MINUTES OF THE MONTHLY MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF SAGAPONACK October 11, 2016 A duly held meeting of the Board of Trustees was held at the Village Hall at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 11, 2016. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Donald Louchheim with a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Those members present were Deputy Mayor Lee Foster and Trustees Joy Sieger, Lisa Duryea Thayer and William Barbour. Also present was Village Clerk/Treasurer Rosemarie Cary Winchell, Village Attorney Anthony Tohill, Village Planner Rich Warren and Village Engineer Drew Bennett. PUBLIC HEARING 3:00PM I. Subdivision Pre-Application of 40 Narrow Lane, LP Ms. Winchell noted that the application for 40 Narrow Lane LP was withdrawn by the applicant and therefore the public hearing has been cancelled. LAND PLANNING ITEMS OLD BUSINESS Site Plan Daniel Barry 85 Old Farm Lane 908-1-1-8 Site plan application for proposed retaining wall and fill NOTE: There was no new information submitted for the above applications. Farrell Holding Co. Ltd 1264 Town Line Road 908-2-4-28 Site plan application for a revegetation plan as more than 2000 square feet of land was clear without a building permit Kidd Construction Company, Inc. 1258 Town Line Road 908-2-4-29 1
Site plan application for a revegetation plan as clearance occurred before building permit was processed Mary Jane Asato was present for the applicant noting that she is standing in for Jane Kratz the attorney for both the Farrell Holding Co, Ltd and Kidd Construction Company, Inc. Mayor Louchheim noted that the Board can t consider the revegetation plans for these 2 properties until a discussion is had about the conformance with the covenants which were put in place by the Town of Southampton when the subdivision was approved. Ms. Asato noted that she did review the covenant that provides for a 25% clearing in connection with that. She explained that the Town of Southampton used to place these clearing restrictions on each individual subdivision and changed to a town wide clearing restriction. Since then, on a case by case basis, the property owners have gone to the Town to seek relief from these stricter clearing restrictions and have received relief. She asked if the Board in connection with these applications would accept reviewing the clearance so it is something above 25 but certainly not what it is now noting that she is fully aware that it has to be restored. Mayor Louchheim noted that the Village now has jurisdiction over this and that he does not feel comfortable even considering approving a plan, nor is he sure if the Village can from a liability standpoint, that totally ignores and flaunts the covenant that is in the subdivision for these properties. He also noted that he is not sure that the Village even has the right to amend it. Ms Asato noted that she did not believe that there was even a plan before the Board that they could even consider for approval. Mayor Louchheim agreed that there was not. Village Attorney, Anthony Tohill, noted that the Village has no jurisdiction over amending these covenants as they were not a party to the document nor can it be amended by a successor because that language is missing from the document. He noted that he believed that both the applicants and the Board have to abide by the covenants and more importantly the neighbors have the power to enforce. Ms. Asato noted that she understand and that they would amend the revegetation plans to provide 75% restoration. Mr. Tohill noted that the applicant is subject to all the conditions in the subdivision. It was noted that among those conditions would be restoration to the woodlands, one common driveway for the properties and that the revised plan should show improvements on only 25% of the area. It was also noted that a vitality bond will be required for the plantings. 2
Ms. Asato asked if this could be a condition of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to which she was told it would be a condition of the issuance of a Building Permit. She was also instructed to address all the issues in the Planning Consultants Report of July 25, 2016. Mayor Louchheim recognized Jay and Sheila Kaplowitz who identified themselves as the contiguous neighbor to the north. Mr. Kaplowitz noted that Jane Kratz notified him that they were going to ask that a building permit be issued before the revegetation occurs to which they are opposed to. Ms. Winchell noted that all additional documents to be considered at the November 14 th meeting must be submitted by October 28 th. Ms. Asato noted that she understand what documents were required and that submittal date requirement is challenging but they will try to get the documents in by then. Debra Simon 53 Sagg Main Street 908-4-1-6 Site plan application for topography change NOTE: There was no new information submitted for the above application.. