Council to Have Spellman Point Road Application Investigated

The East Hampton Town Council voted on Tuesday night to hire an independent consultant to look into the construction being done at 68 Spellman Point Road.

The property on Lake Pocotopaug has been the center of a controversy since a neighbor brought recent construction at the site to the attention of the town council.

Judson Landon of 63 Spellman Point Road first raised his concerns with the council at its Dec. 13 meeting. Landon produced before and after photos of the lot and commented on the construction going on, noting the lot had been stripped of trees and shrubs.

Property owners Maryann and F. James Hubert were granted approval by the inland-wetlands commission on Sept. 28 to demolish the 1,000-square-foot home and build a new house on the same footprint as well as add a garage. The site also was to be regraded.

Inland-wetlands placed two conditions on its approval: During demolition, in addition to a silt fence, the applicant shall install snow fencing, or equivalent, to catch blowing debris, and concrete trucks should wash out near the street and as far from the lake as possible.

According to a 2002 study by ENSR International (see pdf), Lake Pocotopaug suffers from severe algal blooms and high sediment loading that reduces water clarity, in part because of the high development around the lake. A fishkill in 1999 prompted accelerated activity toward lake improvement.

The application first went to the conservation-lake commission, which recommended approval. Chairman Peter Zawisza said in a letter to the town council that was received Jan. 6 that much of the work being done was not presented to his commission.

“What has been done on the property is not what the Conservation-Lake Commission felt we agreed to when we reviewed the proposed plan,” he said. “Had we known that the outcome would have been what it is today we would not have approved the plan.”

The application did not go before the planning and zoning commission, leaving final approval with inland-wetlands. Single-family homes in East Hampton only require a wetlands permit, according to town planning, zoning and building administrator Jim Carey in a story by The Courant.

Among the questions regarding the application is whether it should have gone before planning and zoning.

Council Chairwoman Sue Weintraub thinks it should have.

“From reviewing our planning and zoning regulations, it appears if it is within 100 feet of our lake, it does require a special permit,” she said.

If so, a special permit would have required a public hearing.

According to Weintraub, the resolution is “to do an independent review to determine if due process has been followed and if the regulations were properly enforced. If due process has been followed, then we’d have to review regulations going forward if we agree that clear-cutting at the lake is not acceptable. That’s not for this body to decide specifically.”

Weintraub said Interim Town Manager John Weichsel also agreed an independent review would be the town’s best recourse right now. So, she did some networking to initiate the process of finding a consultant as well as gather other land use information, and passed out the information to other council members on Tuesday night.

As a result of her research, she proposed using Attorney Mark Branse out of Glastonbury at an approximate cost of between $1,700 and 2,800 and also suggested the investigation be done with a timeline of two to three weeks.

“I don’t feel at this time we need a comprehensive assessment of the entire building department and land use board,” said Weintraub, indicating that the broader review could add another $2,000 to the cost.

The vote fell along party lines, with the four Chatham Party members voting for the motion and the two Democrats and one Republican voting against.

The vote against by the minority members didn’t necessarily mean they were against an investigation or review, but instead seemed more of a reflection about their disagreement of how the motion was presented to them and whether town staff or the volunteers who comprise the inlands-wetlands and planning and zoning commissions should be allowed to first address the council.

Council member Ted Hintz was the first to object, strongly taking issue with Weintraub calling for an investigation in a Hartford Courant story as well as doing the research and presenting it to the council for approval without first seeking input from council members.

“What I’ve done is responded to a lot of the residents in town,” Weintraub said. “I’ve talked to Mr. Weichsel several times and put together something for us to review.”

Hintz then questioned whether this represented a new standard for other council members to follow.

“If we have a lot of citizens come to us with concerns, is it OK for us then to go out, do our own investigation and networking and come and say ‘You know what, this independent investigation should be done, this is the cost,’ and expect it to be approved?”

Weichsel intervened, noting the need for quick action.

“This a little different than other situations,” he said. “Very often you have time to look at a matter. This is ongoing. Construction is occurring. If by chance it is true it was improperly issued, then time is of the essence. … It’s an unusual situation. This does not mean we do this all the time."

Hintz went on: “There has been very little communication. There is no communication coming from the chair at this point.”

Weintraub disagreed, saying she had sent several emails.

Council member George Pfaffenbach also raised the issue of communication among council members.

“It seems like you took this on yourself,” he said. “There was no communication to the rest of us about ‘Do we want to go forward with this.'”

Council member Derek Johnson did not believe Weintraub had exceeded her authority.

“I couldn’t disagree more,” he said. “Part of our job as council members is to respond to inquiries. Unfortunately, we as members of the town council don’t have staff to look at issues, so often times we’re forced to make those calls. … That is what our function is, to respond to concerns and issues we all have.”

Council member Barbara Moore suggested that inland-wetlands and planning and zoning first be allowed to come before the council.

“Before we do this, we should get them together,” she said. “They want so bad to talk about what happened and I think we should allow our chairman of the board to do that before we go ahead and hire a private company. We may have to do that, but I think it’s only fair. … I think we should give our own people that consideration.“

In the end, however, council member Kyle Dostaler summed it up, believing the investigation was necessary regardless, and that the town could only benefit from one.

“I think if we do not put some type of investigation into this, it’s just going to happen again, and again and again,” he said, adding he wasn’t placing blame on the commissions. “I just think the regulations in this town are interpreted very differently than other towns.”

There were two other votes that fell along party lines during Tuesday night’s lengthy meeting, both losing, 4-3.

One was a motion to do away with Sears Park fees for residents. The motion was to eliminate the $10 vehicle, $5 senior citizen's or veteran's vehicle and the $5 day pass. All other fees would still have applied. The council wanted first to get feedback from the parks and recreation advisory board. The matter of sticker fees will come before the council again at a later date.

The other motion pertained to calling a special meeting. The motion was to allow a special meeting to be called by the town council chair, town manager or if two council members request one.

“I believe that, Number 1, tradition in this town is the Chair order special meetings,” Vice Chair Glenn Suprono said. “Number 2, the reason you’re the chair is because anybody can come up to you and ask for a special meeting, but ultimately, a person needs to decide. That person is the top of the chart for me, which is, the Chair.”