L.V.I.S. Parking Addressed

    Members of the Ladies Village Improvement Society, along with the organization’s attorney, Theodore Sklar, appeared again before the East Hampton Village Zoning Board on Dec. 9 to discuss a parking plan for the L.V.I.S. headquarters off Main Street.

    At an earlier hearing, the L.V.I.S. had discussed turning a garage formerly used for storage into a retail space. As a result, several neighbors raised concerns about parking. One of them, Sue Feleppa, described a situation in which emergency vehicles were unable to get to her house, which shares a driveway with the L.V.I.S., because of illegal parking.

    At the meeting on Dec. 9, Mr. Sklar presented a parking plan to address neighbors’ concerns. The East Hampton Village Police Department had already reviewed it and offered input, he said.

    “We met with very positive response from our neighbors,” said Nancy Andrews, the president of the L.V.I.S.

    “You’re 80 to 90 percent there,” said Andrew Goldstein, the chairman of the zoning board. “But you have to be willing to be unpopular and have someone towed away once or twice to enforce it,” he said. It was agreed that the plan would be redrafted with a change in some language, and the board would make a decision in January.

    Also on Dec. 9, the board heard from a neighbor who is unhappy about the Three P Corporation’s plans for a residential property on Collins Avenue.

    The property has been used as a rental for some time, and to the great consternation of the neighbors, who claimed that the police have been called to the property several times because of noise infractions. The Three P Corporation needs a variance to demolish a front porch, rear deck, and storage shed, and to build a two-story addition and several decks. The house, which has a gross floor area of 1,451 square feet, would increase to 1,874 square feet, when a maximum for the lot size is 1,443 square feet.

    “It already has a stop-work order on it for illegally expanding the foundation,” said Tom Steele, a neighbor, who was also concerned by a proposal to move the entrance from the front to the side, “less than 10 feet from our backyard.” He provided pictures to the board of other alleged zoning violations at the property.

    Mr. Goldstein seemed to agree. “It’s pretty graphic testimony for a neighbor that this would be a detriment to the neighborhood.”

    “It’s a burden on a property that’s already burdened by being next to the railroad tracks,” he said. “I see this as a problematic application.”

    The hearing was adjourned until a later date.