Some Sebonack clarifications

[Mark Hissey]

Now that people are starting to see the place, I'd just like to clarify a few items regarding the location and design of certain things.

This site, though close to 300 acres, was not all available to us. There was 54 acres accross Cold Spring Road which was completely off-limits. Then there were large wetlands with thie buffers which made a lot more land unavailable (the exact acreage escapes me presently). There are wetlands behind the 12th green, in between the 5th and 14th fairways, close to the 6th tee and 7th fairway, and finally two huge ones which effectively cut off the maintenance facility.

First, for the cottages. It was always our intent to build these. The economics of the plan required it. The area we committed to was one which was initially though a little difficult to integrate into the whole course. Our alternative was to put it up at the area where the 10th green now exists. We felt that this would dominate the course too much and as you can now see, the western end of the course is quite unspoiled by structures.

It became apparent that Sebonack's first hole could create problems by slicing into NGLA's first hole (and vice versa). Having already committed to the cottage/clubhouse are in it's present location, we had to slightly redirect the first hole the encourage a drive more to the left (next to "Chet's Tree" -- named after Chet Zelinski of Southampton G.C.). This made the parcel we had to work with even smaller in order to better integrate the fairway into the hillside. In all instances, golf came first. We simply had to endure the expense and time for making everything work properly.

Looking back on things, there were some initial ideas which now seem very unusual. We had plans for a par three across the wetland in between the 5th and 14th fairways. We also would have run an entrance road straight up what is now the 14th fairway to a clubhouse location on the 10th green. There was also a plan for a small pond where the present 17th hole lies (also a par three).

The maintenance facility has been a controversial issue to some people, but here is the fact of the matter. Given that we had so very little land to work with, the current location was our only option. In fact, due to the setbacks down there, the entrance to that parcel of land is no more than ten yards wide. There would have been no way to build a hole in that area and successfully integrate it into the rest of the routing. When we started to clear the area out, it became apparent that some of the area had already been cleared from the other side. Thus it was very exposed. In the interest of being neighborly, Sebonack has spent quite a substantial sum of money on restoring that cleared area with trees and shrubs as well as creating a berm to shield the east side of the maintenance facility.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark,
Thanks for explaining the full version of the situation. I don't want to maintain that I knew it all in anyway, other then there is/was a problem and that you've done the best you could in the situation and I'm thankful and feel forever fortunate and grateful for the visit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Hissey,

It surprises me to learn that the area behind the 12th green is wetlands.

It seems to sit high above, and just off of the beach.

Was there ever any possibility of remediation with respect to the wetlands.

Why was ALL of the land across Cold Spring Road deemed off limits ?

One look at the Northern Coastline to the west of the property seems to indicate that where housing was concerned, there was no "off limits".  But, perhaps that was a generation or two removed from Sebonack.

To give me some additional perspective, where were the classroom brick structures, the main mansion and gatehouse located, relative to the golf course ?

[Mark Hissey]

There are a number of jurisdictions which determine wetlands, and the one behind 12 green was certainly the most debateable and was designated by the Town of Southampton. The terrain drops off sharply from behind the green, but it is already quite low. The area there is at sea level and is (in theory) tidal wetland.

There were always possibilities to remdiate, but they were such controversial issues that they were taken off the table right away. To have them used would require a long and incredibly expensive battle.

The 54 acre parcel actually has two upland areas which could be used and developed. the Town requested that we preserve it all as a contguous, undeveloped piece of land and we complied with this request.

As for Cold Spring Point, that was developed decades ago, way before regulations were as they are now. It would be very difficult for that community to be developed in todays age as all of those houses lie within wetland setbacks.

Your last question is a great one Patrick, and one which still makes me smile. The mansion was set between the two elm trees which flank your tee shot on the second hole. There is a depression there which is now a waste bunker. the depression is the remnants of the basement from the Sabin mansion. As you come out to the landing area of the second hole, this is the area where the old brick buildings were located. There are now bunkers on the far left built into a shallow slope. This slope is the same one from the back side of the brick building area. This area stretched over onto what is now the 18th fairway.

