clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf

Story - News

Feb 4, 2015 11:23 AMPublication: The East Hampton Press

Tuckahoe Shopping Center Returns, With Supporters

Feb 6, 2015 7:15 AM

The developers of a King Kullen shopping center proposed for County Road 39 in Tuckahoe returned to the Southampton Town Board with their pitch this week, some two years after their most recent appearance. This time, they arrived with a well-organized bevy of project supporters in tow, an effort to counter what has previously been a deluge of opposition to the project.

In contrast to fears about traffic snarls and congestion on now quiet residential streets, representatives of the lead developer, Robert Morrow, tried to color the project as potentially easing traffic congestion and having a less deleterious effect on the flow of County Road 39 than alternative uses of the property.

Mr. Morrow has asked for a change of zone on four properties, totaling just over 7 acres that he and his partners own or have agreements to buy or lease, to make way for the shopping center. The property is currently zoned highway business, which allows for relatively low-traffic businesses, such as appliance retailers, car dealers and restaurants. The developers have asked that their lots be rezoned as shopping center business, a town designation that allows for high-traffic businesses like grocery stores.

Mr. Morrow is partnering with local businessmen Lyle Pike and Lance Nil, and has arranged a 99-year lease with the owner of one of the large lots, Marc Zucchero, who once ran a surf shop on land that his family has owned for decades.

Along with the 40,000-square-foot King Kullen store, the development would have 15,000 square feet of small retail storefronts, a 3,500-square-foot bank building, and more than 200 parking spaces. Mr. Morrow also owns a strip of residentially zoned property bordering the mall, which is not part of the proposed project, but some opponents have said they fear could be targeted for expansion of the shopping center through another zone change request.

The project, a substantially downsized iteration of an earlier King Kullen proposal, has been on hold for nearly two years, awaiting a recently completed study of the County Road 39 corridor. That study warned that the road is at or near its maximum traffic capacity on most days already, and that the town should avoid any projects that would cause slowdowns in travel.

But the study did not specifically warn the town away from the supermarket shopping center already on the table, and representatives of Mr. Morrow said on Tuesday that the as-of-right use of the property, with four separate retail stores or showroom buildings, could mean as many as four driveways connecting to County Road 39, while the grocery store and shopping center would have just two. Having the grocery store in Tuckahoe also would reduce the number of cars traveling other parts of County Road 39 en route to supermarkets in Hampton Bays, Southampton and Bridgehampton, he said.

“A new supermarket does not generate new supermarket customers—those trips it generates were already occurring,” said Patrick Lenihan, a traffic analysis engineer hired by Mr. Morrow. “This will serve the new developments in the area, without those folks having to make much of a trip at all.”

Mr. Lenihan said that his firm’s analysis of supermarket traffic patterns showed that a King Kullen located in Tuckahoe would eliminate 700,000 miles of travel on area roads each year. He acknowledged, however, that most of that decrease would be felt on roads miles from Tuckahoe, while in the immediate vicinity of the shopping center there would be an increase in car trips.

The impacts on the immediate region continued to be the focus of opponents.

“Where this is proposed, on this road, is almost silly,” said resident Tony Zarro. “Zoning laws were put there for a reason. If you want to change it for somebody else’s financial benefit … that is almost immoral.”

“I’ve been going through that intersection for over 20 years—my kids all went to Tuckahoe—and if you’re talking about increasing traffic flow into this area, you’re talking about increasing traffic flow in front of that school,” said Southampton Village Mayor Mark Epley. “And that is a hazard.”

Others warned that the board’s approval of the shopping center would lead to a domino effect, with the owners of other properties along the roadway seeking zone changes and larger developments. The specter of Riverhead’s big-box mecca on County Road 58 was held up several times.

“This project is just the beginning of a larger project,” said Fred Havemeyer. “There’s a lot of land around it. In essence, you are considering, with this zone change, creating a village outside the village. You can think of it as a giant economic sponge: It has been designed by these gentlemen to suck up the business from the surrounding area.”

