Four Apply for Exemption, but Only Two Are Approved

In month two of the six-month moratorium on new construction and major renovations of most single-family houses in Sag Harbor, the village board heard four requests for exemptions and granted two.

The board had unanimously passed a temporary moratorium to stop development while it reconsidered the building code. An exemption process was established to vet proposals in which applicants claimed it would be a hardship to wait six months to move forward.

Thomas Cooper, an East Hampton resident and builder, received an exemption for the renovation of a 1,606-square-foot house on an approximately 3,822-square-foot lot at 209 Division Street. He will now be able to add 184 square feet to the house.

Mr. Cooper said that the building inspector had said the house was unsafe and required repairs, which he will undertake. “I don’t think that this law is trying to prevent anybody from cleaning up and making things safer for this community,” he told the board.

In a letter to the board in July, he noted that his project fell into the moratorium, in part, because the cost of the addition will exceed 50 percent of the value of the existing house. However, he wrote, “the project should not be deemed a substantial improvement because the majority of the improvements . . . will correct existing code violations and significant health and safety issues.”  He will also replace a 75-year-old septic system, which predates current sanitary standards.

Noel and Gwendolyn Hankin’s request was also approved for their house at 27 Harding Terrace in Ninevah. The couple, who have recently retired there, plan an addition to their existing one-story, 1,040-square-foot house as well as a basement on the 13,425-square-foot lot. The addition would result in a two-story house with 3,482-square-feet, which Mr. Hankin told the board pales in comparison to the “humongous houses” in his neighborhood.

Several people in the audience muttered comments about why exemptions were being granted at all, and Gigi Morris went to the podium to pose that question. “I’m very confused . . . ,” she said. “I thought the point of the moratorium was to say, ‘Wait a minute, let’s regroup here.’”

She took particular exception to an application from Arnold Beau Baker and Susan Baker seeking to demolish a 1,300-square-foot, one-story house at 18 Howard Street, which is around the corner from her own house. The Bakers are in contract to buy the property from Richard Browngardt, and want to build a two-story, 2,929-square-foot house on the 9,600-square-foot lot. They received approvals before the moratorium but did not demolish the existing house in time, which triggered the review.

Tony Brandt, the chairman of the architectural review board, said the Bakers had worked with the board to come up with plans that it would be pleased with and that this particular house was not in a historic district. “There are houses in Sag Harbor you’re not sorry to see gone, and I think this is one of them,” he said.

At the close of the hearing, no one moved to approve the exemption, and Ken O’Donnell, a trustee, said he wouldn’t sign off on demolition because they, too, are prohibited during the moratorium.

The board ultimately held the hearing open until the next meeting, much to Mr. Baker’s displeasure. He apparently wanted to make an argument with regard to hardship, saying he was in jeopardy of losing a $150,000 deposit.

 “This moratorium has a purpose, and nothing I am doing is against the purpose of the moratorium. You’re trying to go by the letter of the law, but this law was made up in a hurry with a lot of flaws,” he said. “This doesn’t make any sense to me.” 

The board also tabled an application from 154 Redwood L.L.C. The plans include demolishing a 4,150-square-foot house on a 32,342-square-foot lot at that address and building a 6,252-square-foot house in its place. The new house would have one story visible from the street and two stories visible from the water.

Brian DeSessa, the attorney for the applicant, said the project required no relief from the code, but fell under the moratorium due to its size and the demolition.

“The prevailing point,” he told the board, was that the project came to a halt during the wetlands moratorium last year. It had since been revised and now fell into another moratorium. He called it “a moving target.”

Fred W. Thiele Jr., the village board’s attorney, said this was the most complicated application of the four and advised the board that it needed more time and more information.