It’s the Pool Fence Follies, Folks
’Tis the season to construct a swimming pool, if the applications before the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals on Friday are any indication.
Alas, ’tis always the season of quarreling neighbors, often about encroachments, real or imagined, upon the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property. And while good fences may make good neighbors, a dispute played out on Friday among three neighbors over a proposed pool house for a theoretical swimming pool, and a similarly theoretical fence to shield noise from the proposed pool house.
An application from Nonsuch Productions Ltd. of 75 Mill Hill Lane, signed by David Benevides, saw a presentation by an architect, objection from an attorney representing one neighbor, complaint from another neighbor, and exasperated protest by Georgia Benevides, who said she represented Nonsuch.
The application is to install a pool house within a garage. The pre-existing nonconforming structure falls within the side and rear-yard setbacks on the 0.28-acre lot. The 155-square-foot pool house would feature a toilet and sink, and requires approval of the Suffolk County Health Department.
At present, there is no application for a swimming pool, said Nicole Adams, the architect. The garage is “a charming little accessory building for a small car,” she said. “The main idea is to have a bathroom there for people coming back from the beach. Hopefully a pool in the future.”
Andrew Goldstein, an attorney, said that he was representing the neighbor at 10 Borden Lane, directly south of the property. “I think the neighbor would be content with the grant of the variance if it could be conditioned upon the installation of a stockade fence on the property line of the applicant,” he said. “It gives the neighbor adequate protection from any noise.”
Then Virginia Coleman of 69 Mill Hill Lane spoke. “The garage is next to the bedrooms in my house,” she said. “So noise is of a concern.”
The most recent survey shows a wood fence on the property line, Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, said to Ms. Coleman.
“There is,” she said, “but I’m taking it down” as it is “no good anymore” and not a stockade fence.
Ms. Benevides then spoke. “Her pool equipment is on the other side of the fence,” she said of Ms. Coleman. “And plus,” she said, turning to her neighbor, “your fence is falling down.”
No, it isn’t, Ms. Coleman said.
“I’m assuming all this is for me to build a new fence,” Ms. Benevides said. She installed a pool fence “because we don’t know when we’ll build a pool but I wanted to do it so I could plant the vegetation,” she said. The neighbor at 10 Borden Lane has a pool but “did not have a pool fence to code. We had to put in a fence because we sometimes have small children at the house, so they won’t go into his pool.”
She installed a fence and planted vegetation at significant cost, she said. “Then I get this phone call, they don’t like the fence I put in.” She said that she had agreed to install sound-attenuating material on her fence. “Mr. Goldstein first said that was okay, but I said I also want to put it in from his side because I don’t want to damage all my plants, because on their side, they don’t have proper landscaping, just wildwoods.”
Now, Ms. Benevides complained, Mr. Goldstein “wants me to build a really expensive fence there that’s going to destroy everything. And now this is new,” she said of Ms. Coleman’s complaint. “All I want is a bathroom! I didn’t even want a pool house! I just wanted a bathroom so the kids coming back from the beach would not go through my house.”
“There is the potential for neighbor detriment,” Mr. Goldstein said, and a stockade fence with sound-attenuating material would mitigate potential noise. “There is a pool fence on this property now. Secondly, it’s their fence, and they should put it up if they want a variance for something that is a noise producer.” That’s why the zoning code requires setbacks, he said.
Mr. Newbold agreed that setbacks exist to protect neighbors from noise. “It sounds like there have been discussions, but the discussions haven’t reached a resolution,” he said. “Perhaps the wisest thing this morning would be to leave the hearing open, where the three parties can discuss further and come to a proposal.”
The existing fence was costly, Ms. Benevides said. “These guys are asking me to pay, without them contributing, to basically build a new fence for the two of them. . . . It’s going to benefit them, because she’ll take down her fence that’s falling down anyway and get a new pool fence, courtesy of me, and his fence is not to code.”
When the quarreling had subsided, John McGuirk of the board spoke. “I still don’t know what noise is going to come out of a pool house,” he said.