In stark contrast to prior meetings, however, those who spoke in favor of the project on Tuesday night broadly outnumbered those opposed. Though many of the supporters were clearly acquaintances of one of the developers, some two dozen residents, most of them from Tuckahoe and Southampton village neighborhoods, said they would like to see the King Kullen built in Tuckahoe. Some said that better shopping is needed for the rapidly expanding population on the fringes of the village. Others said the aesthetics of the proposed project, with its 100-foot vegetated buffers from the road, are preferable to the rundown buildings that now populate much of the roadway

“My wife and I currently shop at the King Kullen in Hampton Bays, but we would prefer to shop in Southampton,” said Greg Stanley, who said the village’s current shopping options don’t offer the variety and affordability that a King Kullen does. “From our perspective, we would decrease the traffic on local roads. I can’t shop at Citarella; this would be very helpful to me.”

Several said that they did not see the addition of the shopping center as a cause of traffic worsening on County Road 39. “Everybody in this room is on this road—it’s not going to change because the supermarket is there,” Scott Armusewicz said. “The need for this is here. It’s not going to be hard to get out—you’re already crawling anyway.”

Others pointed to the inevitability of change in the region, particularly in light of dozens of new residential units to be constructed within a mile of the proposed shopping center in the next few years.

“We who live outside the village know the difficulties with shopping at the only supermarket in the village—for many of the basics, we are left with too few options,” said Robert Florio, a resident who has done community outreach on the project for Mr. Morrow, but says he is not paid for his advocacy. “It’s always easier to say no and to bury our head in the sand and wish for things never to change. But I believe that a plan that provides new jobs and focuses on providing the community with everyday needs is far better than a few more luxury car dealerships or big-box furniture stores.”

The public hearing on the proposal will continue at the board’s February 10 meeting.

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

“Where this is proposed, on this road, is almost silly,” said resident Tony Zarro. “Zoning laws were put there for a reason. If you want to change it for somebody else’s financial benefit … that is almost immoral.”
--> this comment I completely agree with
on the other hand:
this comment is logical fallacy! and reminds me of the shallow high school 'technique of "c'mon everybody's doing it"
-->It’s always easier to say no and to bury ...more
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 5, 15 1:39 PM
1 member liked this comment
Get ready for Queen Anna and her puppets on the Town Board to bend over for a developer, AGAIN! Why in the name of all that's Holy can't they just say no to any change of zoning application? The property is zoned for a reason, the developer has no right to build this monstrosity. If it goes through follow the money right to Town Hall.
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Feb 5, 15 1:42 PM
in case I wasn't clear - I think Mr Zarro has summed the situation rather perfectly.
I completely disagree with Mr Florio and I think his logic is actually very incorrect and I attempted to compare it to high school teens ... just because 'everybody else is doing it" doesn't mean we have to succumb to development. (hope people understand my connection)
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 5, 15 1:44 PM
1 member liked this comment
It seems that what you are saying then, is simply "No development". Is that even a solution? No, it isn't. As of right, it’s a commercially developable series of four parcels, so you can’t have "no development" as an option for much longer in any case. As of right, you can have restaurants (Applebee's anyone?), furniture stores, car dealerships, each up to 15,000 sq ft, etc, according to the Press. Which development types serve the community better? If you are simply on the side of "no ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 2:35 PM
2 members liked this comment
my head comes out of the sand for the proposed Strip Club in THAT MALL !!!

By david h (405), southampton on Feb 6, 15 11:05 PM
I have written the Board with these comments.

