East Hampton Economic Development Commission
Special Meeting
Minutes
May 25, 2007
1. Site walk: Belltown Square, NE Development LLC, East High Street & Lakeview Street
2. Site walk: Lakeview Inn, Lakeview Street
3. Break; Reconvene at East Hampton Town Hall, Town Council Meeting Room
4. Call to order Chair Dostaler called the meeting to order at 7:23 PM.
Present: Chair Dostaler, Vice-Chair John Hesen; Commissioners Patience Anderson, Jon March and Cindy Rooth; Alan Bergren, Town Manager
Not Present: Commissioner Bryan Jackowitz
5. Consider, discuss and take possible action on Belltown Square Phase II CVC Application Chair Dostaler said that at this point EDC has done site walks on the properties of Belltown Square II and the Lakeview Inn. She read into the record the following communication from Commissioner Jackowitz:
Hello, Everyone. While I am still trying to make the site walk and special meeting tonight, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to contribute my opinion to the minutes of this meeting via email. In an effort to keep in the loop and gain additional perspective on the situation, I was able to briefly stop by Mr. Scroggin's project yesterday and the building department today. As you will see this evening, both locations are truly gems of East Hampton. The top property offers a commanding northern view of the southern side of the lake and the bottom is certainly one of the nicest pieces of commercial real estate within our central commercial corridor bordering the lake. It is also very easy to see design concerns of both parties involved and the potential impact of both structures on each other. It is important not to lose perspective of
our charge of being an advisory commission to attract and maintain business in discussing this issue. I maintain that the topic discussion is not what type of business would be appropriate for the structure that is being built, but rather to help facilitate the establishment and growth of both businesses by netting out the important issues and bringing the appropriate parties together to discuss and resolve them in the most efficient manner possible - those parties being the two business owners and the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is important to note that:
1. Mr. Scroggin is not opposed to the development of the adjacent property and welcomes other new businesses in town.
2. The commercial development of both properties is mutually beneficial to each business (and the town) in terms of:
a. customer traffic and expanded goods and services in East Hampton
b. expanding overall appeal of the town to current and potential residents & visitors
c. infrastructure for an increased residential & commercial population and expanded tax base
3. Belltown Square has made some efforts toward a mutually beneficial design
Issues:
1. The commercial flat top design of the building that is currently being proposed.
2. Highest & best use of the land owned
3. What is an appropriate roof treatment given the other business's vantage and neighboring structures
We all agree that maximizing the commercial use of the limited property within our commercial corridor is a necessary component of the progress of our town. It would be my hope that it would be the decision of the Economic Development Commission to write a letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission outlining the issues and concerns and suggest that that P&Z could facilitate a discussion between the interested parties so that this goal may be achieved in a way that is respectful to all, and mindful of the zoning regulations, which state: "28.1.C Architecture - The design of the building/s shall be demonstrated to have been chosen with substantial care being applied with regard to various architectural elements, relative to the size, shape, material and textural aspects of the buildings being presented for approval. Building
services and mechanicals such as fuel tanks, air handling units, ventilation devices and the like shall be concealed from view as much as possible. Surrounding properties must be taken into account and designs presented must be compatible with and not detract or have a negative impact on neighboring and/or adjacent properties."
Thank you for considering my input and for keeping me in the loop.
Sincerely, Bryan Jackowitz"
Chair Dostaler said that at this point we can engage in discussion. Mr. March said when he heard there was to be a CVS on that property he knew it would be important to a lot of people as to how it would look at that eastern gateway, and that it not negatively impact people living near by, whether by light and glare or urban image, and he did not then know of the Inn that has come online since then. Mr. March said it's exceptionally important to consider this decision. Chair Dostaler said our purview is not to interpret the regulations but to decide what is in the best interest of the economic development of East Hampton in terms of tax base, quality of life, and job creation. The EDC mission was read by Chair Dostaler. "EDC Mission: To successfully attract new business, retain established business, and improve the quality of life of
East Hampton residents, visitors and tourists." Ms. Rooth said I have to agree with Mr. Jackowitz in that it is one of nicest pieces of commercial property. She said Belltown Square does not expand goods and services. As far as the property it is impacting -- I would like to see very little or no impact so that we can have a b & b. Regarding expanding overall appeal of the town for residents and visitors, I don't see how CVS expands the appeal of the town, unless they can make it look smaller. Chair Dostaler said she would like to interject a clarification: the EDC charge is to render an opinion on the application that is in front of us, not as we would like it to be. Chair Dostaler cautioned that EDC's charge is not to facilitate dialogue. Ms Rooth said she didn't envision that the building would take up that much land. She thought it was set back further and half the size, and the building still looks like it belongs in Disneyland and it still has an urban look.
