Contentious Hearings as Neighbors Object

Two applications before the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals brought out strong opposition during public hearings on Aug. 4, in a session that seemed to raise questions that remained unanswered.

One application was for a slightly over one-acre oceanfront parcel at 22 Shore Road on Napeague, which is immediately to the east of the White Sands Resort Motel. The owner, a limited liability company named Gerard Point, wants to build a 4,320 square-foot, two-story house, 900 square feet of porches, decking and steps, and a 594-square-foot swimming pool, among other amenities.

 The dunes in the area,  with the exception of this small sliver, have been encroached upon by houses built in the 1970s, if not entirely obliterated, as was the case when the motel was built in the 1950s.

The applicant does not need variances but only a permit to allow construction near the dune crest, according to Julia Priolo of Land Use Ecological Services, who represented the owner.

The hearing was contentious from the beginning. Opponents and board members questioned the accuracy of the survey presented and asked what the elevations of the proposed structures would be.

Dianne LeVerrier of the law firm Jordan & LeVerrier, who represented Bernard Kiembock, an owner of the White Sands, even challenged the size of the property as presented. She alleged that town tax records show it as three-quarters of an acre while the map submitted by the applicant extended “into the Atlantic Ocean.” She questioned the size of the proposed house, as well as the request for a pool, saying it was out of character for the neighborhood, where the only pool was four houses away and had been allowed through a property exchange with the town.

 “Nothing should be built on this dune. It doesn’t make sense. We’re living on borrowed time out here,” one of the neighbors, Harvey Sands, said. That opinion was endorsed by another neighbor, Nick Gregory, who lives directly across the street. “Most if not all of the houses that are on the ocean have been there since the 1970s,” he said, adding that the topography had changed radically. During Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, he said, “We have had to sandbag the public parking lot four or five feet tall and still had flooding.”

 “There is going to be a lot of disturbance to this dune. Let’s be honest,” David Lys, one of the board members, said. Local practice does not allow the zoning board to totally deny construction on a legal private parcel, although it could recommend that it be purchased by the town.

 At the end of the hearing, which ran over two hours, the board agreed with John Whelan, its chairman, to keep the written record open for one month for the applicant to supply updated surveys, and another month for opponents to respond. 

Just as contentious was the other hearing that night, on a proposed tennis court on a parcel of about two acres at 76 Skimhampton Road. Three variances would be needed since the applicant wants to put in the court less than the required 50 feet from the north, south, and east lot lines. The variances requested vary from 2.1 to 9.3 feet.

Robert Connelly of the law firm Farrell Fritz spoke on behalf of the owners, a limited liability company called Iluminus Property Holdings. He told the board that the applicant planned to sink the court four feet below grade. Along with vegetation to be planted, any noise that might emanate would be reduced, he said.

 The court would measure 60 by 120 feet, but the plan also calls for an apron around it bringing the size to 64 by 122 feet. Mr. Whelan pointed out that, in part, the apron created the need for variances.

Carl Irace, a lawyer representing Jack and Eleanor Ecker, who own neighboring property, challenged the legality of the plan. According to Mr. Irace, the property had been cleared illegally. “This whole proposal is based on an error,” he said.

According to Mr. Irace, the Planning Department had incorrectly sent the Building Department a memo in 2012 saying the clearing pre-existed any zoning that would have prohibited it. Mr. Ecker,  however, said he had lived next to the site since 1957 and that it always was heavily vegetated.

Both he and Mr. Irace said the property may have been cleared at one point, over 125 years ago, perhaps for farming, but they said any such clearing had been abandoned. Mr. Irace presented aerial photographs showing what he said was illegal clearing, which had occurred in 2014. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” Mr. Whelan said.

“I have never heard of abandonment when it comes to clearing,” Mr. Connelly responded. Mr. Irace told the board he wanted to appeal the Planning Department’s decision, and asked that it delay any decision. Beth Baldwin, the board’s lawyer, however, said she did not believe an appeal could be made of a Planning Department memo.

In addition, one of the neighbors, Peter Lyons, told the board that the plans for the property appear to include building on an easement that gives him access to his property.

The board left the record open so that all sides could respond to what had been presented.