Setting Goals

A lot of time and energy has gone into proposed changes to parts of Sag Harbor Village’s zoning code, specifically along the waterfront and behind the primary arteries of the village, Main, Bay and West Water streets. When Village Board members set out to consider changes to the code, their goals appeared clear: to protect the historic and quaint feel of Sag Harbor, despite its continuing evolution, and to ensure that any large developments are made to fit into the existing fabric of the village, not the other way around.

This is the first meaningful effort to update the zoning code since 2009, when Village Board members worked with in-house, local planners and land use attorneys to revamp the code, aiming to support the small businesses that have come to define Sag Harbor. The code revision also sought to ensure a diverse Main Street, focused on the kind of retail and restaurant uses that neighboring communities eyed with jealousy — unlike Sag Harbor, so many hamlets and villages have business districts already gobbled up by first-floor real estate offices and retail brands that shutter their storefronts when the summer crowds disperse.

The form-based code the village is entertaining for its proposed waterfront overlay district is expected to be introduced for a public hearing next week. A form-based code looks at uses and building forms, rather than just dimensional regulations.

While it is a kind of code that makes sense in many communities, especially those trying to entice specific types of businesses to set up shop, we have, on the South Fork, yet to see how a form-based code offers specific and unique solutions to the problems that the Sag Harbor Village Board is hoping to stave off with this revision.

And maybe that’s the crux of the issue: There needs to be a clearly defined problem that a municipality is trying to solve with a code revision, before the tools they use to solve the issues are discussed publicly. This Village Board, through an update to its planning strategies — the closest thing Sag Harbor has to a Comprehensive Plan — has yet to define the specific issues this rewrite of the code would address. However well-intentioned the effort might be, that’s a major flaw that threatens to undermine it entirely.

There is a lot of good here — height and setback restrictions, which can be made outside a form-based code, make a lot of sense, as does reducing the minimum square footage for a business, in an effort to allow for smaller mom-and-pop storefronts. Although with the renewed interest in commercial and residential real estate, it is fair to assume that even the smallest commercial space will come at a steep price, and Mom and Pop might not have the bank account to set up shop.

We also remained concerned that expanding uses in the office district, particularly now, when development pressure just off Main Street is growing at exponential speed, is an unwise move that will throw open the doors to what a lot of residents in Sag Harbor do not want — an intense redevelopment of downtown.

It is time, if the village is going to move forward with this code revision, for trustees to state clearly in a formal planning document what their goals are for the waterfront overlay district, and how, specifically, they hope to achieve those goals. It would also be helpful if the community were invited to discuss some of these concepts before they are finalized.

In 2008 and 2009, there were a number of public meetings and even one-on-one sessions with businesses owners, in a public setting, where changes to the code were explained and workshopped. It gave residents and property owners — even those unsatisfied with the end result — a sense of ownership that only benefited the village when the code ultimately was adopted.

Many residents and property owners are still trying to wrap their brains around what is being proposed — and that means it’s not a plan that has been vetted enough for public hearing. Village Board members and the planning group it has assembled are moving forward with the best intentions, and there is nothing to suggest that anything is being done behind closed doors for nefarious reasons. There is no need for hasty action: The moratorium has been extended into the fall, and the village has the opportunity to use that time wisely. Ideally, that time can be used to assure that both the village and the public can understand more clearly what, exactly, is being proposed, and why.