Martha Pleased

Susan Rosenbaum | January 15, 1998

Setback For Macklowe

For Harry Macklowe, the early weeks of 1998 are running about the same as the latter part of 1997, with a strikeout at his first legal proceeding of the new year.

On Friday, the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously reaffirmed its earlier decision allowing Mr. Macklowe's Georgica Close Road neighbor, Martha Stewart, to renovate a studio and construct a gym, a library, and an office on her land, the former Gordon Bunshaft property.

Ms. Stewart holds two building permits for the work and a certificate of occupancy for the studio, all of which Mr. Macklowe had challenged.

"Unprecedented"?

"We think the relief is unprecedented," Mr. Macklowe's attorney complained afterward, not only in East Hampton, he said, but "on the East End in general."

The lawyer, Michael Walsh, predicted that, as a result, "We can expect a spate of applications asking for multiple buildings in a residential zone."

"Obviously Travertine's position was correct," said John R. Cuti, Ms. Stewart's son-in-law and her Manhattan attorney. "We are pleased with the outcome and Travertine is eager to get on with the restoration." Travertine is the corporate name in which the property is held.

Neither Mr. Walsh nor Mr. Cuti attended Friday's meeting.

Decision Affirmed

Mr. Macklowe, who brought his appeal under the name KAM Hampton I Realty Corporation, had charged that Ms. Stewart would use the accessory buildings (identified as "huts" on the plans) for guest accommodations or separate rental units, an illegal use.

The Z.B.A. ruled, however, that "there is no substantive evidence . . . that these particular structures will be so used, and the law does not permit the board to speculate that an applicant will use a structure for unpermitted purposes."

The board also noted that the studio "was in compliance with the building plans and the certificate of occupancy."

KAM Hampton has also filed an Article 78 lawsuit in State Supreme Court alleging the certificate of occupancy is invalid. The litigation is pending.