Clatter Over Restaurant’s Noise
 Carissa Katz |
(5/1/2008) Summer patrons of the 1770 House in East Hampton Village already know what it’s like to dine outside on the patio there on a balmy July night. Even the vice chairwoman of the village zoning board of appeals described it as “an oasis in a busy, bustling summer.” But at least one neighbor bothered by the patio dining has complained that the inn and restaurant was never given permission to seat guests outside.
They’re right. Now, the 1770 House is asking the zoning board for a “retroactive special permit” to allow seasonal outdoor dining for 30 people at seven patio tables, provided that an equal amount of indoor seating is removed when outdoor tables are occupied.
“What we had there last summer is what is proposed,” explained Bonnie Krupinski, who owns the establishment with her husband, Ben Krupinski.
As part of the application, the 1770 House had originally requested another special permit and a variance to retain turf pavers for parking on a grassy area behind the inn. To appease a neighbor who had been against the plans, the Krupinskis withdrew that request and have promised to remove those pavers within the week. They will also landscape around the grassy area to discourage employees, patrons, or others from parking there. In addition, they have promised that there will be no live music or catered events on the patio and that it would not be used after 11 p.m.
“This portion of Main Street has always had inns and restaurants mixed with residential uses,” the Krupinskis’ attorney, John MacLachlan, said Friday. He reminded the board that when the Maidstone Arms sought permission to convert from an inn and restaurant to condominium units, the village frowned on the request. Prompted by neighbors’ opposition to the plan, a new law was passed making such conversions more difficult. In introducing the law, the village stated that changing the use of properties operated as inns, boarding houses, or “traditional guest houses,” would alter the historic character of the village to the “detriment of the surrounding neighborhoods.”
Given that reasoning, Mr. MacLachlan said, “it would be reasonable for a business to expect the village to work with the existing restaurants and inns to see that they’re viable.”
Andrew Goldstein, the board’s chairman, questioned what Mr. MacLachlan was getting at by raising the issue of viability. “Is this a case where the enterprise is needed in order for it to be economically viable or for it to be more viable?” he asked. Mr. MacLachlan said that the outdoor dining would certainly make the restaurant more desirable to patrons. Restaurants in East Hampton need to be able to maximize their business in the summer months, he said, and the outdoor dining would help the 1770 House do that.
Linda Riley, the board’s attorney, asked whether the applicant had addressed “the adequacy of parking on site.” If there is no additional seating proposed, that may not be necessary, Mr. Goldstein said.
“If the reason to request outdoor dining is to draw more people,” Ms. Riley said, then parking should be discussed.
“The 1770 is always filled,” said Lys Marigold, a board member, saying that the real motivation is that “customers will be happier outside.”
If the special permit is granted, some neighbors may not be. “Until the recent management assumed responsibility, this was a quiet country inn and those on Dayton Lane hardly knew it was there,” Elizabeth Holmes, who lives across the street, wrote in a letter to the village. “I’ve written repeatedly to the village regarding the expansion of the 1770 House,” she said on Friday. “All of my dire predictions have come to pass.” She pointed to the large delivery trucks parked on the street, the sound of employee arguments in the middle of the night, and the clanging coming from the kitchen.
A sound consultant hired by the 1770 House studying the noise of Main Street traffic combined with potential noise created by people seated on the restaurant’s patio found that at two neighboring properties the ambient noise of the road would be several decibel levels above the noise of restaurant patrons. “We would fully expect that dining activity noise will be inaudible at the property lines,” the report states.
The 1770 House is in a residential district where such uses are no longer allowed, and since it does not conform to zoning, it should not be allowed to expand in any way, several people argued in person and in writing.
“This property is overextended at present,” John Cartier of Main Street wrote. And Paul Amaden, who owns a two-family house across the lane from the inn, said he is against the outdoor dining “especially at the hours proposed.” The current owners purchased the property “understanding the limitations of commercial uses,” and intensifying those uses should not be allowed, he said.
“Theoretically, nonconforming uses are supposed to disappear in time, not keep on expanding and developing forever so that the owner can continue to increase profit,” wrote Robert Osborne of Main Street.
“There is horrendous development ruining the historical character of our village,” wrote Obron Farber of Dayton Lane, “but I don’t believe this is part of that.”
Rather than detract from the neighborhood, the inn, under the Krupinskis’ ownership, has actually added value to surrounding areas, Mr. MacLachlan said, pointing to a letter to that effect from Cynthia Marshall of Clark and Marshall Appraisers.
“Does she have any comparables to support that?” Mr. Goldstein asked. Without them, he said, “what she says is meaningless.”
A number of other people wrote glowing reviews of the 1770 House. Among them was Jacquelin Robertson, an architect, village resident, and former dean of the University of Virginia School of Architecture. “East Hampton Village, and particularly its mixed-use Main Street, has, over the years, been an illuminating schoolroom for me,” he wrote. “The great strength of Main Street has to do with its variety, mix of uses, changing scales, materials, and styles.” The 1770 House is a part of that, he said.
“How would you rectify that with the fact that the comprehensive plan seems to say that the village is a residential enclave with these other mixed uses being clearly subsidiary?” Mr. Goldstein asked the Krupinskis’ lawyer. “It’s a philosophical discussion. . . . Let’s be clear here. The comprehensive plan doesn’t favor pre-existing nonconforming uses. In fact it says they should be returned to residential.”
“In a perfect world, you would have nonconforming uses revert to residential, but this is not a perfect world,” said Joan Denny, the board’s vice chairwoman. “Part of the glory of Main Street is that we do have mixed uses. I like the inns,” she said. “I love the inns. In my opinion they’re an integral part of the village. I liked it that the artists came out here in the 1800s and I’m glad we had inns so they had a place to stay.” Ms. Denny said she had eaten at the 1770 House “quite often” and that she was “not aware of any complaints” about noise.
“There were a few questions,” said Tom Lawrence, the village building inspector, and that is why the application was filed.
At Mr. MacLachlan’s request, the hearing was adjourned until the next zoning board meeting. It will begin at 11 a.m. on Friday, May 9, at the Emergency Services Building on Cedar Street.