MINUTES OF MEETING Of THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF SAGAPONACK IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND STATE OF NEW YORK

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF MEETING Of THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF SAGAPONACK IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND STATE OF NEW YORK A regular monthly meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Sagaponack was held at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 20 Sagg Main Street, Sagaponack, N.Y. The meeting was called to order by William Tillotson with a flag salute. Those members present were Joy Sieger, Donald Louchheim, Lee Foster, and Alfred Kelman. Also present were Village Clerk Rosemarie Cary Winchell, Village Attorney Anthony B. Tohill and Village Planner Rich Warren. Due to the limitations of the Village Hall, each applicant was scheduled at a specific time. I. Approval of Minutes It was decided not to approve the minutes from the January 23, 2008 at this time as all members and the Village Attorney had not had time to review them. II. New Business A. Agricultural Fencing 6:00PM 1. Dietrich Weisman 556 Sagg Main Street Building permit application for installation of an 8ft. high agricultural Fencing as per Section D (3) of the Village Code Attorney, Ms. Kieran Pape Murphree, presented the application to the Board for the applicant. She explained that the applicant proposed to install an 8 foot height deer fence to protect the crops of her tenant. She said the fence will be set approximately 125 feet off of Sagg Main so it is not ready visible from that street. It is at least 65 feet away from the neighbor s property. She Planning Brd Minutes , Page 1of 11

2 also noted that the Weismans own parcels to the south of the subject parcel and there are agricultural lands bordering it. Ms. Murphree presented pictures to the Board of what the fencing material would look like. Mr. Tillotson noted that it would actually be screened by tall pines. Mr. Louchheim noted that this was the first application that the Planning Board has reviewed for a deer fence. He stated that he had concerns about the fence once the property was no longer being used for agriculture. Mr. Louchheim wondered whether the Planning Board could attach conditions on the approval which would require the fence to be removed once that property was no longer being farmed. Ms. Murphree stated that there was nothing in the code which required the fence to be removed at a certain time. She asked if the Board was suggesting a year; that if the land was not farmed for a year then the fence would need to be removed. Mr. Tillotson noted that if the land was leased to a farmer, then to have the land lay fallow for a year was not uncommon and that would be acceptable. However, if it is no longer leased to a farmer or if the owner is not farming the land himself, then the fence would need to be removed. He does not want the fence to be used for anything other then agriculture. He stated that an agricultural fence is tied to agriculture. Mr. Louchheim stated that the Board wanted some way of insuring that if the land is taken out of agriculture and is not being actively farmed, then there is no reason for a deer fence and that the deer fence would be removed. Mr. Tohill stated that the Board had a right to put conditions on the approval of the fence. Ms. Murphree asked Mr. Tohill if he was suggesting a covenant to which she replied she did not believe that was necessary. Mr. Kelman noted that the community would look upon it as a valuable addition if it is being used. If it is not being used, it becomes an eyesore. Mr. Louchheim asked the question to Mr. Tillotson and Ms Foster what they thought was a reasonable time period. Ms. Foster suggested 2 years as it would provide for the rotation of the crops and that time frame also sits well with New York State Ag District. It would also give the farmer leniency if he runs into some difficulty with Planning Brd Minutes , Page 2of 11

3 the crops that are being grown if Ags and Markets come in with some type quarantine. If the land lies fallow for 2 years then it is the responsibility of the owner to remove the fence or cut it done to the four foot height. Bill Tillotson made a motion seconded by Alfred Kelman to approve the permit for the fence subject to the condition that within 2 years (24 months) if the land is not in agriculture it must be removed or cut down to the four foot height limit. The motion was approved unanimously with Lee Foster abstaining. B. Revegetation Plan 6:30PM 1. Natasha Elkon Houze 868 Sagg Main Street Proposed revegetation plan for clearing the subject parcel which, pursuant to Section B of the Village Code, should have received site plan approval prior to clearing Steven Sanabria from the office of John Laffy, Architect, presented the application to the Board for the applicant. Mr. Sanabria presented the revegetation plan to the Board as well as the existing shrubs. He noted that the existing trees consist of cedars, maples and shrub oaks and the rest of the lot is bramble. Anything 6 inches trunk diameter or smaller was not identified on the survey. The Board reviewed the proposed revegetation plan presented. Mr. Tillotson noted that all the trees presented on the reveg plan are referred to as bare root. He asked Mr. Sanabria what the expected survival rate would be. Mr. Sanabria stated that he was not sure but that he believed it was more with the bare root. Mr. Tillotson noted that typically bare root trees of this nature have a very low survival rate. He stated that it was possible to make them live but most people would not pay anybody to run the hose on them they way you would have to to make them live. Planning Brd Minutes , Page 3of 11