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Louchheim noted that he would prefer to address the road abandonment request first as the site plan application would involve a longer discussion. Road Abandonment Request John L. Sykes 28 Town Line Road 908-10-4-49 Application to abandon a portion of Sagaponack Street located adjacent to this lot which was created with the approval of the Hampton Home Place subdivision in 1924 Brian Locascio of the Adam Miller Group presented the application to the Board. He explained that previously, fourteen properties adjacent to this road have received approval for an abandonment of a portion of this road adjacent to their properties. He noted that as required by law, he had already received the sign off from the Town of Southampton Highway Superintendent and the Town Assessor for this abandonment request. 3
Mr. Tohill asked that Mr. Sykes mailing address on the form be revised to reflect his mailing address and not that of the Adam Miller Group and that all the documents from Rusty Banks be updated to reflect a more current date as they now reflect an April 16, 2016 date which is not considered current for this application. He also noted that all these documents need to be submitted by October 28, 2016 in order to be heard at the November 14 th meeting. Mr. Locascio noted that he will submit those revisions by October 28 th. Site Plan Sagaponack Realty LLC 451 Daniels Lane 908-10-3-1 Site plan application for single family residence on a lot greater than 5 acres THIS APPLICATION IS TRANSCRIBED VERBATUM Brian DeSesa: Brian DeSesa, 2462 Main Street, Suite 7, Bridgehampton, NY of the Adam Miller Group for the applicant of property located at 451 Daniels Lane. Mayor Louchheim: Do you have presentation? Brian DeSesa: I didn t know if the Board had any questions first Mayor Louchheim: no The applicant s property is located at 451 Daniels Lane, Village of Sagaponack and the Board is familiar with it is not the first time the Board has seen a site plan for this property. I believe that everyone on the Board is very familiar with the topography of the lot, the location of the lot. It s an undeveloped lot. It is currently being farmed. It has currently received Ag and Markets protection which has been sent over to the Board here. Previously there has been an application that was submitted and denied by this Board. The applicant then went back, took the comments from this Board as well as one neighbor objection which I could find in the record and proposes to relocate a single development lot on the eastern side of the property. Last time the applicant was here before this Board, the proposed building lot was on the northwest corner nearest Peters Pond Lane. Applicant has now proposed a building lot on the eastern side of the property. It s approximately 400 feet south of Daniels Lane. Set back from Daniels Lane on the eastern side of the property and that was done based on the Board s comments from last time as well as the concerned neighbors comments who was represented by Mr. Bregman from Farrell Fritz. We selected this location, secondary location, for several reasons. One being depth to ground water which information is provided in the submission. This location, according to the documents submitted, would allow for the construction of a post house which we have plans for without hitting any depth to ground water. There is no depth to ground water issues in this location. As you move south toward the ocean on the lot the depth to ground water becomes less and it becomes more of an impediment here. Additionally as you move south on the lot FEMA flood maps come into play. The location where this proposed home site and agricultural 4
buildings are all located within the FEMA X Zone. To the south of the lot and to the southeast of the lot are elevated FEMA Zones for building and structures. The lot meets all dimensional regulations for the Village in terms of setbacks, height, sizes. It allows for the current farming to be continued as well as additional farming opportunities there for the applicant. The proposed buildings are ag accessory structures that are used in conjunction with contemplated farming. At this time the applicant there is no intent for a subdivision on this site. He is seeking site plan approval for a single home. Attached in your submission also included a sanitary system, depth to ground water surveys as well as test holes. There s a survey with the topography. This is an additional site plan which locates building structures in more detail. The access road for the property would be on the eastern side of the property. And that one single point access would serve as both the house as well as the farm and agricultural buildings so in keeping with the provisions of the Village Code there would not be any traffic concerns. We are talking about a single point access. It is the farthest east proposed structures a residential house as well as the agricultural structures are located the farthest from public access points. Public access points being Daniels Lane to the north and Peters to