Vice-Chair Hesen said that Planning & Zoning will make the decision, and tonight we need too make a recommendation to leave the structure as is, or the design should be changed. This is what we do in a recommendation to Planning & Zoning. Ms Rooth said at this point, her recommendation would be to not support this, it is not going to add anything to our town, it will actually take away more than it gives. Ms. Anderson thanked Chair Dostaler for reminding EDC what our charge is and for clarification on EDC’s role, or lack thereof in helping to facilitate dialog. Being a new member, I am very concerned and this is a monumental discussion. I am still not satisfied that the CVS will not impede the view from Mr. Scroggins' property. She agreed with Ms. Rooth that the type of business is redundant, and she said that the answer to the question, Is the building a fit? is no. Mr. March asked if this is the highest and best use of a lake vista, and can that question be a part
of our recommendation. Chair Dostaler said my view is that EDC should take into consideration the proximity of parcels. The application before us is a CVS. The highest and best use question is mostly moot. Mr. Hesen said in my opinion there will be a CVS there, and what we have the ability to do is perhaps to influence the design. Mr. March said this is a 13,000' building as is. The CVS in Litchfield was reduced form 12,000' to 8,000' by the Town of Litchfield, with a gently sloping roof. Ms. Anderson said the design input (booklet) of Jon March was excellent, and she is not satisfied they (the recommendations) were heard. Chair Dostaler said to keep in mind that applications in towns like Litchfield were denied on the first application. Ms. Rooth said she would deny this application because it will severely impact an adjacent business and this does not bring in new business. Chair Dostaler said that she greatly appreciates the applicant's willingness to work with the Town on the
bank project. She thought that CVS as a business could have a positive impact on taxes. After checking with the tax assessor, Chair Dostaler said CVS of comparable size typically generate $50,000 in tax revenues. Regarding jobs, it could have a positive impact but that is not sure. Chair Dostaler is concerned with the statewide crisis in the shortage of pharmacists. Chair Dostaler is concerned with the sustainability of the business. She said EDC needs to be concerned that the application before us with minor facade variations is a big box. Its sole purpose as proposed is to reinforce the CVS brand. Our job on EDC is to support East Hampton as a brand. This application supports a competing brand, if you will. The scale of the building is out of scale. We do not deny the use of property. A smaller building would be supported. She did not support the application as it currently exists. Mr. March asked Chair Dostaler to articulate with bullet points what criteria does it not meet,
just to summarize. Chair Dostaler listed reasons of wanting to have architecture in keeping with East Hampton, for encouraging a beneficial business, to have lakeside property get it's highest and best use. Another concern is that traffic counts are determined by box size. The bank was approved with a light at 196. The new application is based on the current configuration, which does not have a light. Ms. Rooth said she is also concerned, it is almost impossible to make a left turn across three lanes. Chair Dostaler said the curb cuts were allowed based on that first approval, a configuration with a light. That is a quality of life issue and potentially dangerous. Ms. Anderson said she is concerned about how traffic will flow between the bank and the CVS. Mr. March agreed with Ms. Anderson. Chair Dostaler said the two buildings were designed in two parts and they don’t mesh. Mr. March said there is a negative impact on tourists because of the location of the compactor and the
air conditioner units, and because of the EPDM rubber roof. The compactor and air conditioners could be out of site on the eastern wall. The roof could be sloped. Mr. Hesen said when you force developers often you are sorry you did. Chair Dostaler said this is a risk. Vice-Chair Hesen said that a flat roof for Mr. Scroggins is better than a pitched roof and he would like to see the green roof in a recommendation. Chair Dostaler is concerned that that seems equivocal and EDC needs to be clear. There was a discussion of a green roof and conjecture on why the developers do not want a green roof. Ms. Anderson said we have expressed concern vocally and consistently and it is not a leap to say no. She shares Vice-Chair Hesen's concern in saying no because we don’t know what will happen after that. Chair Dostaler said that we have to have the courage of our convictions.
Ms. Rooth made a motion that we write a letter to P & Z recommending the denial of this application due to the inappropriateness on this parcel, size of the building, design of the building, the traffic with the roads the way they are, and the negative impact it will have on adjacent properties. Mr. March seconded the motion
Chair Dostaler asked if there was any discussion.
Ms. Anderson said we need to articulate that it's the "Belltown Square Phase II CVS application as presented." Chair Dostaler said she will craft a letter for Planning and Zoning over the weekend and will send a draft next week to all members by Tuesday, and members will please send feedback. Mr. March said the motion needs to include size. Ms. Rooth referred to the mission statement to demonstrate that size will be impacting East Hampton residents and tourists. Regarding quality of life, the size will impact users of the lake, the B&B, and traffic. Mr. March said this application has excessively negative impacts on several levels. Ms. Anderson said that the spirit of the motion is apparent and she trusts the Chair will write a letter that will reflect the spirit. Ms. Rooth said it is taking a risk but we need to let Planning
and Zoning know specific reasons. Chair Dostaler said EDC at the time did not support Shaw's because it was too big. She said the commission has been very thoughtful and she commends all the members for their thoughtfulness. She would like to have the correspondence to the Planning and Zoning CCommission include, that, if the application is denied, EDC would welcome the opportunity to work with the applicant in future. Ms. Rooth wanted to be clear that specifics would be included in the letter so that Planning and Zoning would understand the reasoning. Ms Rooth wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission to know, for example, that air conditioner noise should be muffled. Mr. March agreed on specificity, so Planning and Zoning will know what EDC is talking about. Mr. Hesen said this is a good example why we need a design review committee. Ms. Anderson said the draft letter will be sent to us for review and comment. Mr. Bergren said the motion will include wording such as "The
letter will reflect the concerns that were raised and discussed and addressed during the meeting."
Mr. March made a motion to amend the previous motion to include a blanket statement that would include concerns that were raised during the meeting. Ms. Rooth seconded the motion. The motion carried (5-0-0). (Yes votes: Chair Dostaler, Vice-Chair Hesen, Ms. Anderson, Mr. March, Ms. Rooth. Yes votes: 5. No votes: 0. Abstentions: 0.)
All were in favor of the original motion and the amendments to that motion.
12. Adjournment
Ms. Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rooth seconded the motion. The motion carried (5-0-0). (Yes votes: Chair Dostaler, Vice-Chair Hesen, Ms. Anderson, Mr. March, Ms. Rooth. Yes votes: 5. No votes: 0. Abstentions: 0.)
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Wright Recording clerk
| 