The beginning of the 18th fairway has a depression in it and this is where the union's Bocce courts were located. The large Coffin Bunker crossing the 18th fairway was built at the location of the original Marian Coffin sunken garden which ran perpendicular to the mansion.

The 7th fairway is the old entry road. The last remnants of it are to the west of the 7th green and have been recently ripped out and revegetated.

Perhaps the most interesting area in retrospect is the 10th fairway. This used to be the tennis courts where the boundary fences were cleared out and used as a huge staging area for the 2004 U.S. Open. Two years later, we were playing golf on it.

That fact alone tells me that we made the correct decision on not fighting to use any wetland areas.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Thanks for coming on here and explaining some of the fascinating particulars about the development of Sebonack.  When one considers the number of restrictions and regulations, it sometimes seems a wonder that any golf courses get built, much less such an ambitious undertaking on coastal land.

From all accounts, it seems that something very special was built and it's enlightening to hear the details.  

[Voytek Wilczak]

Mark, please let us know whether/when the book on Sebonack will come out - hopefully there will be a GCA.com special on it!

I'd like to see a hard cover, coffee-table-type book with photos of the land before and after, rich in the history of the Bayberry Land and the Sebonack development, full of stories and GCA details, interviews with Tom, Jack, and other key Sebonack people  - where do I sign up???  

[Jerry Kluger]

Mark: It is great how you reconized the needs and concerns of NGLA and did what was necessary to be a good neighbor.  I only wish my neighbor was as considerate when he tripled the size of his house.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Hissey,

Yesterday, I was discussing the confiscatory power of government with respect to land use, especially land use where the current owner of the land has purchased the land for a tidy sum from owners who have held it for decades.

It appears to be a bold or reckless roll of the dice when one shells out a lot of money for land, only to have it held hostage by a number of governmental agencies.

What was Sebonack zoned for when you bought the property ?

If it was zoned as residential, I'd be willing to bet, that if little parcels were sold off one or two at a time,  houses would have been built without interference from various agencies.

[George Pazin]

Mark, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts - the site is made immeasurably better when people intimately involved in the industry can share their passion.

[Mark Hissey]

Mike:

Yes, it got difficult and frustrating at times, but we really kept our eyes on the task at hand and that was simple. Build the best golf course possible, as quickly as possible and to noit become a pariah while doing it. The cost aspect of it would hopefully be mitigated by the speed.

It was a tough fight, but it was worth it in my estimation.

Voytek:

The book should be out in August. I did the final proof reading of it two weeks ago and it is now being printed. It is a hardcover, coffee table book just like you mentioned. As for the details on it, well you've have to wait and see, but you know how to reach me and I'll be sure to set one aside for you. Brad and his partner Carol Harrelson have done an amazing job on it. I really like the candid photographs on site seeing Tom and Jack in action together. I think you'll see in pictures how this was truly a collaboration; you see two brilliant men really putting their minds to work together.

Jerry:

Thanks for acknowledging that. One thing that irked me tremendously was when people have commented about how Sebonack has features which paid no attention to their effect on NGLA. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our impact on NGLA was something we were constantly aware of and we did all that we could to make things right, even when the problems were not caused by us but rather by a confusing and neglected property line.

Patrick:

Theoretically speaking, you are 100% correct. It is an abuse of power. But, that abuse of power is based on the political and public realities of life. Frankly, I thought the Town of Southampton were wonderful in this whole process. They were fair and level-headed about things. But, they also had a constituency to serve and we recognised that.

Was it a bold and reckless roll of the dice? Well, the public can be the judge of that, but suffice to say, we paid an incredible amount of money for the site and knew that we would have to spend twice that to get what we wanted. But, going into it we had no assurances whatsoever that we could get what we wanted. It was a huge gamble and one which I hope paid off.