the southwest. The approximate location of this house relative to the lot, lines up to the modern grey house to the east. There s this house. There s an empty lot that is currently being farmed that is a developable lot. And to the immediate east of that is a new modern house. So location wise it is similar in area as far as setback from Daniels Lane for a point of reference. The proposed agricultural accessory structures are to the immediate east of that are additionally currently developed houses and house under construction. So it would be in keeping with the conformity of that area where structures are. They are on the opposite sides of the lot. This keeps the larger area, contiguous area, open for farming purposes. The lot is currently being farmed. I ll stop for any questions. I apologize. You re proposing a 3.1 acre building lot for a residence. 3 acre yes on the Land Trust Easement. How can you do that? The Land Trust Easement reads for a total of residential development over the three lots. So should there be Or if there was ever a future intent, the Land Trust Easement provides for a total amount of building lots. Here we are only proposing one building lot. No, you re missing the point... Mayor Louchheim: Dedicated open space This is in conforming..building in this area is in conforming with the Land Trust document. Mayor Louchheim: No it is not. corner. The Land Trust agreement showed the house on the northwest 5
This one is in the... in the eastern side Right Yeah You re in the open area on Schedule B of the Land Trust Easement Correct Mayor Louchheim: Which prohibits exactly what you re proposing I think it can be amended because you are still having the same amount of total open space Under State Law it can t be. Not without a subdivision. Mayor Louchheim: And the language in the easement which does provide for amendments of either limited building lot areas or the open area, that provision or possible amendment specifically states that it is only in conjunction with a subdivision plan. Which this is not. This is not. Correct. Mayor Louchheim: So After reading it definitely I will provide my thoughts onto counsel. I hear your comments but I After today... I will definitely provide that to you... You have to read the easement. I read it. I interpreted it in a different way. Mayor Louchheim: Simply it is not a one for one exchange. Because the limited building area in the northwest corner, which I believe that application is still pending.. I believe it was denied. Mayor Louchheim: I believe it was appealed. That is yes but the application is done. 6
Yeah but it s a pending Right and I m not hanging on that but yes I agree. Mayor Louchheim: But that application, or the decision rejecting that application, has been appealed and now you re asking us to approve what? A supplementary application.. It s not a supplement application. It s different. Mayor Louchheim: an exchange application or a replacement application? It s a new application. Mayor Louchheim: Okay. But what happens to the old application? You are only allowed there was a carve out, a limited building area where the Grosser site plan for a house was located. That by the way was not a 3.3 acres it was 2.4 acres. 2.5 yes Mayor Louchheim: You call it 2.5. So I don t understand how giving up 2.5 acres of open space in location and exchanging it for 3 acres in another place conforms to the square footage of the required open space. The open space as provided does comply because it is adding back in on the south where the hash I ll point out on there Mayor Louchheim: Please do So the difference would come back in on that roughly half acre we ll call but we ll rely on the survey would come back in on this location. Mayor Louchheim: Where is that shown? It s on this calculation according to the engineer. And the site plan still meets the requirements of the Land Trust agreement for open space. Mayor Louchheim: So you have moved the boundary of the open space southward Yes Mayor Louchheim: But you have no amendment for this from the Land Trust We do not. Correct. I don t believe we do. But I understand your concerns and I will address them. Mayor Louchheim: I do not believe we can proceed with this application. 7
I believe you can but you couldn t make a decision Mayor Louchheim: I don t believe we can. provide you with Okay. Have you not spoken to the Land Trust? I have. What was the gist of the conversation? Basically they said come to the Village first. Who d you speak with? Pam Greene. And I can follow back up with them and I will You need to spend a minute looking at this a lot more closely because you are trying to climb a hill that is virtually vertical. It s not possible. And it s not possible for the Land Trust under NY Law to amend this easement as a matter of fact. There s no set of facts that allows them to amend the easement. It s a problem. On top of that you mentioned before that there s no application for a subdivision except that under Village Code when somebody comes in with... presented. Correct you could contemplate future subdivisions Not could must Yes, understand that It has to happen. As presented, it s a futile application, as I can provide you with what I think Mayor Louchheim: Just to be clear. This open area that you are showing us, you have in effect eliminated portions of what is now the build area to the south. Yes. It didn t do it but it was done in the site plan calculations Mayor Louchheim: I mean the applicant Yes So there s two issues that have been raised so far. One is the Correct. The Land Trust 8
