Nobody wants to live next to a nightclub, but apparently nobody wants to live next to a mixed-use building either. At least that was the vibe at a public hearing before the East Hampton Town Planning Board last week, where residents sounded off on a proposed change of use to a building at 44 Three Mile Harbor Road.
Cilvan Realty plans to knock down the 5,000-square-foot, one-story structure, a longtime home to nightclubs, and build a two-story structure on the same foundation. Its 6,688-square-foot lower level would house a “wet-use” retail store, possibly a market, while the 3,200-square-foot upstairs would be used for offices and two affordable housing units.
“The application is kind of farcical,” said David Buda, speaking at the hearing. He said the applicants should have taken a fresh look at the property and moved the building to the center, since there are only seven feet between it and a property to the north. “The whole building should have been planned to be demolished,” Mr. Buda said, as it would be hard to save and reuse the foundation.
However, by doing just that, the applicant is able to take advantage of the foundation’s nonconforming location on the lot.
“Extinguishing a nightclub is appealing,” said Jaine Mehring, “because it was a nuisance. But we do not want to eliminate one nuisance, that was nighttime and seasonal, and replace it with an ongoing, 12 hours or more a day, 365 days a year nuisance.” The Zoning Board of Appeals granted two variances for the building last year, she noted, but if it is altered materially, the Z.B.A. would need to review the changes.
The plans have indeed been altered enough since the variances were granted, Ms. Mehring maintained, to warrant that review. She said that John Whelan, who was chairman of the Z.B.A. in 2022, had warned that the building might not be able to withstand reconstruction. “He said, if 90 percent goes in the Dumpster, this would need to be rebuilt and become conforming.”
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the proposal three times, she noted, and “remains opposed to the mass and scale of this project and “unwilling to approve the design.” While two new affordable-housing units were included, she wondered how many people would be employed by the new market, and if they would even be paid enough to live in the building. The planning board needed to analyze “the potential affordable housing deficit that this project will actually create,” she said. “This is two bedrooms, but there’s a 2,000-unit deficit in the town. How many new employees will be required by a market of this size? Thirty? Fifty? Will they get paid enough to live here?”
More than a dozen residences horseshoe around the property, said Betsy Petroski, who lives on nearby Jackson Street. She worried about increased daytime traffic and said the roomy second story would loom over neighboring locations. Box trucks pulling into a parking lot with only one entrance would prove problematic as well, she said. “I implore the Planning Department to rethink allowing the current footprint to stay in place.”
Mr. Buda, coming to the microphone a second time, asked that town planners prepare a sketch of “what a conforming building envelope could yield,” honoring the required setbacks.
He also noted that the A.R.B. didn’t like the affordable housing units. “I don’t think two affordable housing apartments in this location solves any significant deficit in the town’s affordable housing needs,” he said. “This building would be better without the housing; it seems to be the tail wagging the dog, and shouldn’t be forced upon the applicant.”
Rick Whalen, speaking for Cilvan Realty, pushed back. The parcel that was only seven feet away from the building was a former machine shop, he told the board. “I don’t think they’re going to be bothered by what we’re doing,” he said. “The building is not decrepit, and it’s not falling down.” He pointed to an engineer’s letter from 2021 that said the “foundation could handle the loading of a two-story building — the foundation is sound and can be reused. That is our intention.”
The 5,400-square-foot basement would be used only for storage, passageway, and mechanicals for the heating and air-conditioning units. “You can’t even have the store office down there, it’s not legal,” Mr. Whalen said.
The A.R.B. has yet to make a final decision, he stressed, and he disputed Ms. Petroski’s and Ms. Mehring’s criticism of the mass and scale of the proposed building. Citing the nearby Bates Masi building, and adjusting for the area of the lot, showed the Cilvan building was comparable, Mr. Whalen said.
He seemed most bothered by disparagements of the affordable housing units. “Anyone who doesn’t think we need to start somewhere with affordable housing hasn’t been paying attention,” he said. If the A.R.B. had an issue with the mass and scale of the building itself, however, it would make most sense to the owner, he said, to remove the apartments, since economically they were useless.
Nonetheless, he said, “We’re going to fight for them.”
When Mr. Buda tried for a third time to come to the microphone and submit for the record quotes made by the owners about tearing the building down, Samuel Kramer, the board chairman, stopped him.
“Whatever was stated in a public meeting of the A.R.B. is in the record, and this board can understand,” he said.
“I think we’re here to hear from the public,” said Randy Parsons, a board member, who thought Mr. Buda’s submission should be added to the record.
Instead of arguing, Mr. Kramer asked Sharon McCobb, a board member, to make a motion to close the hearing. The board agreed, 6-to-1, with Mr. Parsons the lone vote willing to keep it open.
