Neighbor to Build a Fence To Settle Ongoing Dispute

Good fences make good neighbors, right? It may turn out that Shahab Karmely and Kenneth Kuchin will prove the proverb correct and solve their longstanding dispute about a tennis court on Mr. Karmely’s property because at the end of a testy meeting of the East Hampton Village Board of Appeals on Friday, Mr. Karmely agreed to build and pay for a fence that will include soundproofing.

 The issue and the neighbors’ dispute goes back to 2014 when the board granted approval for the court with specific conditions. It had been before the board again in May, when Mr. Kuchin said the noise from the court was “terrible.” The hearing continued on Friday.

Mr. Kuchin, whose property is at 121 Main Street, alleged that Mr. Karmely had not followed the conditions the Z.B.A. had called for, and Mr. Karmely, who owns the historic Gardiner property at 127 Main Street, called his neighbor a liar. Both properties are listed for sale, Mr. Karmely’s for $26 million and Mr. Kuchin’s for $11.95 million.

When Mr. Karmely received setback variances in 2014 for the court, the conditions were that he sink the court four feet below grade, install a Har-Tru surface, which is quieter than a hard surface, and buffer it with mature landscaping.

When the work was done and the Building Department inspected it, however, the landscaping was found not to be in accordance with the approval. Inspectors also discovered that Mr. Karmely had added a viewing area that was not in the plan.

On Friday, the board told Mr. Karmely, Andy Hammer, his attorney, and Doug Degroot of Hamptons Tennis Company, which built the court, that the conditions had not been honored. The court, Frank Newbold, the chairman, said, is not four feet below grade but closer to two feet, with the excavated soil used to create an approximately two-foot-high berm around its perimeter.

 Armed with aerial photographs, he presented one from 2014 that showed the grade prior to the construction of the court as “absolutely flat, and the topography the same as the neighbor’s on either side,” he said. “But an aerial photograph from the following year “shows the rear of the property being resculpted to obviously raise the berm there,” Mr. Newbold said.

Mr. Hammer protested, arguing that the court was indeed four feet below grade. No, Mr. Newbold said, it is four feet below the berm. “We were trying,” Lys Marigold, the vice chairwoman, said, “to be very careful to muffle any sound disturbance for the neighbors. This particular way of making the tennis court didn’t help at all.”

 Mr. Karmely did not agree, and gave a detailed explanation of why the topography was different. “The reason part of it is raised and part of it is flat is because . . . we took the point that was high, which is the tree roots of where the existing Leyland cypress are . . . and we dropped down four feet. . . . When you drop down and level, you take your high point, because if you go below that you expose the root trees. As to the point of did we raise it to one side, that’s part of leveling of the property.”

Mr. Karmely said the work cost twice what Mr. Degroot had estimated in an effort to comply with the board’s conditions and minimize noise, which, he added, pales in comparison to that emanating from the nearby playing fields of the John Marshall Elementary School.

 “Mr. Kuchin has an unhealthy obsession with this tennis court. We have nothing to gain by having tried to pull a fast one. We went through extraordinary design, engineering, and money spent to come up with something which I believe is visually stunning and in conformance with our approval,” he said. He repeated his assertion that the controversy is not about noise, rather “a neighbor who just cannot let go of this issue.”

“My understanding of the tennis court was that it was going to be closer to the pool,” Mr. Kuchin said. “We shook on that.” He had barely started commenting when he was interrupted. “We did not. You’re a liar,’ Mr. Karmely said.

Mr. Kuchin disputed the methodology used to grade land and insisted the court had been constructed without regard for the board’s intention. “I find that very difficult to understand.”

“Given where we are today,” Mr. Newbold asked him, “do you have any suggestions?” An eight-foot-high fence was the answer, “and I really don’t think I should be responsible for installing a soundproof fence. I would like Mr. Karmely, or whoever is responsible for creating this condition, to rectify it and somehow ensure that this fencing could possibly be constructed.”

Mr. Karmely said he would be happy to install and pay for such a fence along the length of the court. This did not quite prove the proverb. The board wanted to see a visual depiction of the fence beforehand. “I think it would be a good compromise to accommodate everyone’s concerns,” Mr. Newbold said. “We look forward to your sketch.” The hearing was left open.

The board also announced two decisions at the meeting. Brent and Rini Greenfield were granted variances to allow alterations to an accessory building that has a pre-existing nonconforming setback of 24.3 feet at 4 Jericho Close, where the code requires a 34-feet. The building contains a garage, pool house, and storage rooms, and the variances were given on the condition that alterations comply with the plans submitted, including the installation of vegetative screening on one side, and that the storage rooms be used only for that purpose. The building is not to be heated, and the code enforcement officer is to inspect the building annually.

The board also granted Peter and Lindsay Newman of 27 Montauk Highway variances to construct a window well, air-conditioning condenser, and two second-floor dormers inside required setbacks.