the Land Trust Easement and the inability to amend that document and the second issue is the need to address subdivision and the third issue. I used a minute ago the word futile How does the Village Planning Board or any planning board, with the history that exist on this file, on this application, on this property, change its position by reason of this particular application. In other words, there is a concept as you know of precedent or stare decisis that prevails with respect to prior decisions. Correct. There is now a res judicata part to that, meaning. I understand Because the case has been decided by a Supreme Court Judge. Correct How does one ignore or go past or exclude from the equation today or on a going forward basis all of what I just said because it strikes me that the proposal is impossible meaning you as a lawyer and I as a lawyer know that everybody is burdened by whatever the conditions of the law is here in this state or elsewhere. This is the conditions of the law here such that this application absent something that just not here or hasn t been said by anybody. Certainly not part of the package, the application papers, is missing different. It s separate and apart. It s a new application. The facts are No. I mean it s an application for a single family residence on 43 acres. That s what it is. Correct. Putting aside the inability to amend the Land Trust open area designation and putting aside the need to address subdivision, how does one address the content of the record that s in the Appellate Division right now that says that the Board does not want to see a house anywhere expect the southerly portion of the property? You mentioned earlier and you actually have on the second page of your narrative transmittal letter with the application, somehow this location, the one that s displayed up there, those 3 acres, is authored by this Board and by a neighbor. This Board never... No, no.and hold on, just let me finish the point because it s sort of important because you said it now in writing and mentioned it earlier today. It s not fair for everybody to play footsie on something as important as that. What the Village Board 9
said, and if you check the minutes you ll see that this is pretty clear, is that if the house were to be located other than in the northwest corner it would be in the southeast corner. Meaning it would be adjacent the third of the three potential lots which would be the eastern most lot. So it would be immediately north of that. At different times in the dialogue, it moved from the edge of Peters Pond Lane east and back and forth. No, I saw that. The bottom line is that it never ever was where your locating it I think 700 plus or minus feet south of Daniels Lane adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. So when you say that this Board or Eric Bregman somehow authored that. That s simply not accurate. Board and. minutes No my statement if it was unclear was that the preference of the Brian, it s simply not true. You need to read the inch and a half of No I have..and you will see that this did come up but that s not the outcome of the conversation. It s dramatically different. Nobody ever proposed that the open area of the easement be amended. Nobody. No that wasn t discussed. It is just being discussed now. That s correct. No. That was not discussed at those meetings. I m aware of that. This is for the first time here. So you have some real serious challenges with this application. I understand that. You need to do some homework. Yup. I understand that. Deputy Mayor Foster: Can I ask a question? Rhodi if you could bring that up again. I d like to see if there is a demarcation or delineation of the.5 acres that is shifting this There s a new make but I can provide that. Deputy Mayor Foster: So in other words we don t see what was moved. You don t see the old line 10
Deputy Mayor Foster: Alright just a total square footage calculation on the site plans Deputy Mayor Foster: Okay. Mayor Louchheim: Okay, so I think we are going to adjourn further discussion on this matter until our next meeting is November what Rhodi Ms. Winchell: November 14 th Mayor Louchheim: November 14 th But we will get you submissions by October 28 th Yes Yeah I know that. Mayor Louchheim: I mean perhaps you should bring a representative of the Land Trust here I will reach out and I will circle back to Mr. Tohill Mayor Louchheim:.to explain to the Board what they are doing because we can t as the application is here now, there is nothing that we can do. No, I understand your position. I will get you the information. And also to be fair to you the comments you are hearing from the Board today a handful, plus or minus 5 different observations are not meant in any way at all to e exhaustive step. I. problems. No, I understand that, there could be others once we get to the next The sense here is Immediate Yeah these are huge problems. Actually insurmountable Mayor Louchheim: Okay, so can I get a vote to adjourn this to November 14th Deputy Mayor Foster: Second Mayor Louchheim: All in favor 11
