The East Hampton Town Planning Board inched closer to approving plans for the Beckmann Commercial building in Montauk at its Feb. 7 meeting, months after it became clear that the finished building would change significantly not only from its original site plan approval, but a later modification as well.
Molly Miosek, who hopes to open a veterinary practice in the 94 South Euclid Avenue building, has thus far been prevented from moving in, and has orchestrated both a social media and letter-writing campaign accusing the planning board of holding up her application.
“This isn’t the project that was approved, plain and simple,” Ed Krug, a planning board member, said in addressing her complaints. “The planning board is not holding this up — we’re trying to backtrack and make this right — this is not our favorite kind of thing.”
After a November meeting in which some problems were resolved, the board discussed four outstanding issues: the building’s height; whether a sidewalk needed to connect with its neighbor and be A.D.A. compliant, whether the landscaping plan was appropriate, and, most contentiously, if a plan to fix a back alleyway, the elevation of which is changed dramatically from the approved plans, is sufficient.
The height of the building was determined to be in compliance, and board members agreed that a landscaping plan relying on trees, rather than bushes, made sense for the corner parcel, because it would give drivers more visibility as they round a curve.
The sidewalk and the back alleyway, however, both received more debate. “We’ve been trying to make this South Euclid Avenue sidewalk situation better across multiple projects for years,” Mr. Krug said. “And here’s another missed opportunity.”
The sidewalk, said Andy Hammer, a lawyer speaking for Beckmann Commercial, “was for internal circulation on the site. It wasn’t designed to provide connectivity” to neighboring parcels. “The best solution,” he suggested, “is to say, hey, it looks nice.”
“That sidewalk is a mess,” Michael Hansen, a board member, remarked before acknowledging that “there’s probably nothing we can do about it now.”
What could be improved was the back alleyway. Because it had been raised nearly two feet higher than originally planned, there is a drop between it and a neighbor’s parcel. To stop stormwater from running to the neighbor’s lot, a lip, or curb, was installed along its edge, preventing the neighbor from accessing the back of his property, where he has parked for decades.
The town owns the alley, and Drew Bennett, a town engineering consultant, described a plan that would account for stormwater runoff and allow the neighbor to access his back lot. “We’ve come up with, not an ideal solution, but probably the best solution,” he told the board. The curb would be removed, and the asphalt cut back a few feet to allow for regrading. “There will be a smooth transition to allow someone to drive over,” Mr. Bennett said. Two drainage dry wells would be installed to collect runoff before it reaches the neighbor’s backyard.
“So, what they’ve been doing for decades they can now resume doing?” asked Louis Cortese, a board member.
“They can park behind their property,” Mr. Bennett confirmed.
Dr. Miosek chose not to address the divergences in the site plan, instead painting herself as the victim, and went on the attack against the neighbor.
“We purchased the property from my mother-in-law thinking we’d do something good for Montauk,” she said, “and all we’ve done since we purchased that property has been belittled and dragged through the dirt by the likes of many people.”
She continued, raising her voice as she referred to Tom McMorrow, who lives next door. “He doesn’t have the right to yell at us about his lack of ability to get to a parking spot that doesn’t exist, and never has. Look it up!”
Tina Vavilis LaGarenne, East Hampton Town’s assistant planning director, told the board that the neighbor’s property, at 813 Montauk Highway, was built before site plan approval was required. So, she said, while it’s true that the parcel has no demarcated parking spots, the town understands that parking has historically occurred at the back of the lot, and it is not a prohibited use — a fact acknowledged by Mr. Hammer.
“A lot of Montauk was developed outside of site plan review. That’s why Montauk is a little bit funky,” he commented.
Should the property at 813 Montauk Highway sell, and if a new owner wished to make improvements, they would need site plan approval, just as Dr. Miosek did, and parking would be addressed. “That alley is one that is commonly and historically used for access to the businesses adjacent to it, consistent with many of the blocks in Montauk,” Ms. Vavilis LaGarenne wrote in an email.
“The alley is perfect, you know why? Because my husband is a landscaper,” Dr. Miosek said. “We worked with two engineers to make that alley and it’s perfect just the way it is. That water runs perfect. Nothing should be done to that alley.”
The next step is for the town to receive approval from the owner of 813 Montauk Highway to conduct work in the alleyway, as the work will include regrading a part of the owner’s yard.
