Restaurant Sign and Seating Are Sticking Points at V.F.W.

The East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals pondered a multifaceted application from the Everit Albert Herter Veterans of Foreign Wars Post on Montauk Highway on Friday. 

The post needs a special permit if it is to keep its meeting hall, located to the rear of the property. Brian Carabine, its quartermaster, explained the situation to the board: The post purchased the property around 1979 and moved into it in 1981. “The house in the back had a Section 8 family in it,” he said.

The structure’s certificate of occupancy lists it as a single-family dwelling, which it clearly no longer is.

It is important that the property’s characterization on a certificate of occupancy match its utilization, explained Linda Riley, the village’s attorney, as that will determine parking, septic, and other requirements. If the board is going to grant relief for a change of use, “I just want to know how that use is to be characterized,” she said. 

The post is not a residence, Mr. Carabine replied, describing rooms used for meetings, display of artifacts, and storage, as well as a commercial kitchen. Coffee is served to members in the mornings, and breakfast on Sundays. “It’s not a moneymaking thing,” he said of the breakfasts. “It’s just for socialization on Sundays.” 

“The post was originally operating a restaurant up front,” Mr. Carabine said. Today, the restaurant, now called the Highway Restaurant and Bar, is leased. “That’s how we keep in business, our source of income,” he said.

Turning to the restaurant, the post is seeking variances to relocate three outdoor dining tables from a slate patio on  its west side to a larger wood deck on the opposite side; to permit an air-conditioning unit, roof overhang, and walk-in cooler to remain within front-yard setbacks, and to allow a shed to remain within the rear-yard setback. Those alterations are also subject to approval by the Design Review Board. 

The board was cool to an additional request, to permit the restaurant’s detached sign to be 14 feet high, 6 feet higher than allowed by code. The existing sign is 10 feet high and located partly on the Montauk Highway right-of-way. “It is a residential neighborhood, there are residences across the street,” Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, said. “The signage in all East Hampton Village, they are trying to be more understated than stated.” 

Richard Hammer, an attorney representing the applicant, had characterized the location as a “gateway to the village,” and Mr. Newbold agreed. “Every single car passes this location,” he said. “I’m not sure this is where we want to bend the rules to allow a sign that’s almost double what is permitted.” 

The proposed relocation of the outdoor tables was also problematic. “This is pre-existing approved dining,” Mr. Hammer argued. “We just think it would be a much better location to have those three tables on the other side of the property.”

But the code has been amended since the outdoor dining was approved, to specifically prohibit it in residential districts, Ms. Riley said, reading a pertinent passage: No variance shall be granted to permit the expansion or extension of such outdoor use in a residential district, “and any variance granted to permit the reconstruction or alteration of any such lawfully existing outdoor use shall not exceed 100 percent of the lawfully pre-existing area.”

“They’re going to be moving it from a much smaller, restricted area to a larger area,” she told the board, implying a contravention of code. “It’s your decision.” 

“I view the actual size of this as three tables,” Mr. Hammer countered, not the deck to which they would be relocated.

Ken Collum, the village’s building inspector and fire marshal, told the board that “this tenant has been well informed of the restrictions on outdoor dining,” but “we have had issues with that patio — all of a sudden, tables appearing, chairs appearing.” He called the restaurant “a known problem area” over the last 20 years.

The board indicated no objection to variance relief for the air-conditioning unit, walk-in cooler, or shed, but the proposal for outdoor dining, Mr. Newbold said, was “a little more complicated than shifting three tables from here to there.” He asked Mr. Hammer to provide more input as to activity at the V.F.W. post and the need to shift the outdoor tables. The sign, he said, “is tall enough the way it is now” and should be situated entirely on the property.

The hearing was left open and is to be revisited at the board’s May 13 meeting. 

The board announced six determinations at the meeting. The film director Steven Spielberg was granted variances to allow a brick patio, three air-conditioning condenser units, and a generator well pit to remain within the required setbacks at 4 West End Road. Mr. Spielberg can also keep 842 square feet of lot coverage exceeding the maximum.

The board granted J. Tomlinson Hill of 27 East Dune Lane, vice chairman of the Blackstone Group, variances that will allow a slate walkway and outdoor stairs that are on and encroaching over the side property line to remain. At the adjacent property, which Mr. Hill also owns, the board granted additional variances allowing a garbage bin to remain within the property-line setback and permitting construction of planters, water features, and a stone patio, also within the required setbacks. 

Jeffrey Colle, a designer and builder, was granted a wetlands permit to allow the removal of phragmites by hand digging, to promote re-establishment of native plant species at 11 Chauncey Close. 

The board granted Graham Clempson of 56 David’s Lane variances allowing him to reconvert an accessory structure back to a garage, with a half-bath accessible only from the exterior, and to install a platform at the doorway to the half-bath. The building and proposed platform are within required setbacks. Mr. Clempson agreed not to construct a proposed cupola on the restored building.  

Alexander and Katherine Brodsky were allowed to make alterations to a second dwelling within required setbacks at 20 Apaquogue Road; to construct a dormer in the roof of the principal dwelling exceeding the 33-foot height limitation, and to have 633 square feet of total floor area above the legal maximum. The relief was granted on condition that use of the second dwelling be limited to domestic employees or family members of the principal dwelling’s residents.