Plan Debated to Demolish the Bowl
The building housing East Hampton Bowl, which closed in 2013, will be demolished and replaced by a smaller structure of “more or less traditional” design if Jeffrey Suchman, the new owner of the property at 71 Montauk Highway, obtains a variance from the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals to exceed its lot coverage limitation.
The proposed 9,900-square-foot, one-story building, which would house a retail tenant, would be one-third smaller than the existing structure, while the lot’s coverage would shrink from 80.6 to 74.1 percent. The maximum permitted coverage is 60 percent, necessitating variance relief. The project is also subject to approval from the village’s design review board, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and the State Department of Transportation.
At the zoning board’s meeting on Friday, Eric Bregman, representing the applicant, said that the proposed structure’s size, height, setbacks, required parking, lighting, and use all conform to the village code, while its design would be traditional. It would be located closer to Montauk Highway than the bowling alley, he said, with parking to the side and rear.
Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, asked Mr. Bregman why the applicant needed coverage in excess of what is permitted. A conforming building, Mr. Bregman said, would be just 5,000 to 5,500 square feet. “It would be totally economically unfeasible,” he said. “That would be a choice to go back to the existing building and repurpose that.”
When the benefits of a new building are weighed against the excess coverage, Mr. Newbold said, “there are many plusses to allowing the applicant to do the building this size.”
The applicant, Mr. Bregman said, has been working on the building’s design with Robert Hefner, a historic preservation consultant, and the design review board. “This is a very easy developer,” he said of Mr. Suchman. “He wants to do what works for everybody.”
“And the consensus is it will be better than the bowling alley that’s there now,” Mr. Newbold replied. “I think we’re satisfied with your reasoning.”
The hearing was closed and a determination is expected at the board’s next meeting, on Friday, March 13.
By contrast, the board showed no inclination to grant variance relief to Andy and Jane Graiser of 42 Mill Hill Lane. The applicants tore down an existing house on the property. A new, larger house is still under construction, and the applicants seek to situate a detached garage within required setbacks. They also sought to add an eyebrow window to the house’s roof but were denied by the Building Department, owing to its nonconformance with a section of the code aimed at controlling the mass of the upper third of a house.
At the board’s Feb. 13 meeting, which was to include a continuation of that hearing but was adjourned to Friday, Mary Bush, a neighbor, spoke against the application and criticized the house’s size relative to its lot and neighboring houses.
On Friday, Patrick Gunn, representing the applicants, asked for another adjournment, telling the board that the landscape architect wished to submit modified plans. Mr. Newbold, noting multiple previous requests, instead detailed the board’s criteria for granting variance relief, concluding that the application essentially did not meet any of them.
“The applicant and his architect knew the existing code when they designed the house,” he told Mr. Gunn. “They chose to go ahead and begin the house so they could be in by the summer without making these changes. They’ve come back three-quarters through construction asking for these changes. This board is not inclined to give that variance.”
As Ms. Bush had two weeks earlier, Maureen Bluedorn, who lives on Buell Lane, asked to address the board. “It never occurred to me, when I bought my property, that I should be asking for variances beyond what the setbacks were,” she said. “Since that time, I have seen that that seems to be a very common practice. I’ve also seen a change in the aesthetics of the village because of that.”
Setbacks are in place for a reason, she said, and should apply to all property owners. “I have an extremely hard time with the rationales that are given for changes,” she said, adding that the zoning board should not allow what she called “scope creep” that results in maximum lot coverage and houses that encroach on neighbors.
“ ‘Scope creep’? ” Mr. Newbold asked.
“That’s what is happening,” Ms. Bluedorn answered.
The hearing was closed, and a determination will likely be announced at the board’s March 13 meeting.
Other Rulings
The board announced six determinations, including the granting of a freshwater wetlands permit for work to be done by PSEG Long Island, covered elsewhere in this issue.
Michael Derrig, a landscaper who has purchased the building at 103 Montauk Highway that most recently housed the Players Club restaurant, was given variances to add two chimneys and make facade, fenestration, and foundation alterations, and add a shallow reflection pool and gravel driveway on the property. Mr. Derrig will use the property to showcase his business, Landscape Details.
Peter Morton of 57 West End Road was granted a coastal erosion hazard permit and variance to allow the continued maintenance of three air-conditioning units located within a required setback. Those units, plus a swimming pool, are also located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line.
Jane Goldman of 74 Lee Avenue was given a variance to allow the continued maintenance of a 74-square-foot expansion of a nonconforming second dwelling, for which a special permit was granted in 2000, as a prerequisite to a subdivision application that created the lot in its current configuration. Variance relief was also given to allow the continued maintenance of a slate patio, air-conditioning units, built-in trampoline, chimney, below-grade HVAC and pool equipment, and slate pavers that are within required setbacks.
Gregory King of 93 Middle Lane was granted variances to allow the continued maintenance of a swimming pool, slate patio, and five air-conditioning units, all within setbacks, and for a proposed stoop within the required setback.
Eric Rudin of 96 Georgica Road was given variances to allow the installation of paved areas and landscape features resulting in a net increase of 343 square feet of lot coverage, which is already slightly in excess of the maximum permitted. The areas and features include an expanded pool patio, walkway, additional paving, and a sculpture, all within required setbacks.