A rendering of the proposed home submitted as a part of the Kaufmanns’ software to the East Hampton City Zoning Board of Appeals.
Joeb Moore & Companions
Is the glass half full or half empty? Relies on perspective. The identical applies, it will appear, to land growth. When the East Hampton City Planning Division considers an software, ought to it give extra weight to the proposed enhancements to a parcel and its environment, or to the dictates of the city zoning code?
A proposed teardown challenge at 50 Oyster Shores Highway, which got here earlier than the zoning board of appeals at a public listening to late final month, introduced the query to the forefront. The householders, Pamela and Andrew Kaufmann, are in search of a pure sources particular allow and 6 wetland and coastal setback variances.
Their home, which they’ve owned since 2012, was inbuilt 1959 on Three Mile Harbor, 25 years earlier than wetland setback legal guidelines had been established. By as we speak’s requirements, the home is sort of fully nonconforming. The pool juts out onto the seashore at Three Mile Harbor, separated solely by a retaining wall, and an getting old septic system is positioned steps away from the water.
The Kaufmanns suggest to demolish the previous home and construct a brand new one, greater than double its dimension, in a brand new location. The pool could be moved landward, as would an upgraded septic system. The shoreline alongside the harbor could be restored, in response to the applying, and native plantings added to the parcel, which at the moment has none.
Jon Tarbet, the lawyer representing the Kaufmanns, instructed the Z.B.A. it was a “residence run of an software.” The Planning Division employees, nevertheless, beneficial that or not it’s denied.
“You possibly can’t argue that this isn’t considerably higher than what’s there now,” Mr. Tarbet instructed the board.
With that perspective, any change may be seen as a present, each to the city and to the harbor. However is the guideline to make a nasty scenario higher, or do city zoning rules take priority?
“We now have to incentivize folks to make these adjustments,” Mr. Tarbet argued. “After they’re not given applicable aid from the zoning board, they only make higher what they’ve, and also you don’t get these enormous environmental advantages to Three Mile Harbor.”
“If this had been vacant land,” he continued, “it will most likely be thought of an aggressive software, however you may’t take a look at it as vacant land. It’s a must to take a look at it as land developed earlier than zoning, which might violate nearly each zoning provision we’ve these days, and we’re making vital enhancements.”
Brian Frank, the City’s chief environmental analyst, disagreed. “The Planning Division just isn’t set on objecting to any variances on this lot,” he stated. “That will be irrational. What could be rational, and according to the zoning code, is maximizing the setbacks to the protected pure options and making the event on this property extra commensurate with its constraints. That’s what will defend the character of Three Mile Harbor and Oyster Shores Highway.”
Mr. Frank is saying, in impact, that the property is simply too delicate for the dimensions of the Kaufmanns’ proposal.
“The applicant can get the advantage of new building, a more recent home, a bigger home, with out these magnitudes of variance and with out this very massive footprint on a constrained property,” he stated.
The brand new septic system, for instance, would require a variance of 125 ft. Mr. Tarbet requested board members to think about themselves swimming in entrance of the home because it now stands, realizing how shut they had been to the septic system, or realizing that it was 125 ft away.
“I don’t assume the nexus for us taking a look at [the application] needs to be whether or not I wish to swim there or not,” stated Roy Dalene, the board chairman.
“Jon had talked about it meets all [Harbor Protection Overlay District] rules,” stated Mr. Frank. “The 200-foot sanitary setback is an H.P.O.D. requirement, so saying it meets all of H.P.O.D. necessities is simply inaccurate.” That 200-foot setback, he instructed the board, was added to the city code particularly “to keep up or enhance floor water high quality in East Hampton’s main harbors, creeks and ponds.”
“If the Planning Division needs to object,” Mr. Tarbet responded, “they need to analyze it in relation to the code. They need to say if there’s a internet optimistic or internet damaging. I’m offended the Planning Division objects to those issues.”
Mr. Frank then knowledgeable the Z.B.A. that he’d been negotiating with the Kaufmanns for 4 years or extra. Initially, he stated, they’d proposed to reconstruct the swimming pool. “That was a profit I felt snug supporting,” he stated. Later, they sought to construct an addition to the entrance of the home, which was additionally deemed affordable.
“When [the current] software was submitted, I used to be stunned it was for a redevelopment of this scale,” Mr. Frank stated. “These maximums are usually not a matter of proper while you lack a conforming constructing envelope.”
The query isn’t whether or not or not there’s a optimistic effort being made right here,” stated Ed Johann, a board member. “The query is whether or not or not it might need been a greater optimistic.”
The Z.B.A. voted unanimously to shut the listening to.