Board Takes Stand Against Pump Canopy
Although new pumps have been installed at the Empire Gas station, now Citgo, in Montauk and a pump island has been expanded, its application for site plan approval for the expansion remained in limbo on Feb. 4 when the members of the East Hampton Town Planning Board coalesced against a canopy for the island.
The site plan for the expansion was first brought before the board in June of 2012. For more than three years Nancy Keeshan, a member of the board who is in real estate in the hamlet, has been adamant in opposing a canopy, calling it out of character. She has told the board that many Montauk residents had expressed opposition to the structure.
“It breaks my heart. This is my hometown. I would rather not see it look like Riverhead,” Ms. Keeshan said. “I would like to see somebody work with us.”
During work sessions over the years, board members have generally been sympathetic to Ms. Keeshan’s concerns, but they apparently had been constrained by advice from the board’s counsel, John Jilnicki, that aesthetics alone cannot be used to reject a site plan. The architectural review board, he had told the board, covers that.
Richard A. Hammer, a Montauk attorney representing Citgo, addressed the board on Feb. 4, calling the canopy a standard design. “Funny you say that,” Ms. Keeshan said, “because, there are no canopies in Montauk. This would be the very first. When this came back I was kind of surprised because, for months it didn’t seem any suggestions were heard. They fell on deaf ears.”
Reed Jones, the board’s chairman, pointed out that the new pumps appear designed for a canopy since large vertical poles already are in place. However, he pointed out that the A.R.B. had expressed opposition to the canopy in previous memos.
Mr. Hammer told the board that the A.R.B. had already considered the canopy and asked whether it could be lowered to 12 feet. Mr. Mammer explained that would not be possible due to the need for clearance for large trucks and campers.
Marguerite Wolffsohn, the director of the town’s Planning Department, said that Ms. Keeshan was suggesting “that you send your opinion to the A.R.B. If the A.R.B. were to deny the canopy on aesthetics, based on the standards in the code, you could then take the A.R.B.’s resolution, and use that as the basis for your denial.”
Elizabeth Vail, the head town attorney who was sitting in for Mr. Jilnicki that night, concurred with Mr. Jilnicki that the board could not deny the canopy based solely on aesthetics. Two board members, Job Potter and Ian Calder-Piedmonte, then expressed some confusion, with Mr. Calder-Piedmonte noting that the board uses aesthetics routinely when considering questions like screening or lighting.
Acting on the board’s consensus against the canopy, Mr. Jones sent a memo to the A.R.B. on Friday that read, in part, “The planning board still has serious concerns over the impact that the proposed canopy will have to the character of downtown Montauk and feels that the canopy may represent an undesired and inconsistent aesthetic. It was also the consensus of the planning board that, at the very least, alternative designs for the canopy, including those which utilize a pitched and possibly shingled roof, should be considered.” The matter may well be taken up at tonight’s A.R.B. meeting.
The applicants have already received needed zoning board of appeals variances for the structure, due to its proximity to Fort Pond.