Propose Tennis Court on Vacant Lot

The East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals appears likely to grant a variance allowing the owner of adjacent properties to construct a tennis court, retaining wall, and steps on a parcel that does not have a principal building, which the village code requires.

At its meeting on Friday, the board considered an application from Munib Islam, a partner at the investment firm Third Point, who owns 40 Lee Avenue and 90 Georgica Road. It also heard from representatives of the real estate investor Eric Rudin, of 96 Georgica Road, a neighbor who argued against it.

Mr. Islam also needs variances to construct a 10,962-square-foot residence at the three-acre Lee Avenue parcel, where 9,283 square feet of floor area is the maximum permitted, and to construct a pool house partly within the required side-yard setback. The tennis court, retaining wall, and steps are planned at the adjacent, 1.2-acre Georgica Road parcel. The retaining wall and steps would also be within the side-yard setback.

The Lee Avenue parcel has a pre-existing nonconforming residence, which will be torn down, as well as a detached garage, swimming pool, and pool house that is almost 900 square feet and contains a kitchen and two full bathrooms. It also has two accessory cottages. All are nonconforming, and “virtually all of these nonconformities will be removed in connection with the redevelopment of the property,” said Andrew Goldstein, an attorney representing Mr. Islam who is a former chairman of the board of appeals.

While Mr. Islam’s 1,679-square-foot variance request for the proposed house is “fairly substantial,” Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, said, the overall coverage will be reduced. Elimination of the cottages, each with three bedrooms and three bathrooms, and the pool house, which is almost four times larger than the maximum permitted for accessory structures other than garages, “goes a long way in terms of mitigation,” he said.

The adjacent lots are owned by affiliated corporations under Mr. Islam’s control. A tennis court on a lot without a principal structure “is not unknown to this neighborhood,” Mr. Goldstein said, citing two instances in which the board permitted one despite the code. The board approved those applications because “the evil associated with a tennis court on a property without a house” — its use by people unaffiliated with the property — “was not going to happen” in the village, he said.

Mr. Islam’s alternative, Mr. Goldstein said, was to build a house on the vacant property, negating the need for a variance. He will not do that, Mr. Goldstein said, emphasizing the village’s call for less density.

Karen Golden, representing Mr. Rudin, saw it differently. Mr. Islam, she said, “wants to put a tennis court there now and say, ‘We’re conforming with the village’s reduction-in-density program, but at any time we choose we can erect a primary structure there.’ Therefore this argument fails.”

She said the application should be for a use variance rather than an area variance. “They’re trying to put an unaccepted structure on a vacant parcel. It seems to me they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too, in trying to take a vacant parcel that is intended for residential use . . . and keep it separate for the sole purpose of retaining the ability to sell it in the future.”

Mr. Islam could merge the properties and have his tennis court, she said. “To do it in this manner is, in my opinion, looking to change and set precedent in this neighborhood and this area as to how people can manipulate their property.”

Mr. Newbold disagreed. He said Mr. Islam would like to keep the parcels separate to retain greater value. “It has existed as part of this compound this way for decades,” he said, and “the applicant has the right to put a substantial house and a tennis court there. They’re saying, at the moment, just a court.” As members of the board and the village, “if we have an opportunity, at least temporarily, to reduce density, we’re eager to grab it.” 

Lys Marigold, the board’s vice chairwoman, emphasized to Deborah Kooperstein, an attorney also representing Mr. Rudin, that the applicant is giving up two pre-existing nonconforming cottages on the Lee Avenue property, which she said “is really quite major.”

“The fact that one could build a house with a tennis court in this location,” without the need for a variance, “takes some wind out of the argument, frankly,” Mr. Newbold said. The hearing was closed.

Two decisions also were announced at the meeting. In one, the board modified a condition of a September 2014 determination so that landscaping can be maintained at the former Gardiner estate at 127 Main Street, which is owned by Shahab Karmely. The determination concludes an application that was granted in 2014 but reopened this year when the Building Department found landscaping had not been in accordance with the 2014 approval.

A dispute with Mr. Karmely’s neighbor at 121 Main Street, Kenneth Kuchin, has been put on hold because the property  has been sold.

The board also granted variances to the Polly Bruckman Trust and the Donald Bruckman Trust to allow two air-conditioning units, a shed, and swimming pool equipment to remain within required side-yard setbacks at 117 Lily Pond Lane.