It wasn’t just an application to build a large house on an environmentally sensitive strip on East Hampton’s Sammy’s Beach Road that drew heat at the town zoning board of appeals public hearing on Sept. 26, but the Z.B.A. itself. A clash between what is allowed by law and what has existed for the last 75 years in the neighborhood has people fed up, which led to at least one outburst from the audience.
The proposal to demolish three houses built in the 1950s, at 33, 35, and 37 Sammy’s Beach Road, two which are under 1,000 square feet and could be characterized as “beach cottages,” and replace them with a nearly 5,000-square-foot modern glass structure was roundly criticized. Six members of the public got up to speak against the project and more letters were submitted in opposition.
“You have to stick to these zoning laws. You can’t turn Sammy’s Beach Road into Flying Point, or worse, Hampton Bays. I’m just pissed about all this stuff that’s going on. You’ve got to do something and you’ve got to stick with what’s right,” said Ernie French, who told the board he lives in an 800-square-foot house at 1 Sammy’s Beach Road.
The three lots were acquired by Daniel Ammann and his wife, Pernilla, between 2003 and 2011. They are in the town’s harbor protection overlay district and the coastal erosion overlay district. The plan requires a natural resources special permit, a variance to build the house within 100 feet of a primary dune crest, and another to install a sanitary system within 200 feet of tidal wetlands.
Windows dominate the Gardiner’s Bay side of the house, and require no special permits or variances.
Richard Whalen, a lawyer speaking for the Ammanns, highlighted the existing nonconformities on the lots — “If you were to recreate what’s on the property today, you would need between 19 and 21 variances,” he said — and contrasted that with the three required for the new project, which he argued were necessary under the code, but “None of these is a real variance.” The size of the proposed five-bedroom house, 4,652 square feet, is “not all that big in the current environment,” he said. Not included in that number is decking, a standalone garage, and a 2,500-square-foot basement.
Mr. Whalen acknowledged the house would look different from the traditional and shingled homes that surround it. However, because the property is not in a historic district or adjacent to an agricultural reserve, the Ammanns do not need approval from the town’s architectural review board. “I don’t really think the house stands out. I think it will fit in.”
Removing three aging septic systems and replacing them with one new, low-nitrogen system was a big benefit, Mr. Whalen said, and the house would be farther from the dune crest than the current structures. Once complete, he said, the project would result in 22 percent less clearing and all the work would be landward of the existing houses and decks.
“There really aren’t any substantive objections to the project,” he concluded. “We’re not pushing the envelope.” However, when questioned by the board, he allowed that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had not yet signed off on a variance to build seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area. “I thought there was some indication they were opposing,” said Joan McGivern, a board member.
Mr. Whalen said the D.E.C. wanted his clients to move as far back on the property as possible but that moving farther away from the dune put the house closer to the road and the wetlands behind it. Ed Johann, another board member, described it as a balancing act and feared the “collateral damage” that could occur in the environmentally sensitive area. “The building protocol, for me, is one of the critical parts to take this application to the next level,” he said.
“Maintaining that vista is critical,” said Roy Dalene, the board chairman. “It really is a special place.”
“That’s why we bought there in the first place,” said Mr. Ammann, adding that he planned to live there once he retires.
Brian Frank, the chief environmental analyst for the town, said the two “very large issues” before the board were identifying the appropriate coastal setback for the house and the overall scale of the development. How it impacted the character of the neighborhood was more of a “qualitative determination,” he said, and perhaps more difficult to pinpoint.
The neighbors, however, had no problem pinpointing their objections to the application. “Putting a 2,500-square-foot basement into shifting sands is not a sustainable concept,” said Stephan Van Dam, who lives at 20 Sammy’s Beach Road.
Gail Pellett, a 35-year resident of the road, was critical of both the project and the process. “We watch as decisions are made to offer variance after variance. What do these regulations mean if they are everywhere fungible?”
Patricia Sansone picked up on the same theme. “They should reduce the size of the house or work with the property that they have. Granting variances all the time is really destroying our world.”
“Think of this as a precedent-setting transaction,” said Jaine Mehring, “and take seriously how dominoes will fall after.” She, and others, said even if the property were revegetated, it would take decades for the environment to recover. “I don’t know if you saw the rendering of what this will look like from the beach, but it will be profound, absolutely profound. This is a game changer for Sammy’s Beach,” she said.
Frustration flickered from the Z.B.A. itself. Ms. McGivern, responding to questions Mr. Van Dam had posed regarding the septic system, said, “Are you saying you don’t want any development? You want them to move out of their house? We have to make a decision, if we let them develop three separate houses, or is one house better with fewer nonconformities? We can’t tell them they can’t do anything.”
A batch of letters submitted to the Z.B.A. late on Sept. 26 moved Mr. Dalene to keep the hearing open. As well, a question was raised about noticing the town trustees, who manage the town bottomlands on behalf of the public. Mr. Whalen said since the trustees do not own a contiguous plot of land there was “no failure of notice.” Nonetheless, he and the board agreed to leave the record open for trustees’ comments until Nov. 21.
