McGuirk Parking Tussle Goes to Round Three

Parking remained a sticking point as the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals continued on Friday to review an application from owners of the property at 52, 54, 56, and 58 McGuirk Street.

Keith and Anne Cynar’s .3-acre property includes two cottages that face the street and a back building with two apartments. While they are spread over four street numbers, the land is not divided. The owners’ original plan, which was brought to the board last month, was to convert the back building, which is only 2.4 feet from the lot line, into a single-family residence and to raise its roof by 2.2 feet. They also asked for a swimming pool that would be built on a portion of the parcel formerly used for parking, and now seek to house pool equipment in an existing shed that is closer to the property line than allowed by today’s zoning.

The Cynars’ attorney, William Fleming, told the board on Friday that the proposal to convert the rear building has been indefinitely postponed due to cost considerations, but plans for a pool are still on the table. Its impact on parking dominated the discussion on Friday.

Village code requires two off-street parking spaces for every house; the Cynars now have one space for each cottage and none for the apartments at the rear. What’s more, overnight parking is prohibited on village streets.

Mr. Fleming distributed an updated plan showing five parking spaces in what he called a railroad configuration, with two cars in each of two 40-foot-long rows with a single additional space adjacent to them. “We thought that was a fair number,” he said.

Ms. Cynar told the board that the family has renovated one of the cottages facing the street for their use, and another is used for her in-laws when they visit. “The back building is in terrible condition,” she said, but they hope to renovate it for other relatives’ to use in the future. “We’re not going to have a ton of cars.”

When John McGuirk, a board member, pointed out that the proposed parking would extend over the property line, Mr. Fleming said, “We’re not going to park and block the sidewalk, but we are going to occupy a little of the space. . . . A car is 16 to 18 feet long. There’s going to be plenty of room there so we avoid the sidewalk.”

“Is the idea of having it stacked railroad style, where it comes close to the sidewalk, acceptable?” asked Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman.

“I’ve said it five times now: I don’t think they have enough parking for what they have,” Mr. McGuirk said, especially when the rear structure is occupied in the future. In considering the swimming pool, he reminded his colleagues that it would occupy space formerly used for parking. Larry Hillel and Craig Humphrey, fellow board members, agreed.

“We’ll be glad to put in a sixth parking space if that is what the board wants,” Mr. Fleming said, but his clients would like to “keep the backyard a backyard and not a parking area.”

Mr. Newbold asked that the applicants revisit the design. “Why don’t you come back to us with what you think would work best for your client?” he asked Mr. Fleming. 

“Obviously, my thinking isn’t working,” was the reply.

“We don’t want to be the ones to design it for you,” Mr. Newbold said.

“I think you’re taking a rather passive-aggressive form of not designing it for me,” Mr. Fleming said.

“Not passive-aggressive,” Mr. Newbold said. “Diligent.”

The hearing was left open and will be revisited at the board’s meeting on Friday, April 22.

The board also announced two determinations. Lorie Adams of 19 Ruxton Road was granted variances to construct a tennis court and to keep a fountain, planter, and pool equipment within the required 50-foot setbacks, and to allow 2,391 square feet more of lot coverage than is permitted by code. The excess coverage is half the amount initially requested by the applicant, who agreed to eliminate an accessory building, slate walkways, and other paved areas from the property. The applicant must also install drywells in connection with construction of the tennis court.

The board granted the Georges Family Trust variances to allow reconstruction of a garage and alteration of an existing residence within required setbacks at 83 Newtown Lane. The lot is constrained by a 25-foot right of way providing access to lots behind it, and the board found that allowing the single-family house to remain in a commercial area “will continue to lend an air of charm to the neighborhood.”