The Board must consider the relationship and linkage between the EIS and the Corridor Plan. The EIS provides "for potential cross-access to adjoining properties to the east and west, to facilitate movements without the need to enter and exit CR 39" (repeated many times) in accordance with the Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan calls for joint access should be provided BEHIND commercial buildings (p. 82). The Corridor Plan concludes "a goal of ...more
By kilometro27 (1), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 4:21 PM
1 member liked this comment
don't forget the positive outlook for Tuckahoe SD with additional taxes coming it's way
By xtiego (698), bridgehampton on Feb 5, 15 4:38 PM
that is a myth. this mythical 'alleged benefit' is highly offset by way too many other issues.
development is a MASSIVE STRESS on our towns.
these nimby developers come to your town and dump a fake good looking vinyl sided 2x4 framed flammable condo project
expect he town to protect it and maintain it and be overjoyed that new taxpayers are here .. and they just take profits and go home.
increased traffic, increased danger, the public's new responsibility to maintain ...more
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 12, 15 2:25 PM
I think the idea of this mega shopping center is despicable. The traffic will be worst then ever. To say you are already crawling is ridiculous ! . A few miles to Hampton Bays is no big deal.. This is a political deal that has nothing to offer the taxpayer of Southampton except more traffic and congestion!!
By bayview (160), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 6:14 PM
A new supermarket is definitely needed, but not there. The main entrance would be dangerous. It is sited on the west end of a curve at a busy intersection, just where Sandy Hollow enters Rt 39. It's not on a safe straightaway with good sight-lines like King Kullen in Bridgehampton. Its entrance would be between two sets of traffic lights. Shoppers wanting to turn in from the westbound lane will have to stack up in the middle lane and dart between eastbound cars as no light will be there to let ...more
By moonpie (43), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 8:13 PM
A traffic circle at that point of the highway might be a solution to the problem you point out. A good traffic calming measure too.
By Toma Noku (616), uptown on Feb 7, 15 5:52 PM
I have mixed feelings regarding this. I remember the same arguments when they converted Key Food in Hampton Bays and the old Stop and Shop. Neither turned out to be the traffic disaster everyone predicted. But right now Tuckahoe is faced with increased population from new housing. If the population is going to grow, then the neighborhood may need to grow with it. Waldbaums is not the answer. Many of us in Tuckahoe use the same back roads near the proposed King Kullen to get to Waldbaums, ...more
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 8:42 PM
1 member liked this comment
all these condos bring traffic nightmares everywhere ..these cute little once empty bbackroads will soon have traffic lights ..that you pay for and that you maintain.
and the cops lurking for traffic violations, you'll need a few more of them because all these new condo people demand full services. and you pay them a ton of money and you guarantee a sweet pension for them also!
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 7, 15 8:31 PM
yes less people in HB!!
By baymen728 (3), hampton bays on Feb 5, 15 9:40 PM
Less people in Hampton Bays than where? Water Mill and North would still likely go to Bridgehampton KK, Village still has Waldbaums, new store would mostly serve Tuckahoe/Shinn Hills/North Sea. Hampton Bays has two supermarkets easily serving it's community.
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 10:00 PM
Time for CR 39 to get a facelift and keep up with the times and growing population. Any option other than having to go to Waldbaum's is a winner. Hopefully the intersections are designed with some thought and intelligence.
By Mouthampton (439), Southampton on Feb 5, 15 10:23 PM
It is quite obvious from all the studies for decades that this 40,000 sq ft project should not be there, with limitations specified at 15,000 sq ft repeatedly affirmed through zoning law. It is the obvious wisdom of the ages. From this latest study, this is again reaffirmed from the following quote which again is directed at this huge monstrosity and the additional traffic it will create, carefully worded not to offend Queen Anna who obviously wants this project for obvious reasons, but still reasserts ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Feb 6, 15 4:07 AM
1 member liked this comment
What is interesting about the previous comment is how lacking in “obvious-ness” it is. The traffic studies, including the most recent one, and the comprehensive plan from the 70’s are not the laws of Moses (wisdom of the ages?). They are understood to be working documents to be amended over time as facts on the ground change. The 15,000 sq ft restriction was for the four parcels, and if all were developed, according to plan, would equal 60,000 sq ft, as of right. The current 58,500 ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 6, 15 11:03 AM
1 member liked this comment
"What is interesting about the previous comment is how lacking in “obvious-ness” it is. The traffic studies, including the most recent one, and the comprehensive plan from the 70’s are not the laws of Moses (wisdom of the ages?). They are understood to be working documents to be amended over time as facts on the ground change."