4 Ms. Foster noted that there was a lot of plant material. She asked Mr. Sanabria if they expect some attrition to which Mr. Sanabria replied that they did. Mr. Tohill noted that the Board could not approve the revegetation plan without an irrigation plan. The plan calls for liners and he stated that liners do not survive in this climate absent irrigation for a period of time and there is no feature where the survival rate is an element of the revegetation. Ms. Foster asked if the Board would be requiring the applicant to revegetate the land to this extent. The Village Clerk and the Village Attorney explained that according to the code, if a property owner clears more than 2,000 sq feet of the property and it is not directly as a result of acquiring a building permit first, then a site plan review is required by the Planning Board. Mr. Louchheim asked Mr. Tohill what the object of the Board would be. Mr. Tohill stated that the objective would be to restore the property to a vegetated condition. Mr. Sanabria stated that he thought the list of plants came from Marty Shea of the Town of Southampton. Mr. Tohill stated that it very well may have but the problem is that the plan states that they are bare root as opposed to balled and burlapped. And the survival rate for these plants would require that you have a programmatic irrigation system and there is no plan for that submitted. The Board would like the following items addressed by the applicant before considering an approval: A revised plant specifications listing more mature balled and burlapped material Guarantee 2 year survival with a bond or cash Irrigation plan Owner s preference as to when revegetation should be done; now or as a condition of a building permit or as a condition of a C of O. Bill Tillotson made a motion seconded by Don Louchheim to adjourn this application to Monday, March 17, 2008 at 6:00pm. It was unanimously adopted. III. Old Business A. Subdivisions 7:00PM Planning Brd Minutes , Page 4of 11

5 1. Sagaponack Realty, LLC 451 Daniels Lane Discussion of pre-application for subdivision application of a acre of land located on the southeast intersection of Daniels Lane and Peters Pond Lane Mr. Joe Lombardi of the Raynor Group, the surveyors and engineers for the applicant, presented the application to the Board along with the applicant s attorney, Bill Esseks. Mr. Lombardi explained to the Board that the revised maps identified the front yards, rear yards and side yards as well as the set backs for all the principal building envelopes and the accessory structures for each lot. Mr. Louchheim noted that of the 10 items that the Board asked of the applicant at the January 23 rd Planning Board meeting, they had addressed the following: removal of all the hedges on Daniels Lane and the first 300 feet of the hedges on the east side of Peters Pond Lane as one proceeds south from Daniels Lane removal of the berms and landscaping in the reserved area and area to be restored removal of marl surface over existing driveway elimination of access for any lot to Peters Pond Lane waiver of yield plan identification of front yards Mr. Tohill noted that he noticed a few items that were not addressed on the maps which the Board would like to see. They are: the description of the common access to serve not only the subject parcels (lots 1,2,3 & 4) but also the parcel immediately to the contiguous east the dimension of any structure that could be built in the nature of an agricultural structure on the Peconic Land Trust easement area. Mr. Tohill noted that this was in particular interest to the Board at last month s meeting because the present PLT easement allows for a 60,000 sq ft building which the Board found to be too large. Mr. Louchheim noted and the Board agreed that the Board also wanted to see a building envelope for the agricultural building. Mr. Tohill noted that it would be part of the 60,000 square foot element. Mr. Tillotson continued the discussion of the size of the agricultural building. He stated that in terms of the scale of agriculture, a 6,000 square foot building would be more than you would need for this parcel. Planning Brd Minutes , Page 5of 11

