail, we felt that the Mayor and Board answered their concerns with patience and clarity, and frequently expressed the same goal as they and we, that of keeping Main St healthy while maintaining its character. Some of the main issues addressed were the site plan review process itself (it was mentioned that businesses having difficulties establishing themselves in the last year or so were not having problems because of the new code but rather because of the moratorium, and that after the passage of the new code an expedited site plan review for businesses less than 3,000 SF (which make up the vast majority of businesses in Sag Harbor) would make it much easier for businesses to change hands. The classification system used for this purpose was defended as good practice. The Mayor mentioned that the new Code would neither promote nor restrict new business, and Trustee Gilbride said that it may, however, speed up the process of affecting business change. Many of the business people mentioned their desire for a more transparent process with which to work with the Mayor and Village Board. We agree, and also recognize that the Village felt it necessary to follow a certain bureaucratic procedure in the revision of the code. The SHBA has hired a firm, EEK Associates, to present their assessment of the Code and the DGEIS.

As for businesses under 3,000 SF, the Mayor emphasized that in these cases, no site plan review will be mandated. We note that we had wanted this process to apply to all businesses over 2,000 SF (in order to better discourage chain stores), but the Mayor and Board felt the 3,000 SF cutoff was fair.

Some mention was made of the function of the ARB vs the ZBA. Jane Holden was particularly concerned about the validity of Certificates of Occupancy under the new code, and the Mayor mentioned that whatever use was grandfathered in (which applies to ALL of Main St) will remain. He also humorously mentioned that brothel use in the past would probably not now stand from ancient C of Os.

Several people spoke out in favor of the code, including Jill Sherrer, Chris Kelly (lawyer for Duncan Darrow), and Jeff Bragman, who represents us. Jeff Bragman cited many changes more recently made by the board, in particular the freeing up of uses for 2nd floors with which we agreed with the SHBA as an important economic necessity, but argued that increased numbers of offices and banks on Main St would be counterproductive to a lively retail atmosphere, saying that the creation of an Office District gives the Village "breathing room". He also emphasized that Save Sag Harbor feels it is in the interest of the community at large that the code is passed, emphasized that it will be amendable, restated that we do not oppose the SHBA, and that we want to recognize everyone's importance in this code-creating process. He said that Main St represents a community of interest, and that as long as the draft revision bears a reasonable relationship to facilitating the proper resale and reuse of property, it is going to produce a good, usable, and essentially modest code that will not adversely affect the economy now, and will help protect the Village in the future, getting us up to speed with other forward-thinking communities.

Parking problems were brought up, and we look forward to reviewing studies already done on this important issue, and to working with merchants and the Village Board in seeking creative solutions.

The Mayor & Board also mentioned that sewage consultants have been hired and that there is not a problem with sewage capacity.

A few people brought up the need to examine issues in the Residential district (B&Bs, day care centers, etc) and it is unclear whether there will be more meetings about these issues.

We feel that the meeting was excellent, helped better explain many issues, and in fact was much more a dialogue than previous meetings had been, which we feel was appreciated by all in the audience.

We invite you to have a look at our 2008 Year-End Report, which is available for download

by clicking HERE. As is the case with the documents on the Village's website,

you will need an Adobe "Reader", a simple portable document format (pdf)-opening application,

to open and read it. You can download the reader HERE. For PC users, click

"Choose a different version" to find Adobe Reader for PCs.