Bayberry was zoned for three acre residential when we bought it, but it was a non-conforming conference center also. Neither allowed us to build a golf course except for as a pseudo-private use. Had we developed it as residences, Michael Pascucci would have made a phenomenal amount of money on it, but that was never the goal.

Unfortunately, your theory about selling off pieces bit by bit might sound right but the reality is that it would never work. The main parcel needed a complete site plan and it was not possible to split it up. To do so would have have taken a huge fight with the Town, and regardless, would have quickly destroyed the integrity of any golf course that we could have built.

As it was, we gambled. We fought hard. We tried to do the right thing for everybody with a concern. We tried to build the best golf course that we could. As a result, you played the course on Friday and it sounds like you liked it as opposed to having just another round at Garden City with Ranum driving you crazy.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Hissey,

I think you misunderstood my comment.

I asked you what the property was zoned for.

You said, three acre lots.

It's my contention that had Mike Pascucci developed the land as a residential project you wouldn't have had anywhere near the inteference and obstructions you faced compared to those that confronted you when Mike Pascucci developed it as a golf course.

[Mark Hissey]

Patrick:

As I said, it was zoned three acre residential.

The overall package offered to the Town was far preferable to the residential option. Having a golf course built was preferable for a myriad of reasons. Less traffic, less burden on the infrastructure, and fewer children at Tuckahoe school to name a few.

It would have also brought out the environmental groups with a far different atitude. As we all know, from an environmental standpoint, 65 homes is far wosrse for the environment than any run-of-the-mill golf course let alone one which has gone to exceedingly long lengths to protect the environment even more.

So respectfully, I disagree with your contention.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Hissey,

I don't mind if you disagree, respectfully or otherwise.
It's an interesting discussion.

If the land was already zoned for three acre homesites, the town and others would have been hard pressed to nullify or modify that zoning.

If Mike Pascucci resold the lots, individually, I can't see how an individual homeowner or builder would have been put through the ringer to a greater degree than you were.

The property is zoned for three acre lots, but you're saying, if the owner sells the three acre lots, individually, the town and others can prevent homeowners or builders from building that which the town has already approved ?

Essentially, that would mean that government agencies seized the land without properly compensating the owner, even though they never took possession of the land, and that the owner wasn't entitled to utilize the land he paid millions for, for what it was zoned for.

They used to hang people for similar offenses.

[Mark Hissey]

There was an Environmental Impact Statement which was written for this project and there would have been one for 65 homes on the site.

These are very exhaustive and would have drawn far different assumptions, conclusions, opposition and action based on the project. The Town, as a result of their concerns, and those of the public, could have spent years reviewing them.

The public record is there for everyone to see, but some of the issues which were brought up as serious concerns and requirements ranged from requiring the whole bluffline and 200 feet in from it to be donated as a public park, to complete public access to the course. All of this needed to be examined and addressed.

The development of the site could not be done piecemeal. It would have been all or nothing and this was complicated by the previous, non-compliant use. So because it was zoned for three acre residential, it did not mean that it was a fait accompli. It could well have yielded less than 50% of those homes with severe restrictions, not to mention the fight from the school district, local residents, and various environmental groups.

The system isn't fair, but it is one which we all have to deal with. The question is, how well do you play the game within the rules. Changing the rules may be more desireable, and even more logical, but it all takes time and time means money.

[SPDB]

Patrick - I'm not sure your hypotheticals compute. Sure, you can build hypothetical assumptions, based on a hypothetical set of facts, but as Mark Hissey has alluded to, I'm not sure they have any basis in fact.

If the land is confiscated, whether by eminent domain or regulation, the owner is entitled to compensation. If use of the land is delayed or the owner's expectations not immediately gratified, there is no taking. No? Don't you think the market (particularly for sophisticated developers) adequately price this risk?