The East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals resolved to do a lot of walking when it met on Oct. 9, with one member insistent on visiting three of four properties that were the subject of new applications heard that day.
At 1 Egypt Close, Fred Doss and John Gicking seek variances and a wetlands permit to construct accessory buildings, a swimming pool, pool equipment, and to exceed the maximum permitted coverage by 388 square feet. Variances are required to permit excess gross floor area of an accessory building and to construct a pool within the rear-yard setback and pool equipment within the side and rear-yard setback. A wetlands permit and additional variances are required to construct a driveway and a detached 1.5-car garage within the wetlands setbacks, as is another variance for the garage, which would fall within the front-yard setback.
“It does sound like a long list,” Mr. Gicking allowed. “At the end of the day, we’re after what most people in the village are after: a house, pool, garage, shed — but our property’s constrained in multiple locations by, primarily, environmental issues,” a reference to wetlands.
The house was constructed as a one-story building, he said. It is roughly 3,100 square feet, but “it’s all on one level, meaning it takes up a huge amount of coverage on the property.” The lot is narrow, the southwestern corner is part of a FEMA flood zone, and the septic system is within the wetlands setback.
The primary objective is to move the septic system to the northeast corner, Mr. Gicking said, farthest from the water table. With that in mind, he said, a swimming pool on the south side was logical.
The siting of the garage was driven by the septic system’s move, he added. “We felt that if we are going to disturb the wetlands by moving the septic, it’s a perfect opportunity to replace it with a garage, which would be environmentally less dangerous than having the septic within these setbacks.” The house does not have a basement, only a crawl space, and storage space is important, he said.
The proposed shed would replace an existing dilapidated shed and would house pool equipment. The garage would be in line with the front of the house. “This helps us save one of the largest trees on the property,” Mr. Gicking said. But “by putting it in alignment with the house, we do need a more severe front-yard setback relief, but it’s in keeping with the nature of the street.”
“There’s a lot being asked for here,” commented Joe Rose of the board. “It’s all self-imposed, in the sense that none of it is required.” There may be compelling site conditions, Mr. Rose said, but “putting a garage in the front yard setback is an issue that this board has been extremely concerned about over time. I’d like to have the opportunity to go and walk the site.” To that end, the hearing was left open.
At 311 Georgica Road, a limited liability corporation called Zoe AB seeks variances and a wetlands permit to make alterations to a residence and construct a new foundation; also to construct a detached garage and storage bin; install a new driveway; relocate swimming pool equipment, and install an innovative/alternative septic system. A new cellar, a reconstructed wall and patio, a cellar areaway, relocated pool equipment, two new driveways, retaining walls, and the septic system would fall within the 150-foot wetlands setback. The garage requires a variance as it would fall within the front-yard setback, and the storage bin would be within the side-yard setback.
The applicant is raising the house in order to enlarge the basement and add habitable space there, “but preserving it in a lovely contemporary house on this one-acre parcel,” said Lenny Ackerman, an attorney representing the L.L.C. The garage will also become habitable space, he said. The new driveway will be permeable.
“The character of the neighborhood obviously won’t be impacted,” Mr. Ackerman said, “because it’s exactly the same house, except for the garage.”
The applicant was unaware of wetlands when purchasing the property, he said, but “the importance here is the fact that there’s Georgica Road separating the house from the wetlands across the street.”
There was much discussion about the siting of the garage, including testimony by the architect, Kevin O’Sullivan. “This is not the first application that we’re seeing today for a garage seeking a variance to be located in the front yard,” Mr. Rose said, “which is something that . . . has been a source of concern and vigilance on the part of both the intent of the zoning to begin with, and this board going forward.”
“It sounds like I’ve got a lot of field work to do,” he said, inviting his colleagues to walk the property with him.
The board agreed to leave the hearing open, and Mr. Ackerman asked why. “There’s a lot being asked for here,” Mr. Rose said, indicating the garage as a point of concern.
“We have to move this project forward,” the attorney said. “We can’t wait another week. . . . Let me withdraw the application for the garage, if I may, and just give us a determination for everything else, and then they’re going to revisit the garage.” The hearing was then closed.
Two other hearings concerned properties at 16 and 20 Church Street. At the former, Abby Drucker seeks a variance to legalize excess coverage and to construct a cellar egress within the required setbacks. A variance of 797 square feet, or 32.45 percent, is required for excess coverage.
“I’m hopeful that, as we consider all the circumstances of the application, you will come to the opinion that it’s not a disqualifying number, albeit large,” said Andrew Goldstein, an attorney representing the applicant. “This is not going to affect the character of the neighborhood in any way, or any neighbor.”
“Again,” Mr. Rose said, “I just have to go and walk the property.” The hearing was left open.
At 20 Church Lane, William Drucker, who Mr. Goldstein said is Abby Drucker’s brother, and Rhonda Rosenbaum also seek variances for excess coverage as well as to construct a shed within the side and rear-yard setbacks. Here, the coverage variance is less than 5 percent, Mr. Goldstein said, and the shed will be for storage of bicycles. “The amount of the setback over the entire property line is not large at all,” he said, “and should not have any effect on neighborhood character.”
This hearing was closed.
Also at the meeting, an application that would see installation of a detached arbor and sign featuring a clock resembling a Rolex watch face at the Odd Fellows Hall building at 28 Newtown Lane, which houses the Rolex Boutique, was withdrawn. “At this time, we remain unable to come up with a suitable design and therefore request that the record be closed, and our application withdrawn,” Jameson McWilliams, an attorney representing the applicant, wrote to the board.