6 Mr. Lombardi asked what size building the Board would approve if the applicant wanted to have a horse farm. He wanted to know what size stable would be acceptable. He noted that they would need a larger building then 6,000 square feet. Mr. Tohill noted that a way to address this issue would be to convert gross square footage specifications in the easement and then say that any agricultural structure could be built provided that improvements would be approved by the Planning Board. He stated that Mr. Lombardi would come back with guidelines that would be reasonable for that type of structure. It was noted also noted that the horse farm might require multiple structures such as lean-tos, shelters, etc. to protect horses during storms. The present PLT easement does not provide for that. This amendment would make it more flexible and more building specific. Mr. Tohill noted that nobody would be losing any position; the Village gets to preserve an opportunity to approve the structures and the property owner gets the flexibility he needs because he may not plan to be the farmer. Mr. Lombardi was asked to come back with some guidelines for the Board to consider. Mr. Tohill noted that it should just be standard as if it were a special exception use keeping in mind that it would be preserved forever as an agricultural parcel. The Board is very interested in preserving this vista views. Mr. Tillotson noted that the point about needing shelter was a valid one as long it was kept to the low end of the property to preserve some kind of view. He noted that the flexibility this offers may not be a bad thing. Mr. Kelman asked what the Board was proposing as the maximum size of the agricultural building. Mr. Tohill noted that there was not a specific size set. What would happen is that the language currently in the PLT would be amended to eliminate the 60,000 square feet, instead we would insert a set of guidelines that the Board would use in the future and the property owner and its successors so that it would be done on a building specific, agricultural use specific basis instead of in a vague way. Mr. Kelman asked whether or not the Board could end up legitimizing an indoor competition arena? Mr. Tohill stated that the answer was no. What the Board was looking for is a traditional agricultural use. You are trying to preserve what the PLT easement does now with the understanding that the 60,000 square feet that scared the Board would not continue to be a threat to anybody. Planning Brd Minutes , Page 6of 11

7 Mr. Esseks asked if the issue would be triggered when a building permit would be applied for. Mr. Tohill responded that it would not. Whenever the property owner decides to come in and build a building on the reserved area, they would come to the Planning Board and would submit an application similar to a special exception use although it would not be a special exception use. Mr. Lombardi will draft the standards keeping in mind that the Board wants a public vista preserved; they want traditional agriculture which is not a spectator sport. The Board indicated that they would like the building placed in the lower southeast portion of the preserved area. Mr. Lombardi noted that that area might be a problem because there is a swale that goes through that part of the property. He indicated that it may need to be place to the southwest of the preserved area which the Board stated that they did not have a problem with as long as it was to the south. Mr. Lombardi noted that they had contacted the adjacent parcel owner s attorney on the common access issue and are waiting to here back from them to see whether or not they are interested. Another issue that was brought up by the applicant is while he is agreeing to remove the dirt road he wants to make sure he still has the ability to put in a farm road if one is needed when this is farmed. He does not want the farming industry to use the common driveways for the lots. The Board agreed that they saw no problem with that. The Board did note that the marl had to be removed however. Mr. Tohill suggested that there be an amendment to the Peconic Land Trust with the understanding that any construction of a road will be limited to specifications that would be stated in the amendment and that it would be done with application without a hearing by mere letter notification and map to the Planning Board. Mr. Lombardi asked whether this application could be declared complete at the next meeting. Mr. Tohill stated that it could with the understanding that the SEQRA process would start simultaneously. Mr. Lombardi asked if the Board wanted him to revise the map to show a building envelope on the preserved area. He was told no. The only revision to the map would be the approval of the common access driveway with the adjacent easterly property. Planning Brd Minutes , Page 7of 11

8 Mr. Tohill then stated the following: 1. The Village Clerk would refer this map to the Planning Commission 2. Mr. Lombardi will prepare language amending the PLT easement with respect to 60,000 square feet, no requirement set to locate a building envelope for a barn or similar structure instead Mr. Lombardi will return the next few days or the following week with language that will provide guidelines for the Planning Board s eventual consideration of any agricultural structure on the property. Mr. Lombardi would supply Mr. Tohill with language for an amendment to the PLT easement addressing the location of a agricultural road on the preserved area with the understanding that any such application of the agricultural road would be approved or reviewed by the Planning Board with the proviso that no public hearing would be necessary and that application could be made by mere letter basis. The matter is also adjourned with the understanding that this application will be deemed complete at the March meeting of the Planning Board and that the SEQRA process will start on that date and that the Board will adopt a resolution setting a public hearing scheduling a public hearing for the April meeting and otherwise the matter will be adjourned to the March 17, Mr. Tillotson made a motion to hold over the application with those provision until the March 17, 2008 Planning Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Lee Foster and unanimously adopted. 7:30PM 2. Schwenk Family Limited Partnership 3491 Montauk Highway Discussion of pre-application for subdivision application of a acre of land located on the south side of Montauk High Mr. Bob Smith of Squires and Holden represented the applicant. Mr. Schwenk addressed the Board. He noted that they redrew the map and cleaned up some of the details. They noted that they pushed the lots if further to the south and addressed what he believed to be the Board s concerns as well as his own concerns. He believes it is a much cleaner, tighter package then the last one. And the lots are amenable to his liking and the Village s proposal of placing all the lots along the southern boarder of the property are not. Planning Brd Minutes , Page 8of 11