“What we are talking about,” Mr. Newbold said, “is the disagreement between neighbors of what the appropriate mitigation should be.”
“Right,” said Lys Marigold, the board’s vice chairwoman. “It’s a neighbor thing.” Mr. Newbold asked the neighbors to discuss the matter further and try to reach a consensus.
“It just seems ridiculous,” Ms. Benevides said. “I’m not asking for very much. They’re asking for a lot.”
Be that as it may, “discussion might be fruitful between the neighbors,” Mr. Newbold answered. The hearing was left open and will be revisited on Aug. 10.
Another hearing for a swimming pool, for Brian Bigos of 20 Stratton Square, featured little drama despite the lot’s being just .2 acres. This proposed 12-by-20-foot pool and ancillary equipment would also fall within side and rear-yard setbacks, and the applicant would require a lot-coverage variance.
But here, the proposed structures would be far from the sole adjacent neighbor, who has submitted a letter supporting the application, said Laurie Wiltshire, representing the applicant. The property abuts vacant land to the southeast and a parking lot to the southwest, she said, and the backyard is already well screened.
But the owner purchased the property just two years ago and knew that constructing a pool would be difficult given the setback requirements, Mr. Newbold said, and the variances requested are significant.
“Because of this hot spell,” Ms. Marigold said, “we’ve been granting pools on small lots recently.”
“Is that why?” Mr. Newbold asked. “We need to talk,” he said, drawing laughter from those assembled.
To Ms. Wiltshire, he said that the board is sympathetic “because it is a very tight little puzzle, but the amount of variances requested are huge.” He asked that the applicant rethink the plans in order to reduce the number of requested variances, to which she agreed. The hearing was left open and is to be revisited on Aug. 10.
Several determinations were announced at the meeting. Greg Blatt was granted a wetlands permit and variances to modify plans for a proposed swimming pool, pool house, and fencing at 14 Hook Pond Lane. The pool and pool house are to be constructed within the side-yard setback, fencing and stairs are to be installed within the wetlands setback, and a generator is to be installed within the front-yard setback. The variances were granted on the condition that the generator is sunk below grade and has a soundproof barrier installed around it.
The board granted Gusty Folks variances allowing the construction of a swimming pool within the side and rear-yard lot lines at 7 Pleasant Lane.
The Ellin Saltzman Family Trust’s application to alter the design of a new pool house, for which the board granted variance relief in 2017 but has yet to be constructed, and of a patio at 20 Spaeth Lane was granted on the condition that there be no cooking or sleeping in the pool house. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant must record a covenant in the county clerk’s office to that effect.
The board granted Michael Smith variances allowing 21,275 feet of coverage, where the maximum permitted at 93 Lily Pond Lane is 18,757 square feet, and for a shed to remain within the front and side-yard setbacks. The variance relief was granted on the condition that seasonal storage containers are removed.
Terri Rauch was granted variances to permit 2,345 square feet of coverage at 29 McGuirk Street, where the maximum permitted is 2,181 square feet, and to permit a patio and stairs to remain on the side lot line, where the required setback is 10 feet.
Freshwater wetlands permits were granted to companion applications by members of the Tiedemann family at the adjacent parcels at 19 and 23 Chauncey Close to legalize the mowing and removal of vegetation within 125 feet of wetlands associated with Georgica Pond and the replanting of native vegetation. The permits were granted on condition that a wetlands buffer plan by Inter-Science Research Associates is implemented.
Last, an April determination regarding the Creeks, the billionaire investor Ron Perelman’s nearly 58-acre estate at 291 Montauk Highway, was modified to allow existing lighting on six sculptures to remain. Mr. Newbold said that the board had received a letter from the Dark Sky Society, which fights light pollution, asking that the owner or manager of the property be reminded to shut off lighting whenever possible.
“I’m sure it will be appreciated by all creatures, great and small,” he read. “The darker the sky, the brighter the stars.”