Raised Eyebrows Over an Eyebrow
Neighbors of a new house on Mill Hill Lane showed up at 2015’s first meeting of the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals Friday to air some criticism of it.
Andy and Jane Graiser of 42 Mill Hill Lane seek relief from the code to allow a proposed garage to be 10 feet from their side and rear property lines, where a 22-foot setback is mandated. They also seek a variance to allow the installation of an eyebrow window in their roof, which was part of the original plan but later omitted from the design.
William J. Fleming, an attorney representing the applicants, told the board that 25 of some 42 parcels on the tree-lined street have a garage within a side or rear-yard setback. And, he added, the house that was on the lot before it was demolished was just 12 feet from the side property line.
But that house was just one story high, replied Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, in contrast to the new, taller residence. The original building permit for the new structures, he added, showed the garage in a conforming location.
Mary Bush, a Mill Hill Lane resident, noted that most of the garages to which Mr. Fleming referred are pre-existing, nonconforming structures. “That’s a mighty big house,” she added of the new residence. “It just seems like things could have been planned so that the construction that was done on the lot was more conforming to the code.” A letter submitted by immediate neighbors complained about both the size of the new house and its proximity to their property line, “impinging on their privacy,” Mr. Newbold said.
When the applicants applied for a building permit, “they were happy to site that garage in a conforming location,” Mr. Newbold said. “Our job as a board is to enforce the existing code. To me, there is no reason to give a variance.” His colleagues agreed, and also asked that the applicants submit a landscaping plan.
“You buy a house, you tear it down, you know the code, you can build to the code, but you’d like something extra,” Mr. Newbold summed up the application. “That’s the precedent I’m very wary of setting.”
The village’s Building Department had denied inclusion of the eyebrow window because the design of the roof, which has two cross gables, did not conform to a section of code aimed at controlling the mass of the upper third of a house. An eyebrow window is considered a dormer, which contributes to mass far more than a roof slope. According to code, the roof of the house in question must leave 25 percent of the length of each eave as a continuous, uninterrupted slope from eave to ridge.
John Laffey, the architect, said the code had the unintended consequence of prohibiting an aesthetically pleasing feature simply because such a window falls under the definition of a dormer. “I never considered an eyebrow a dormer, I consider it more of a roof detail,” he told the board. “It has no side walls and the roof flows over contiguously.”
Mr. Newbold again referred to the board’s duty. “What may be a pleasing aesthetic detail to you requires a variance from our code,” he said, “and it does not affect the way the house is lived in. It’s a new build, you had every opportunity to design around the restrictions.”
His colleagues, however, indicated flexibility with regard to the window.
Mr. Graiser said he loved the neighborhood, respected the code, and welcomed the opportunity to return with a detailed landscaping plan that would shield the garage from neighbors. Board members, however, insisted that the garage be situated in a conforming location.
The hearing was left open and will be revisited at the board’s Jan. 23 meeting.
The board also announced four determinations. Giacomo Lucente of 21 Cedar Street was denied a modification on a 2002 variance requiring an apartment above a garage to be used only by domestic employees or family members of the occupant of the single-family residence located on the same lot. His request for a variance to allow the installation of a roofed patio at the rear of the apartment was also denied. The application had drawn complaints from neighbors at a previous meeting.
Raj Alva was granted variances to permit the construction of new basements for the residence and garage at 40 Cooper Lane, as well as the reconstruction of the house’s front porch and garage, both of which fall within required setbacks. Susan Halpern of 48 Georgica Close Road was granted a freshwater wetlands permit modifying a previously granted permit for the construction of a new residence, an attached deck, drainage structures, and other improvements. And Lee Fixel of 8 Hither Lane was granted a variance allowing conversion of a screened-in porch to habitable space, thereby increasing the residence’s gross floor area to 9,526 square feet, 399 square feet greater than permitted by code.