No Raised Eyebrow for Them
Andy and Jane Graiser won a reprieve of sorts when the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals reopened the hearing on their application to add an eyebrow window to the roof of their house at 42 Mill Hill Lane, which is under construction. As indicated at prior meetings, however, there was no change of heart: The window cannot be installed.
Patrick Gunn, an attorney representing the Graisers, told the board that one component of his clients’ application, to build a detached garage in a nonconforming location, had been withdrawn. Though there has been no written determination or vote, the board, along with neighbors who testified in writing or in person, had looked unfavorably upon its proposed location.
Owing to a time-sensitive construction schedule, Mr. Gunn asked the board to vote on the eyebrow window, which he said it had “tentatively approved” though it does not comply with a section of code aimed at controlling the mass of the upper third of a house.
“This window is simply an aesthetic addition to the home,” Mr. Gunn said. “It doesn’t make the house any bigger, does not increase the gross floor area. The purpose is only to provide light to the attic.” There would be no detrimental impact on the neighborhood, he said, nor does it violate the spirit of the ordinance in question, which was added in 2012 to curtail “the expanded mass and bulk of the upper third of houses that have been built on smaller lots,” according to its legislative intent.
“It’s clear that the house is not liked by some,” Mr. Gunn said. “I ask the board not to punish the applicant for building a conforming home that’s unpopular, or to curtail their ability to get an aesthetic modification that might normally be granted just because this is an unpopular construction.”
But other residents of Mill Hill Lane, as well as board members, feel that the house is already imposing on the neighborhood. As she has at previous meetings, Mary Busch of 50 Mill Hill Lane referred to the “extra mass and bulk that was appearing in new construction in the village” that the 2012 ordinance intended to address. That part of the zoning code, she said, has been in effect “without any request to this board for relief. In fact, numerous new homes conforming to the code have been built and fit well into the small-lot neighborhoods” such as her own.
“If I could just add,” she said to Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, “I’m a little distressed that the comment could be made that this is a house that people on the street don’t like. It has nothing to do with whether we like the house or not. It has to do with the code that’s in place, what we’re trying to do with our streets in the village, and to guarantee that neighbors have a degree of privacy and can enjoy their homes.”
Mr. Newbold also read a letter from James Berlanti, an adjacent neighbor of the Graisers. “The roof design already has an imposing effect on the neighborhood as it is not in keeping with traditional roof styles,” he read. “The house and neighborhood would benefit from more simplified forms and help the house feel more contextual.”
Pam Bennett, the board’s deputy clerk, polled the board members sitting on the application. Mr. Newbold, along with John McGuirk, Craig Humphrey, and Christopher Minardi, were unanimous: There would be no eyebrow window. Linda Riley, the village’s attorney, said that she hoped to have a written determination for a formal vote at the board’s next meeting, on Friday, March 27.
The board also announced five determinations. Jeffrey Suchman, who owns the building at 71 Montauk Highway that housed East Hampton Bowl, was granted a variance to construct a 9,906-square-foot retail building and site improvements including parking spaces. This will result in coverage of 74.1 percent, where the maximum permitted is 60 percent, but it will reduce the coverage on the lot, which is 80.6 percent now.
The Watson family of 14 Huntting Lane was granted variances to allow additions to an existing dwelling that will result in gross floor area approximately 720 square feet above the allowable maximum, one of which will fall within a minimum required setback. They were also allowed lot coverage approximately 250 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted, provided the parking area at the front of the property is revegetated.
Noam Gottesman of 61 North Briar Patch Road received a freshwater wetlands permit to allow pool fencing approximately 10 feet landward of the edge of wetlands on the condition that there is no clearing of the natural vegetation in the adjacent area, and that he replace any lost or damaged vegetation caused by the fence’s installation.
Nasser J. Malik of 39 Mill Hill Lane was granted variances to allow a new step on the side of his house, conversion of a portion of a detached garage, and the construction of a fireplace with a chimney on the condition that he installs a six-foot stockade fence along the rear property line. Lastly, George W. Murphy of 36 Meadow Way was granted variances to keep a swimming pool, pool patio, pool equipment, liquid petroleum tanks, and a walkway, all built within minimum required setbacks.