So what facts on the ground now makes more high traffic business around Tuckahoe imperative which even Bob Morrow's own study will definitely cause.

All ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Feb 8, 15 4:52 PM
1 member liked this comment
The job of the Town Board is not only to “protect”, but to serve the best interests of its constituents, which includes all of the residents. In this particular case, the needs of the regional community living within the vicinity of this project will be met by what has been revealed to be a well-vetted and well-thought-through shopping center which also meets the guidelines put down by various comprehensive plans, traffic studies, and the stone-cold realities of increasing population ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 9, 15 9:15 AM
This proposed project is about allowing, or not, a zoning change requested by a developer that will set a precedent for development of all highway business parcels in the entire town in the future. It is not just about a new supermarket in Tuckahoe.

It would trade four low traffic highway business zoned building lots for one high traffic shopping center with open land behind it controlled by the developer for a second phase of development in the future, just the way Bridgehampton Commons ...more
By moonpie (43), Southampton on Feb 6, 15 2:00 PM
This concept of “precedent” in this case is not accurate. Just because the town board might approve one project does not mean they have to consider and/or approve a future shopping center zone change, should one come before them on CR 39. Even if it were considered, the new development would have to go through the same years-long steps, including a DEIS, traffic studies, face several rounds of public scrutiny, and additionally prove that there is a need beyond what we would already have ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 6, 15 8:53 PM
Precedent is absolutely accurate. That is why the developer's lawyers and supporters, a number of whom work or will work for him in one way or another if this gets approved, so vehemently say it ain't so. Give one developer a change in zone, others can rightly sue and win to get changes if they are denied. As to the land behind it being safe because it is zoned residential, the developer already tried to propose its being used as a shopping center a few years ago when he asked for a much larger ...more
By moonpie (43), Southampton on Feb 7, 15 6:03 PM
1 member liked this comment
hi- do you have a stake in the project ?
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 7, 15 8:25 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 8, 15 12:06 PM
Certainly everyone has a right to sue, but to what end? If this project is approved, then there will already be a shopping center there, so the next developer proposing something like it would have the additional burden of having to prove to the Town, to the public, and other parties who do the due diligence on these things that there would be some additional need for yet another grocery store in the same area, which just isn’t realistic given some of the things that are being discussed in ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 8, 15 1:03 PM
"If this project is approved, then there will already be a shopping center there, so the next developer proposing something like it would have the additional burden of having to prove to the Town, to the public....that there would be some additional need for yet another grocery store in the same area, which just isn’t realistic given some of the things that are being discussed in the article and in these comments.

Rickenbacker, you are naively sounding (on purpose?) like a grade school ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Feb 10, 15 8:12 AM
15,000 sq ft retail = CVS
By Summer Resident (251), Southampton N.Y. on Feb 7, 15 2:50 PM
When I was a young boy, Southampton had numerous grocery store options.
On Main Street there was Herbert's Market, a small, locally owned market. There was A&P, where Citerella is now. We had Bohacks & Gristedes-oddly enough those locations are now both national pharmacy chains that have the same business models and product lines. Within a block of each other. We also had McLaren's, where Schmidt's is now.
Forty five Years later we have Waldbaums. That’s it.
Citerella doesn't ...more
By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Feb 8, 15 1:42 PM
2 members liked this comment
"Significantly scaled back" my foot. Once morrow gets his zone change and builds his traffic clogging, community killing, riverhead monstrosity, he will follow-up with the 6 acres of residentially-zoned property he already owns right next to this. Tuckahoe will have a 12 acres of suburban blight plopped right down in the middle of its once quiet, residential streets. Sure his paid minions have come out to show their support (Florio), but what is in it for you the taxpayer? Nothing.
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 8, 15 3:47 PM
Really? Actually, since Tuckahoe SD is drowning in overuse/undertaxes this may actually help the taxpayers.
By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Feb 8, 15 6:17 PM
Tuckahoe SD is drowning in undertaxes? Where have you been the last 5 years when it has been clearly established that Tuckahoe taxpayers are way overtaxed compared to Southampton and why many Tuckahoe residents have revolted.