FULL BOARD: Aye NOTE: Rich Warren was excused from the meeting. Time noted: 3:40pm VILLAGE ENGINEER REPORT OLD BUSINESS Sagg Bridge Rehabilitation Project MONTHLY WORKSESSION Mr. Bennett explained to the Board that we received and opened bids for the Sagg Bridge Rehabilitation Project last week. He reminded the Board that we had two contracts; Contract A which was repair to the suspended part of the bridge and Contract B was for the two causeways. He explained that we received one bid from Keith Grimes Inc for both Contract A and B for a total amount of $1,127,965.00 and another 2 bids for just Contract B which prices were higher than Keith Grimes Inc bid. Mr. Bennett noted that while the total price came in a little higher than anticipated it is not out of the ball park. He noted that he found the bids to be responsive and would recommend an award to Keith Grimes Inc. in the amount of $1,127,965.00. Mayor Louchheim asked whether or not the Board should be concerned that we only received one bid for Contract A. Mr. Bennett state that not many contractors want to do a public works project this far out east and while it would have been nice if we did receive more than one bid, the condition of the bridge warrants immediate action. He noted that Keith Grimes Inc. has a track record with public works projects and has done work for the Village in the past. They are aware of the deadline for the project and have taken no exceptions to the specifications. Ms. Winchell noted that thirteen bid packages were picked up so we certainly did our part to get the project out there. A motion was offered by Mayor Louchheim and seconded by Deputy Mayor Foster to award the bid to Keith Grimes Inc., at the sum of $1,127,965.00 with the proviso that the contract may not be signed by the Mayor except upon the receipt of the documents from the New York State DEC transferring the Wetlands Permit from third parties to the Village of Sagaponack. It was approved unanimously. Ms. Winchell noted that she will notify the Southampton Town Police, the Bridgehampton Fire Dept and the Southampton Town Highway Department of the award of the project as well as the community at large via emails and new articles. The Board discussed their desire to reduce the weight limit on the bridge to 5 tons. Mr. Tohill noted that he will investigate how to proceed and if it can be done by local law, he will provide a draft for the Board review. 2016 Drainage Projects 12
Hedges Lane Ms. Winchell explained that she has had several complaints over the past year for the large puddle on the north side of Hedges Lane just east of Jacobs Way. Mr. Bennett noted that he investigated it as per a request from Ms. Winchell. He explained that two or three years ago, when the water company installed a water main in that location, they broke an irrigation line and repaired it. If the irrigation system is still there, it may be a source of some of the water or perhaps from the water main as the puddle exists even when there has been no rain. A suggestion was also made that perhaps the verge has been compressed from the parking of construction vehicles which would inhibit the drainage of the water. Mr. Woudsma noted that the construction project on the south side of the road does not use this area for construction vehicle parking as they can provide parking on site. It was decided that the water authority should be contacted to make sure that none of their lines are leaking and the homeowner should be contacted to determine whether or not there is still an irrigation system in the right of way and if there is, request that the homeowner have it checked for leaks. SeaScape Lane Drainage Mr. Tohill noted that he is still waiting for Mr. Hammer to return the revised drainage easement document signed by Mr. Sopher, the owner of 76 SeaScape Lane. Gibson Lane Road End The Board discussed the fact that there is some erosion on the beach due to the installation of curbing which we installed to prevent the road pavement from eroding. It was determined that the road runoff is running around the western edge of the curbing and flowing down the beach and eroded it. It was suggested that a hay bale be installed to stop this flow of water for an immediate remedy. Town Line Road The Board discussed the puddle on the west side of Town Line Road in front of 28 Town Line Road and possible remediation solutions. A discussion was also had regarding the encroachment of many of the properties in this area. Although a solution was not agreed upon, all agreed that the property owner of 28 Town Line Road should be asked if he would be willing to move his improvements which have encroached upon the Village verge in order for work to be done in this area. NOTE: Drew Bennett was excused from the meeting. Time noted: 4:24pm Held Subdivision Jane Held came before the Board to request an amendment to the subdivision approval condition of the removal of all the trees and bushes on the southeast corner of the ag reserve. She is concerned about erosion if all the plantings were removed. It was agreed that she would only need to cut the trees down and leave the stumps in place and all the shrubs. 13
