Greenport delays planned vote on proposed zoning changes

Amidst near universal confusion over the details and implications of a broad series of Greenport Village zoning changes, a planned vote on the proposal will be delayed, according to Mayor Kevin Stuessi — though it was not immediately clear for how long. The mayor also issued a nine-page outline of the proposed changes this week, following complaints that few could understand and absorb the 95-page document.

Mr. Stuessi, who campaigned on the need for a development moratorium and extended one as mayor, has said the board will lift the moratorium at the end of the summer but it remains in place, pending the proposed changes.   

 The impasse between the board and the business community is at least in part the result of timing: the newly-configured Village Board took office in April and launched into an aggressive set of surveys, informational meetings, committees and subcommittees to look at the waterfront, village codes, parking and other issues key to Greenport’s future, including the creation of a new, public-facing communications committee.

The subcommittee working on code changes, headed by Ms. Phillips, has been meeting since January. The public information campaign got underway just as the busy summer season was approaching.

For their part, village officials said the proposed changes are long in coming.

“This is the fourth public hearing that we have had on this subject,” Mr. Stuessi said at last Thursday’s meeting.

“We have done two information sessions over the past couple of weeks as well — which were specifically requested by the business improvement district — to try and answer some additional questions. As part of that, there have been numerous other community meetings over the past many months, where the village has taken significant feedback from both business owners and residents alike.”

Mr. Stuessi went on to say that “the code committee has met over 35 times before they brought recommendations to the board … Together with that, there were literally hundreds of hours that went into those recommendations by the committee, separate and apart from the public meetings, together with a significant amount of review with counsel and others.”

He concluded that after the Greenport Business Improvement District contacted the village board in mid-August, seeking an additional meeting on the proposed changes, village officials responded with a total of five meetings.  

Like nearly every other speaker at the meeting, Greenport BID president Nancy Kouris hailed all the hard work from the code committee and the village board, but said that early fall was no time to take a vote on such critical changes — since most business owners were so busy they couldn’t attend meetings or follow the committee’s machinations closely over the summer.

“Because we do have a vibrant and robust summer season, establishments that work so very hard during this time and year-round deserve the respect of the village to take as much time as needed to get this right for business and property owners,” she said. 

“The village has promised a FAQ to help decipher some of the legal zoning jargon so lay people can better understand this 100-page behemoth of code changes,” she continued. “Up until this point, the BID has informed our membership of meetings, open comments and directed them to the zoning changes and amendments. Questions such as, ‘Is there an economic impact statement? Has the parking in Greenport been assessed by an outside party? Is the payment in lieu of parking legal if funds do not specifically go to a fund for adding and addressing parking?’”

Ms. Kouris, co-owner of Blue Duck Bakery on Front Street, told the board that “holding a vote on these code changes now would not only be premature but extremely unwise.

“The Greenport Business Improvement District will use legal counsel and the strength of the organization to uphold the rights of the property owners and businesses in the district. We do not support the code change in its entirety at this time.”

After the meeting, Ms. Kouris said the BID has “earmarked some money for a legal fund,” but at present isn’t planning legal action against the village.

Leading the business community’s litany of objections at last Thursday’s public hearing was a plan to charge fees between $25,000 and $50,000 per parking space for many new or “substantially” expanded businesses that can’t create on-site parking.

Among other controversial proposed changes is the creation of a mandatory entertainment permit for village businesses that want to showcase live entertainment.

Dozens of business owners turned out at the meeting to argue against imminent passage of the plan.

“The current concept, while supposedly intended to give pause to large scale developers, has the potential to do the very opposite, as large developers look at this as an ugly but needed component of what amounts to a portfolio play,” Little Creek Oyster Farm & Market owner Ian Wile told the board. “That is, their concerns are less about will they remain profitable day to day versus will the property and resulting business become more valuable?”

Mr. Wile took particular issue with a provision that tied the number of necessary parking spaces, in part, to the number of employees.  

“Tying parking to the number of employees … sends a terrible message to new and current businesses that fewer employed persons [are] a benefit to this village. It also explicitly reinforces the false narrative that employees and customers are not residents of this village. While I understand code changes cannot be looked at with regards to individual property … the kinds of activities we have now, that we enjoy, wouldn’t be able to have started under [the proposed changes].”

Resident Julia King, a singer-songwriter who performs in the village, said she regretted that she couldn’t more actively participate in zoning change discussions over the summer, but said that’s when she is busiest.

“What the code looks like to me is that it’s creating a time capsule, a little bit, of businesses,” she said. “It seems like it’s freezing the businesses that currently exist, and making it almost impossible for them to ever grow and change.

“They really have to save their money if they wanted to expand their footprint by even 500 square feet. Any new construction or renovation that requires a site plan, it seems to me, is subject to these extortionary parking fees … If we think that won’t be reflected on the businesses that will eventually occupy these spaces, we are greatly mistaken. It only opens up the opportunity … for very large companies to come in, very wealthy investors … and that will be an already expensive place to build in, but completely out of reach for the people of this community trying to save their money to do so.”

1943 Pizza Bar owner Matthew Michel told the board that the proposed parking requirements would jettison plans of his that were years in the making.

“I have 1943 Pizza bar [at 308 Main St.],” he said. “And we have 400 Main St., which I bought roughly five years ago. Our intention is to move our business over. And we have roughly, depending on the time here, 20 to 40 employees. And we were looking at doing roughly 100 to 120 seats.

“In order to do that — I did some calculations today — it would cost us roughly $1.3 million. Before we even started building. Just for parking spaces.”

Resident Bridget Elkin, a local realtor, said the proposed changes seem aimed at maintaining the status quo.

“I just feel that there is an entrepreneurial spirit that keeps this village ticking, and I feel like it’s missing in this in this [proposed] code [changes],” she told the board. “I am told the village has 55 restaurants, which includes delis and ice cream shops. And is that a lot? Yes.

“But as much as the working waterfront has been our identity in the past, [over] the past decade or even 15 years, restaurants and eating is also a part of our identity. And so I feel that to artificially cap the number of new restaurants that can come in without facing huge restrictions is just sort of … I just think we should have the market forces address that. I just think we’re messing too much with market forces. And it’s going to have an anti-competitive and sort of keep the status quo effect.”

One resident at the meeting told the board she supports and appreciates the proposed zoning code changes.

“I just want to thank you so much,” said Randy Wade. “I’ve been following this from the beginning, and I know everybody doesn’t have that opportunity. But I have really enjoyed the meetings … and what nobody’s mentioned is that there are currently huge holes in the code. And this addresses them.

“The village is really at risk of being transformed if the code does not change, in a way that really nobody in this room would want to see. And so, I understand your process and I know the moratorium is going to be over soon. So I urge you to pass something now.”