In fact, the reason the merger was rejected twice by Southampton taxpayers was because they felt it was a tax bailout to prevent Tuckahoe insolvency and greatly roll back Tuckahoe overtaxing at the perceived expense of Southampton taxpayers.

We don't have ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Feb 8, 15 9:29 PM
1 member liked this comment
OK, so first, this isn’t a “village” project. This shopping center will benefit more people who live outside the village. Also, where were “you" for the past 5 years when the nearby Bishops Pond residential compound was proposed? Did you become apoplectic over the ever-expanding amount of residents there that would clog your “formerly quiet and serene” village streets? No, you didn’t. Don’t they have to travel those same village roads to get to Waldbaum’s ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 9, 15 9:52 AM
For the record, I was against the Bishops Pond as well as the Sandy Hollow projects. Neither of them were projected to increase the traffic count for Tuckahoe and Southampton anywhere near the huge number the 40,000 sq ft facility will and I saw the reliable estimates a supermarket like this would bring and it was humongous.

Please show evidence that the two projects would create individually anywhere the supermarket would, which is what you imply. The answer is no way you could do that. ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Feb 9, 15 10:36 AM
1 member liked this comment
Rickenbacker, "All commercial properties are improved as part of a drive to make profit"? A bit naive of you. Everything, espcieally "community", "neighborhood", "quality of life" becomes nothing more than a stone to trod upon on the path to profit. Profit is a dirty word, especially when the profit does not benefit those being trampled.
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 9, 15 10:58 AM
I might actually agree with some of what you have to say - if what was being proposed was an Airport for the driving range, or a permanent Six Flags amusement park for the Elks Club property, where community benefit would be far outweighed by corporate interest. But that’s not what we're talking about.

We are instead talking about a modest-sized modern grocery store (at 40,000 sq ft, still relatively quaint by modern supermarket standards), which will provide hundreds of existing ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 10, 15 8:08 AM
Modest? Come on, Rickenbacker, let's at least be honest. Firstly, it is not 40,000 it is nearly 60 thousand with bank, et al. Secondly, the county has consistently and emphatically recommended that all construction on CR39 be limited to 15,000 square feet to avoid increased and intolerable traffic. Morrow is asking for 4 times that amount and you call it modest? Morrow has never proved "need" because it does not exist. Convenience is NOT a community benefit, it is a desire of the lazy and ...more
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 11, 15 2:36 PM
1 member liked this comment
There is a community benefit. Tuckahoe has nothing nice. We have a school that everyone loves to hate and a bunch of strip malls and car dealerships. Tuckahoe Center, if it's anything like the center in Hampton Bays, will be an asset. It will make our roads safer and less traveled, because we don't have to trek to Waldbaums (most of us in Tuckahoe use the back roads to get there), or 10 miles of high accident rate highway driving to get to Hampton Bays. We have one bank in Tuckahoe (a new one ...more
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 11, 15 8:53 PM
im sorry but your rationale is replete with incorrectencies (intentional)
I don't follow .. you think building a 'nice' 40,000 sq ft development will make "our roads safer and less traveled" .. I don't follow .. this development only works if it attracts, ill guess, 3000 visits a day.every day. how does that make anything safe?
what by keeping you off the road to waldbaums? how many times a week are you traveling to waldbaums? if it keeps you from village all together that's actually ...more
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 11, 15 11:15 PM
1 member liked this comment
Lamm, "We don't have anything nice" is NOT a community benefit. A community benefit has nothing to do with satisfying a resident's desire for convenience. Thinking that adding 60,000 of retail space will make roads less travelled is, at best, irrational and almost certainly implies extreme incuriosity.

