Compromise proved elusive again for the Paramount Development Group and the East Hampton Town Architectural Review Board on Dec. 12, a month after the A.R.B.’s unanimous denial of Paramount’s application to build a residence at 84 Wainscott Hollow Road in Wainscott.
“Subsequent to that denial, the town attorney’s office reached out and wondered if we’d consider some modifications in light of the fact that litigation was commenced,” said Carl Benincasa, an attorney, speaking for Paramount.
However, despite some changes, the board again denied the application, though it did gain one vote, from Chip Rae, the board’s chairman.
The A.R.B. has long held firm in its belief that the proposed 7,374-square-foot house, which would include a pool, pickleball court, nine bedrooms, 12 bathrooms, a golf “studio” and an indoor plunge bath, among other amenities, is wildly out of context for its location. The land is in an agricultural overlay district,
The court petition, written by Brian Matthews, a local lawyer, argues that the property “does not contain prime agricultural soils” and is “not used for agriculture,” while “the sole purpose of the agricultural overlay district is “to protect against the loss of open lands and prime agricultural soils.”
Mr. Matthews also took issue with the board’s taking into consideration the historical context of nearby buildings, among them the Wainscott School (only a quarter-mile away), asserting that “there is no town-designated ‘historic district’ in Wainscott.”
Over all, he argued the board was responding to “generalized community opposition” against the application. Indeed, many Wainscott residents have written to the board to oppose the plans, so many that the board has considered holding a public hearing to discuss the project.
Board members acknowledged some changes by Paramount. These included moving the house an extra 22 feet from Wainscott Hollow Road, switching out a tennis court for a pickleball court, and creating an underground parking area. However, the starting point of the application was so egregious that at the November meeting, Mr. Rae remarked, “We don’t see many initial submissions like this that are so far off the mark.”
“You’ve pushed it back a fair amount, I recognize that, but it’s not solving the problem,” said Kathy Cunningham, a board member. The proposed house would sit atop a hill, and the board has maintained that its positioning, broadly across the property and parallel with the road, causes it to “loom.” Paramount has pushed it back, but it still sits closer to the road than an existing house just to the north.
Frank Guittard, a board member and an architect, spoke of the “program” sought by the applicant, a sort of laundry list of desires. “The fundamental problem is that the program is being fought tooth and nail for this pickleball court in the back,” he said. “If your client just gave it up and moved the house back and shifted some of the program, perhaps moving the pool, I don’t think we’d be in this situation.”
“Just because it doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be able to entertain having it,” said Mr. Benincasa.
“Just having gables on your house isn’t enough to qualify it as reminiscent of a barn,” said Christopher Britton, vice chairman of the board. “We’ve basically been presented with the same house design.” He ran through a series of photos showing nearby structures and fields, to illustrate the board’s opinion that the house doesn’t make sense contextually in the neighborhood. “The frustration of this board is that we feel the biggest concern is not being addressed,” Mr. Britton concluded.
“The program in the back, it’s not necessary to the pleasurable habitation of this property. It’s a desire on the part of the applicant to have these features, which may or may not fit,” said Mr. Guittard.
Mr. Matthews stood up to argue, once again, that the house met code, and that the board was making vague arguments based on personal preferences. The A.R.B., however, unlike the zoning board of appeals, is tasked with often murky concepts, such as harmony and neighborhood context.
“This isn’t individual preferences,” said Mr. Guittard. “This is the standards of the context of the surrounding area of Wainscott.” He said Paramount hadn’t made reasonable efforts to address the out-of-scale house.
“I think the record bears out otherwise,” said Mr. Matthews.
