Frown on Waterfront Proposals

The East Hampton Town Planning Department has recommended the denial of two applications from waterfront property holders.

Barbara Hair owns a house at 265 Three Mile Harbor-Hog Creek Highway that stands a scant 32 feet from the bluff crest, where 100 feet is the standard, and wants to tear it down. The house was built before the town’s zoning code was written, and is also much closer to wetlands than the code allows.

The new 3,015-square-foot house she is planning to build, which would be set away from both the bluff crest and the wetlands, does not require any variances. It is what Ms. Hair hopes to do with the hole left in the ground after the teardown that was the subject of a heated hearing before the town’s zoning board of appeals on Feb. 23.

Jonathan Tarbet of Tarbet & Lester, Ms. Hair’s representative, told the board that she wants to build a pool with a patio there. That would require nine setback variances, a number of them for over half the required 100 feet. One request for relief would allow construction just two feet from the bluff crest.

Mr. Tarbet told the board that his client had a beautiful view of the harbor and did not want to lose it. With a 560-square-foot pool and a 480-square-foot pool patio, she would maintain the view.

He argued that since she was removing an asphalt driveway, which he said drains toward the wetlands, and an underground oil tank as well, and replacing the old septic system, the net effect would be a major gain for the town — a “home run,” as he put it.

“As currently proposed, the Planning Department recommends denial,” Tyler Borsack, a town planner, told the board that night.

Board members were skeptical of the application. Cate Rogers pointed out that if Ms. Hair removed a proposed house patio and placed the pool in that location, the number of needed variances would plummet.

Tyler Armstrong, an East Hampton Town trustee, addressed the board as well, saying that the trustees opposed the pool. Inevitably, he said, the bluff crest will recede over time, creating the possibility of the pool toppling into Three Mile Harbor.

When Mr. Tarbet said there were other properties in the area with pools, Mr. Armstrong countered that all of them were landward of the houses.

Mr. Tarbet said the trustees and the Planning Department, considering that the septic system would be moved and modernized, “should be jumping up and down for joy.” “I don’t think that is their position,” Ms. Rogers said.

Mr. Tarbet demanded that Mr. Borsack, who had left the podium, be summoned back. “If he is honest, he will have to admit that what I am proposing is better for Three Mile Harbor.” He said he wanted Mr. Borsack “to state what the detriment is.”

“We’re not going to do that,” John Whelan, the chairman, responded.

The record was kept open to allow the trustees to make an official comment on the proposal at their next meeting.

The Planning Department also opposed the application of John and Robyn Diament, who own an older house at 91 Napeague Harbor Road in Amagansett, also facing the water. They are requesting seven variances to build a new house with a deck, Brian Frank, the town’s chief environmentalist, told the board during a March 1 public hearing, including both setback and pyramid variances.

The problem, Mr. Frank told the board, is that the proposal would make a bad situation worse. “The closest structure on the property is currently located 39.6 and 45.2 feet from the primary dune crest and wetlands, respectively. The new residence and deck will reduce these already nonconforming setbacks to 29.9 and 39.9 feet respectively.”

The Diaments, who purchased the property two years ago, knew what they were getting into when they bought it, Mr. Frank said. He told the board that in requests involving the tearing down of a nonconforming structure, the board needed to approach the application as if it were for an undeveloped property.

Andy Hammer, representing the Diaments, made an argument similar to Mr. Tarbet’s, touting the proposal as a trade-off in which the town wins. The old house, he said, “has a septic system that is essentially a cesspool in groundwater.”

Mr. Diament addressed the board as well. He and his wife care very much for the environment, he said, but if their application were denied, “we’ll continue to use an old septic system.”

Mr. Whelan spoke for the board: “When you redevelop these properties, you are essentially starting with a clean slate. It is not really equitable to say, we have a single cesspool in groundwater, we are proposing a new sanitary system that meets Health Department standards.”

“That is like saying, we are building a new house, we are not going to put any lead pipes inside.”