Report on Spellman Point Road is In

The report by John D. Pagini investigating the permit issued for the lakefront property at 68 Spellman Pont Road was delivered to the town last week and its contents brought up for discussion at Tuesday night’s East Hampton Town Council meeting.

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 on Lake Pocotopaug and build a new house as well as add a garage.

The property became an issue after the clear-cutting of trees and shrubs occurred.

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.

The report, 45 pages with an appendix and including photos, is dated Feb. 23. The council voted to hire an independent consultant Jan. 10. At that meeting, Council Chair Sue Weintraub said the purpose was “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.”

The review states that its focus is, in large part, on compliance with the provisions of the East Hampton Inland-Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Regulations and the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, but with a focus on whether the removal of nearly all vegetation on the property, characterized as clear-cutting, was a violation of the wetlands and zoning regulations.

In addition to determining whether the town did or did not comply with regulations, it also gives advice as to available remedies for any violations or inconsistencies.

Among the controversies surrounding the issue, was whether the permit application should have gone before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The application did not, leaving final approval with Inland-Wetlands. It was the town’s understanding that the Wetlands Agency had regulatory control over areas within 100 feet of a wetland or watercourse, thus no special permit approved by Planning and Zoning was necessary.

According to the report, that appeared to be correct, though the regulations didn’t support it.

“It’s still on the books which would have required this to come before P&Z, but that was supposedly an administrative error from back in 2003,” Weintraub said on Tuesday. “It was never taken off the regulations. That’s troubling. That’s very troubling.”

The town intended to delete that requirement from the regulations in a series of amendments in 2003.

“There’s some very clear evidence that P&Z voted to get rid of this requirement in favor of wetlands taking over review of within 100 feet,” Town Attorney Jean D’Aquila said. “They did actually do that, according to Mr. Pagini, they made the vote, but for some reason the regs were never properly revised to reflect the deletion of those sections that did refer to the 100 feet jurisdiction of the PZC. It looks like, I think it was the year 2003, PZC was just waiting for Wetlands to determine it would take over jurisdiction and then PZC said ‘OK, you got it, we’ll amend our regs,’ but those amendments, for some reason, never found their way.”

There were numerous recommendations made by Pagini to reduce the level of ambiguity in the town’s regulations and ways to improve the application process. Pagini also noted that Inland-Wetlands had already begun to ensure adequate information is provided in future applications.

“It may be a good point that we now turn this report over to Inland-Wetlands and Planning and Zoning where they have a road map of things they have to do and some they’ve done," Interim Town Manager John Weichsel said. "So, we’re going to turn it over to the people, the land-use body that’s involved with this. The council really has gone as far it can.”

Not so fast.

“We spent a lot of money on the lake. We spent a lot of money to clean it,” council member Kyle Dostaler said. “Throughout the document I see the words ambiguities, lack of clarity, administrative oversight, errors and some flaws in the fundamental processes and procedures. I look at the thousands of dollars we spend on the lake every year, tens of thousands of dollars over a period of time, and my concern is that if this isn’t properly addressed, every time we spend a penny on the lake, it’s just going to be wasted money."

As for the clear-cutting of the lot, Pagini, the Director of Community Development for Bolton, determined that the ambiguity that existed as to the extent of clearing intended in the site plan, did not allow for a knowledgeable determination of whether such activity constituted a separate regulated activity which was not exempt.

“We know what the issues of the lake are," Dostaler said. "When someone just clear-cuts the way they did, whether the regulations are proper or not, I think is an issue for the Town Council in the fact that we’re spending money to fix this lake. We’re spending money on salaries for people to do their job. I would just like these things to be addressed in a very responsible manner so that we know our tax dollars are not just literally being dumped into the lake and that going forward, this won’t happen again.”

Council member Derek Johnson questioned whether the land-use administrator and wetlands enforcement officer would be reviewing the report and making recommendations. Johnson noted that outside the findings of Spellman Point Road, the report also addressed “a variety of other more problematic and systemic issues.”

“I would request that the town manager’s office direct the land-use administrator and wetlands enforcement officer to fully review this report, provide an appropriate response as to the recommendations that are made in this. I don’t believe that violates in any way the authority with respect to land use.”

Whether the council can intervene on a zoning matter per Chapter 124, Sec. 8-1, Subsec. (a) of the general statutes, was questioned during its .

Weintraub agreed with Johnson, however, saying, “A lot of this are staffing issues. We can direct staff.”

“I believe that is correct,” Johnson said. “I would request the town manager make those requests to his staff members.”

No council members voiced objection to having Weichsel make such a request.

Note: The attached pdf of Pagini's report is in two parts due to its size.