In The Dark On Upzoning

Whether a Springs woman who was unaware of a 1972 upzoning should now be able to split her property in two was a matter before the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals last week. The Town Planning Department recommended its answer be "no."

Leonard Ackerman, an East Hampton attorney speaking on behalf of Janet Norton, told the board at a Feb. 24 hearing that his client should be able to split her property, once two separate lots but since merged into one.

At the corner of Three Mile Harbor Road and Woodbine Drive, the parcel is 44,740-square-feet, roughly an acre, in an area now zoned for one-acre lots.

Fell Between Cracks

"The Nortons basically fell between the cracks," Mr. Ackerman said, and were the only ones of about a dozen property owners in the neighborhood who were affected by the town's upzoning 16 years ago.

Today the neighborhood consists of half-acre lots, Mr. Ackerman said, arguing that allowing Mrs. Norton to split her property would have no undesirable effect.

Mrs. Norton is seeking 16,995-square-foot and 18,265-square-foot lot-area variances, as well as a 66-foot lot-width variance. The proposed parcels would measure 23,005 and 21,735 square feet.

More Requests Feared

Mrs. Norton and her late husband, Willard, put the two properties in the same name at the request of their bank for financing purposes, although to this day Mrs. Norton still receives separate tax bills for each half, Mr. Ackerman told the board. When the town held well-publicized and well-attended hearings on the 1972 upzoning of the area, the Nortons were unaware of it or its effect on their property, the attorney added.

Speaking on behalf of the Town Planning Department was Brian Frank, who recommended the board deny Mrs. Norton's request. The variances are roughly half of the town's requirement and therefore substantial in size, Mr. Frank argued.

Granting Mrs. Norton her request could open up similar requests from other property owners, not only in Springs but around town, Mr. Frank added, to the disagreement of Mr. Ackerman.

"The purpose of upzoning was to reduce the density of new building lots," Mr. Frank reminded the board.

In The Dark

Despite the fact that the upzoning was well-publicized, Mr. Ackerman added, his client was "not sophisticated" enough to understand its impact.

Mrs. Norton told the Zoning Board that her previous attorney never mentioned upzoning to her, and that she never read the local newspaper or was aware of the Town Board's actions that affected her property. Mr. Ackerman added that the Nortons were never sent a notice from the town that these proceedings were taking place.

"Ignorance is one thing, not getting The Star is another," one board member, Heather Anderson, commented.

Again, Concerns

"Twenty-six years ago the town literally took away the Nortons' right to" maintain two separate lots, Mr. Ackerman said. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," Mr. Ackerman admitted, but had his clients been aware, they could have put the lots into separate ownership before the upzoning took place.

Mr. Ackerman raised concerns about the effect of the upzoning on local Springs residents who might be forced out, unable to afford homes there, concerns he said were expressed at the time of the town hearings. "Local people are the backbone of Springs. Local people were the backbone of East Hampton in 1972."

In addition to variances from the Zoning Board, Mrs. Norton will also have to get subdivision approval from the Town Planning Board.