Told To Rip Out Illegal Bathroom

A Manhattan man who added a bathroom to the third floor of his Montauk house without a building permit and in defiance of a stop-work order has been told to rip it out - a job that will cost at least $20,000, he protested.

Three-story houses are prohibited by the East Hampton Town Code. Said Vedad's house, between Hamilton and Houston Drives, had a legally pre-existing third floor when he bought it in 1995, but a variance from the code would be needed in order to build on to it.

Mr. Vedad was brought into East Hampton Town Justice Court in September, fined $750, and ordered to apply for the variance.

Powder Room

At a recent Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing, he maintained the addition was merely an extension of his third story, and said it was needed for an extra "powder room."

The second floor and its bathroom, he said, had been renovated so his elderly mother could live there.

Zoning Board members had little sympathy for the homeowner in reviewing his application for variances to legalize the 10-by-16-foot addition.

"It's clearly self-imposed" said the Z.B.A. chairman, Jay Schneiderman.

Hearing Testimony

Testimony at the Nov. 18 hearing alleged that the house had been listed for sale and for rent with Montauk brokers, although Mr. Vedad's lawyer, Robert Kouffman of East Hampton, said it was "never listed for rental or sale." His client "just wanted to test the market," said Mr. Kouffman.

Carol Morrison, who lives nearby, complained that the house was obtrusive in the neighborhood because of its height and because of extensive clearing of the property.

Mr. Kouffman argued that other houses in the area had three stories, but board members said most were two-story structures with basements and garages dug into the hilly grade. A basement without living space is not considered a story.

Mr. Vedad's house might have been considered a two-story house with basement, except that its certificate of occupancy notes "living space" in the basement. Additionally, much of the earth formerly surrounding the basement has been removed, exposing the level.

Board members ruled 4-to-0 at a Nov. 25 work session to deny the variance.

Mr. Schneiderman observed that Mr. Vedad could solve his problem by filling in the grade around the basement (first-floor) level, thus making the house conform to zoning, rather than ripping off the addition.

Peter Van Scoyoc, a Z.B.A. member, abstained from the vote, saying he had submitted a bid to do work on the house.

Nine Variances

Also at last week's work session, the Z.B.A. denied William Fowkes, a contractor, permission to build a house on a tiny, 5,000-square foot lot off Gardiner's Cove Road near Three Mile Harbor and the Three Mile Harbor Inn in East Hampton.

Board members ruled the 1,500-square-foot, two-story house proposed was too big for the constrained lot, whose wetland pockets drain into the harbor.

To build the house as proposed, Mr. Fowkes would need a total of nine variances, from height requirements, property-line and wetlands setbacks, and lot-coverage limits. The septic system would have been just 71 feet from the wetland edge, where 200 feet is the requirement.

Acquisition? Unlikely

Mr. Fowkes's application posed a fairly common problem for the Z.B.A. when faced with undersized lots: The town cannot completely deny a property owner the use of a legally existing lot unless the town is willing to acquire the property.

Board members inquired whether the town might consider purchasing the lot, but Brian Frank, a town planner, said it was unlikely that this lot would be a priority over other, more sensitive parcels.

Neighbors at Mr. Fowkes's earlier hearing had urged the board to deny the house, saying its septic system would contaminate their wells and that their own houses were well below the 1,500 square feet being proposed.

Septic: No Way, Nowhere

During their deliberations, board members at first appeared to be split. Both Charles Butler and Philip Gamble argued against allowing any development at all on the site.

"There's no way in the world this septic system can go in without jeopardizing the wells of his neighbors," asserted Mr. Gamble.

No matter where the septic system was placed on the lot, he said, it would lie too close to the wetlands and too close to at least one neighbor's well.

Septic: Somewhere

Mr. Schneiderman reminded the board that a total denial would mean condemning the property.

"We can determine if the septic is in the best location, but we can't say a septic system can't go on this property, because that would be condemning it."

After further discussion, the board ruled the house could be reduced in size, reducing some of the variances.

The board voted 4-1 to deny the house as proposed, with Mr. Schneiderman casting the only dissenting vote. He said the house could have been approved with a lesser height variance.