MINUTES Ms. Winchell noted that she will have the completed minutes for the Board at next week s meeting. CORRESPONDENCE The Board reviewed the Southampton Town Police Dept. monthly report for September 2016. Ms. Winchell noted that she just received the report today. OLD BUSINESS Sagg Bridge Rehabilitation Project This was discussed in the beginning of the Work Session. NEW BUSINESS Request for Extension of Time from Height Law The Board reviewed a request from David Mitchell of 70 Fairfield Pond Lane for a 60 day extension from the Height Law which was adopted on November 16, 2015. The Board discussed it and decided that there was no extenuating circumstances to warrant an extension. It was also noted that there is a possibility of a second homeowner who may request and extension. Mr. Tohill asked Mr. Woudsma if the request on the second application was meritorious. Mr. Woudsma explained that the second application involved a change of ownership over the past year. He also noted that after he started to investigate the application in order to issue the permit, he discovered that there was an importation of fill for the septic tank which would trigger site plan review. This requirement would make it impossible for the owner to vest by the deadline. Mr. Tohill asked if there was ever a discussion with the applicant to redesign the septic system so it did not require the transportation of fill to the site and instead would allow for the immediate issuance of a building permit. Mr. Woudsma noted that he did not believe that it would be possible as the ground water is very shallow in that area. Mr. Woudsma noted that the Suffolk County Department of Health approval for this property requires the building of a 10 ft. cement wall in order to house the leaching system because of the depth to ground water and that box needs to be filled with sand which would require site plan approval. NOTE: Board went off record to confer with counsel. Time noted 4:48pm. Board came back on record at 5:31pm. Photo/Film Permit Applications The Board reviewed two Photo/Film permit applications. Ms. Winchell noted that both will be happening on the day of and the day after next week s meeting therefore action needs to be taken this week on these applications. The Board discussed the possibility of revising the cost of a Photo/Filming permit application. All agreed that the fee should be more. 14
The first one was from Enchanted Cottage which was for October 17 th at Sagg Main Beach from 6:00am to 6:00pm. A motion was offered by Trustee Sieger and seconded by Trustee Duryea Thayer to approve the Photo/Film Permit Application for Enchanted Cottage subject to the submittal of and approval by the Village Attorney of the Indemnity Agreement. It was approved with Mayor Louchheim, Deputy Mayor Foster, Trustee Sieger and Trustee Duryea Thayer all voting in favor and Trustee Barbour in opposition. The second application was from Universal Television LLC for October 18 th and 19 th at the corner of Town Line Road and Parsonage Lane at 602 Parsonage Lane. A motion was offered by Trustee Sieger and seconded by Trustee Duryea Thayer to approve the Photo/Film Permit Application for Universal Television LLC subject to the submittal of and approval by the Village Attorney of the Indemnity Agreement. It was approved with Mayor Louchheim, Deputy Mayor Foster, Trustee Sieger and Trustee Duryea Thayer all voting in favor and Trustee Barbour in opposition. DISCUSSION ITEMS Crestview Lane Speed The Board discussed the request by Edward Nahem of 92 Crestview Lane to install speed bumps on Crestview Lane to deter the speeding vehicles. The Board all agreed that they were not in favor of installing the speed bumps but would rather have the police step up the enforcement in this area. FINANCIAL The Mayor asked the Board to review the financials and present any questions at next week s meeting. BOARD/COMMITTEE REPORTS It was agreed that the Board will give their reports at next week s meeting. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. ADJOURNMENT On the motion of Trustee Barbour and a second by Trustee Duryea Thayer the Board unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting. Time Noted: 5:43 pm Rosemarie Cary Winchell, CMC Village Clerk-Treasurer 15