Satisfying one's desire for convenience and suburban bliss is short-sighted. You want this - and then what? A target? A WalMart? Perhaps both? Stop thinking about how "nice" this ...more
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 12, 15 11:15 AM
1 member liked this comment
I alluded to this in an earlier post: you (witch hazel and david h) argue from a position of either saying “no" to any development, or, if you are addressing the value of this development, are compelled to imagine a dystopian future where your “walmarts", “targets", ‘malls”,”megas", “monstrosities", and "traffic nightmares" are the only natural outcome for CR 39.

Of course, none of that is true or based on anything quantifiable. You can’t ...more
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 12, 15 5:10 PM
1 member liked this comment
Roads safer and less traveled: Anyone who lives in the area no longer has to drive to Hampton Bays or Southampton. Traffic will be slower in the area of the new shopping center, no doubt, which will also decrease the risk of fatalities, as will the fact that many of us in Tuckahoe will not be traveling that road to get to Hampton Bays to shop. People from Hampton Bays will shop in Hampton Bays, People from Water Mill and east will still go to Bridgehampton, yes, Waldbaums may lose some business, ...more
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 12, 15 9:24 PM
It's more than convenience, that space will be developed, what would you prefer? Is there community benefit from a Porsche dealer? I don't think we have a Tesla dealer yet, or perhaps a Harley Davidson showroom, or maybe a new furniture store? Or we can make a few more condo developments and see what that does to our school district. We don't always get to pick and choose. The traffic will be slower, my trip to the pharmacy will be a lot shorter, so will many others. Anyone in north Tuckahoe ...more
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 12, 15 9:31 PM
no dystopian future because its real and its already happened.
bumper to bumper on 27 is one thing. it will soon be cars dangerously on&off high speed 27 from both directions and also from Magee & N Bishop and soon after that flying down Moses lane; just to be bumper to bumper on Hill st.
..hey that's a lot of cars flying past a lot of condos /these new condo owners are going to be quite disappointed beacause they thought they were buying into 'sleepy' neighborhoods.
..and ...more
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 13, 15 10:04 AM
it feels like you just suggested-->

1. develop our quiet wooded area so that increased congestion slows down traffic making everything safer


2. develop this mega mini mall so something worse isn't developed. what/is that what you are saying for real ??

how many pharmacy visits do you really make? which national chain is your favorite?
"decrease the risk of fatalities" HA this is SO SCARY!!! you are acknowledging that we have a high risk area for ...more
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 13, 15 10:31 AM
My"Undertaxes" statement is valid. There are more children going to Tuckahoe SD than the tax base can support. I did not mean that the taxpayers of Tuckahoe pay less taxes. Quite the opposite. There is no way that the Tuckahoe SD can support the number of children attending with the amount of taxed properties.

The merger was rejected by special interest groups made up of property owners that don't have children in the school system. The local residents of both school districts that use ...more
By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Feb 9, 15 6:31 AM
1 member liked this comment
I find it funny that Mayor Epley is against the new shopping center, but the 120 condos his father in law is building half a mile away is ok. I guess you didn't need a traffic study for that project? I'm tired of these so called do what's right for my pocket big mouths coming along and poo pooing anything that doesn't benefit them.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 9, 15 9:43 AM
3 members liked this comment
Not enough grease applied to that squeaky wheel! Changing the parking scheme on Hampton to allow Citerella's to move in , with open arms by the by, shows how things get done in the Village these days!
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Feb 9, 15 9:35 PM
David, you can complain all you want, but we all still have to deal with the fact that those lots WILL be developed. You havent answered the question of what you think should go there. They are nice woods, but they are someone else's woods. And yes, I do acknowledge that people die on those roads...I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't. But your claim that the roads would be less safe is questionable. More cars does not equal more fatalities. More cars means people will drive slower. Clearly we ...more
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 13, 15 11:11 AM
now this is some straightforward direct prose that i can understand!
thank you.
yes i am very saddened and demoralized by the predator nimby developers who come here to rape the land for their own benefit and try to tell us its for our benefit.
saddens me as much as the local story of the 'city' man who preyed on a new widow and bought her 80 acres of family heritage waterfront farmland for 400K.
downright un american swindler ..ooooh but he was allowed to because its 'allowed' ...more
By david.H (2), nyc on Feb 13, 15 11:59 AM
Let me state this very clearly for the convenience of the convenient minded and incurious: S community benefit is defined by law, not individual wants. More specifically: “Community benefits or amenities” shall mean open space, housing for persons of low or moderate income, parks, elder care, day care, or other specific physical, social or cultural amenities"