9 Mr. Smith noted that by adjusting the lines they were able to move the lots 110 feet further to the south. He noted that he did not believe the vista coming from the east was an issue because the first thing your eyes fix on is the restaurant then you travel up the hill and your eyes tend to move towards the road and the existing buildings. He did not believe that vista was an issue. He believed that this proposal still allowed for an open space vista coming from the west. He also noted that it addressed Mr. Schwenk s concerns about having a long line farming to the east of the property and, if the northerly most lots wanted to have a horse farm, they could lease the open space just to the north of the those lots and there is also an area for a farm stand on the most northerly portion of the parcel. Mr. Smith also noted that the configuration of the lots in southeastern portion of the lot allow for a more flexible building envelope for each lot. Mr. Smith also noted that the road on this proposal was slighter longer due to the lots being moved more to the south. This also allowed for water to be diverted into the low point of the property for better drainage control. Mr. Tillotson noted that he thought with so many flag lots it might pit neighbor against neighbor with the increase traffic due to construction or parties. Mr. Smith noted that they could split the four flag lot accesses by moving the access for lots 4 & 5 between lots 2 & 3. The Board agreed that the current proposal was better. Mr. Louchheim stated that he would like to have Rich Warren s input on this design. Mr. Tillotson stated that he was okay with the design. He noted that he did not want to see trees or hedges lining the road as he believed that the whole view concept would disappear. He stated that he was not sure what the Board could do exactly but he suggested having a covenant to say that it can not be a nursery, growing trees. Mr. Schwenk did not agree with that and stated that the Board would be tying his hands too much. Mr. Tohill stated that the evil that the Board is seeking to remedy isn t to control what crops you can grow but instead to preserve the view. He stated that the Board could impose a condition prohibiting a fence that blocks the view including a living fence or a privet hedge. Mr. Tohill noted that the board is trying to make sure that the view from the road that s enjoyed is enjoyed in the future. They are not trying to regulate the crops that are grown and so it is a typical condition. Planning Brd Minutes , Page 9of 11

10 The Board then discussed an agricultural building, its size and placement on the agricultural reserve. Mr. Smith stated that they would come back with a proposal for the agricultural building. Mr. Tohill noted that the following items would need to be addressed by the applicant: 1. the long form EAF Part I would need to be revised to address the longer road 2. lot 1 building envelope 3. that there will be no park reservation on property 4. discussion that there would be no hedging of the perimeter 5. Disussion that there would be no street trees on the road 6. the need for further discussion about the location and size and envelope for any agricultural structure 7. discussion that is not complete to preserve northerly half of the open space as mere open space not to be improved by any type of structure including agricultural structures Mr. Tohill stated that he believed that the sense of everyone is that at the March meeting the Board would consider a complete application resolution. The next thing would be to set a public hearing at the March meeting for the April meeting all subject to review by Rich Warren. Otherwise the matter this evening would be to adjourn subject to these issues to the next Planning Board meeting on March 17, Mr. Schwenk asked if that precluded him from planting trees on the driveway. It was made clear that it precluded it from the road but not the driveways of the lots. Mr. Tillotson made a motion to hold over the application with those provision until the March 17, 2008 Planning Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Joy Sieger. Ms. Foster abstained. The motioned was adopted. A resolution was offered to adjourn the meeting by Mr. Tillotson and seconded by Ms. Foster and unanimously adopted. Time noted: 7:50pm ROSEMARIE CARY WINCHELL Village Clerk Planning Brd Minutes , Page 10of 11

11 Planning Brd Minutes , Page 11of 11