Joe Rose, a member of the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals, delivered an impassioned rebuke to his colleagues on Friday, slamming their decision to grant multiple variances and a wetlands permit to the owners of 15 Jones Road, allowing several changes and additions.
Mr. Rose, a former chairman of the New York City Planning Commission and director of the Department of City Planning, declared himself “embarrassed” to be involved in the determination.
Ever since the application was first opened, on Feb. 13, he had been sharply critical of it, noting that the 2.15-acre property is restricted by wetlands comprising just over half of the property, meaning that every one of the requested additions and alterations is within wetland setbacks. Given that fact, “We’re talking about, effectively, a one-acre site, in terms of its developable capacity,” Mr. Rose said in February.
Doug and Kristin Douglass’s newly approved proposal includes additions to the principal residence, a new swimming pool and patio, a new septic system, and conversion of an accessory building into a dwelling unit, as well as the removal of phragmites.
Mr. Rose was critical of a proposed two-car garage to which a neighbor had objected, calling the setback variance sought “extremely substantial.” The house and garage, with a peak of 23 feet from natural grade, would form a “144-foot-wide continuous structure, which is a substantial presence across the Jones Road frontage,” he said. He also asked pointed questions about a vegetation plan calling for a native species buffer between most of the wetlands and the yard.
When the hearing was continued on March 6, Trevor Darrell, an attorney representing the applicants, said the neighbor’s concern had been acknowledged, and the requested garage setback had been reduced, with its ridge line lowered to 19.1 feet. “The applicant is limited in locations on this lot, as the board is aware, based on the wetlands on the property,” Mr. Darrell said. “But we did try to reduce the amount of impact that it may have on the neighbor to the south.”
The project’s architect, Pietro Cicognani, told the board that “there’s no practical way to be able to have a two-car garage within a 50-foot setback,” as stipulated by the zoning code.
Also at that meeting, another Jones Road neighbor voiced multiple concerns about the application. “I urge the board to carefully consider the total impact of the project as well as evaluate each variance individually,” Kim Hovey said. “It’s important that all reasonable alternatives be fully explored to reduce stormwater runoff, reduce environmental impacts to the wetlands, and with a proposed development, limit the disruption of neighboring properties with prolonged noise, parking, and heavy equipment access on a wetlands-sensitive property.”
Mr. Rose continued to criticize the application at the March meeting. “I think the application as it stands is distinctive,” he said, in that “it fails on every one of the five criteria by which we are to evaluate actions.” It would change the character of the neighborhood, he maintained, noting that less intrusive alternatives had apparently not been evaluated. Again, he called the setback variances sought “extremely substantial,” and said that the swimming pool represented a “substantial additional intrusion.”
His colleagues, notwithstanding, voiced only mild concerns, and the hearing was closed.
On Friday, however, it was reopened at Mr. Rose’s request, and he read aloud a lengthy critique of the determination about to be announced. While he had agreed to close the hearing at the March meeting, “that was because I believed it was clear no evidence or argument had been presented to justify many of the actions being requested,” he said, “nor had a record been established that could be a rational basis for approving what I consider to be the problematic aspects of this application.”
Continuing, he charged that the applicant’s attorney had “misrepresented in his initial testimony that a buffer of native species was going to be planted adjacent to the wetlands. . . . In fact, no such buffer is being provided.” This went unnoticed, he said, because Billy Hajek, the village planner, had not attended the February meeting due to illness. Consequently, “the current draft determination provides for no wetland setback buffer area, as required by this board of all other similar applications over the six years I have served on this board.”
Mr. Rose went on to note that in 2024 the zoning board had granted variances to construct a swimming pool at the same property, then under different ownership, but with far less intrusion into the wetland setback area. “These distances were determined to be the maximum intrusion into the wetland setback that this board would accept,” he said, “yet here we are only 18 months later contemplating approval of a swimming pool” that represents “a 50-percent increase in the magnitude of the variance compared to the relief granted in 2024.”
The land surrounding Lily Pond is “some of the most environmentally sensitive and scenic” in the village “and is being rapidly developed,” Mr. Rose said. “The actions taken here will no doubt be scrutinized and argued to be precedential for future applications. We cannot afford a casual attitude toward wetland and side-yard protections.”
While phragmites removal and the accessory dwelling unit were sensible components of the application, “I think it’s clear that the area variances are not supported by the materials we have before us, and require significant revision.”
Mr. Rose urged the board to leave the record open and “allow the applicant to either make a more compelling argument in support of the variances being sought, and/or to make revisions to address some of the concerns expressed above.”
The hearing was closed again, and the board then voted 4-to-1 to approve the application. In announcing his dissenting vote, Mr. Rose delivered one last lament. In 45 years of continual government service in land use, he said, “This is the first time I’ve ever been embarrassed to sit on an action . . . It’s not because of where a swimming pool is going, or a 30-foot side-yard variance, even though, as I stated, it’s problematic. . . . It’s because I think in this case we’re not adhering to the standards and treating like applications alike. I think it is very problematic, and for the aforementioned reasons, and with dismay, I vote no.”