No line there about making grocery shopping a more pleasant experience for Lamm and her friends. If over-crowding, ...more
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 13, 15 3:17 PM
2 members liked this comment
" But your claim that the roads would be less safe is questionable. More cars does not equal more fatalities. More cars means people will drive slower. Clearly we would all like less development, but that's not gonna happen, so let us know what your plan would be, keeping in mind that it's not going to remain woods."

More cars easily means more fatalities due to the nature of CR 39 where gridlock is not all day and is infamous for speeding from drivers in a hurry, which is why the speed ...more
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Feb 15, 15 7:36 PM
1 member liked this comment
So you think a fair comparison is a King Kullen, and an Indian Casino? You are the poster boy of why no one trusts tree hugging Liberals. They lie, lie lie
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 13, 15 12:04 PM
nope. that was really how you read it?
I don't follow the 2nd sentence..i get the insult but I dint know that no one trusts tree huggers.
I also get that sarcasm, joking and dry humor and subtlety is very difficult to successfully convey in chats. I shouldn't have made that joke.
but a straight forward comment instead. albeir difficult when one gets all worked up and passionate..

I don't want a KK or a casino. or a condo development.
I am ok with a quarry fro ...more
By david.H (2), nyc on Feb 13, 15 12:28 PM
Chief, you use the word liberal in the same manner as teenagers use "like", in the lazy manner of someone without ideas
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 13, 15 3:19 PM
Marlin, not very clever of you, considering you do not write a reply that does not include the word Obama. You and chief should find a new joke writer.
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 16, 15 10:07 AM
Witch Hazel, debating with you always gets old really fast, since you talk down to all who disagree with you. You strongly believe that you are all knowing, so I will end it here with you. David, I understand your point, I think you have valid concerns, I just don't think they're realistic at this moment. Although we don't agree on whether or not a supermarket would a benefit to the community, clearly I never indicated that I thought a strip club or casino would be a good idea, so that wasn't ...more
By lamm (304), Southampton on Feb 13, 15 6:26 PM
2 members liked this comment
"Convenience, convenience, convenience, convenience . . ." You live in a place with an embarrassment of "conveniences" all around you. Within a seven mile radius you have 4 grocery stores, farmers markets, deli's . . . But that is never enough for the convenience-craving junkies who cannot think beyond their own wants to consider the greater need.

Think about the hollow craveness of those demanding more convenience in a place that was once a retreat from the suburban mind set of "gimme ...more
By witch hazel (224), tatooine on Feb 16, 15 10:05 AM
Hence the request for a zone change for a specific modification to the "defined law". It's not mega, it's not a mall. From a non-legalese point of view, it provides all the common sense community benefit that has been discussed. I respectfully disagree with you witch hazel. I hope this application gets approved!
By Rickenbacker (257), Southampton on Feb 16, 15 11:34 AM
Obviously if the developer puts up millions of dollars the project is needed. If thousands of people shop at the new center every week than it is a success, and was needed by citizens.
Where were you Witch Hazel when they were building 125 condo's half a mile away in a residential area? Main highways are where King Kullens belong, and our population requires a shopping center. When the new center is built continue to go to all the rip off dirty markets in Southampton.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 16, 15 11:42 AM
if a casino and gentlemans club gets built and it makes a few people rich doesn't mean it was needed
By david h (405), southampton on Feb 16, 15 4:48 PM