A handful of neighbors turned out at Friday’s East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to oppose the addition of dormers, and the extension of a fourth story, to a house at 72 Apaquogue Road that has not undergone substantial change in a century.
The house in question, once known as the Apaquogue, is “the best-preserved 19th-century East Hampton hotel, or boarding house,” according to a report compiled by Robert Hefner, the village’s former director of historic services. The dormers were actually on the house when it was first rebuilt, in 1884; they were removed sometime around 1930.
The heyday of the boarding house was from 1882 to 1901, when it was owned by Helen LaForest. An article published in The Philadelphia Times shortly after she bought it describes a dreamlike inn in the context of seaside East Hampton.
“In the midst of all this verdure and beauty, with a flowery lane in front, bordered by willows, stands the boarding house. A queer, rambling old building it is, enlarged from time to time by additions of many rather incongruous wings, where one is lost in seeking his own room, and finds himself unexpectedly in hitherto unknown regions.”
The current owner, who purchased the house in 2021 from the Myrick family, who had owned it since the 1920s, wants to add the dormers not only to restore it to its original appearance, but also to make the fourth floor more accessible.
“This owner is doing everything East Hampton Village would want,” said Jon Tarbet, speaking for the applicant. He said restoring the windows alone had cost nearly a million dollars, “because they were done historically.”
Surprisingly, he told the board, “the house has no historic protection.” When it was sold two years ago, he said, it could have been torn down and an 18,000-square-foot house could have been built on the four-acre property. “The new owner’s sole intent was to save, preserve, and rebuild this house.”
A building permit was denied for the project in December because the dormers would push the house above the village’s height limits and also expand its pre-existing, nonconforming status. The four-story building pre-dates modern zoning, but houses built today are not allowed a third habitable floor, much less a fourth.
“We don’t think the dormers should be viewed in isolation,” said Scott Romanov, who lives at 7 La Forest Lane, directly adjacent to the property.
“How do you feel the dormer in the front of the house is impacting your property?” asked Philip O’Connell, a board member.
“We are directly behind it,” Mr. Romanov replied. “The house has been moved back, there are additions being added, and now it is effectively going to be raised, and you’re going to have dormers added that haven’t been there in almost a hundred years.”
Mr. O’Connell noted that the house had been moved back from the road to a more conforming position on the large lot, and that except for the dormer, the entire project, including the addition, was within the code standards of the village.
Mr. Tarbet explained that when the house was moved it was put on a new foundation, and “it’s actually an inch or two shorter that what was there for 150 years. We’re not going higher. The variance is needed because it’s a change to a pre-existing nonconforming structure.”
William de Jonge, another adjacent neighbor, objected that the project was “a substantial increase to a nonconforming situation.” It was rejected in December, he reminded the board, and he said it was “important that it be rejected again.”
While the owner is arguing that adding the dormers makes the house more historically accurate, Mr. de Jonge continued, “they added large additions to the back of the property that weren’t there, so this isn’t an accurate thing about the past.”
A letter to the board submitted by Alexandra Ourusoff, another La Forest Lane neighbor, pointed out also that the installation of “unsunken pickleball courts” was not historically accurate. “With every variance application acceptance, the zoning code erodes,” she wrote.
“It’s important to point out, the neighbors who are complaining are four acres away from the dormer that faces the street,” said Mr. Tarbet. “The owner is proposing 14,000 square feet of lot coverage — we know every month, people come here and ask for coverage variances. This property could have 34,000 square feet of coverage. We know how this is going, all these homes are maximizing coverage. It’s a relatively small request. I do ask that the record be closed.”
Despite Mr. Tarbet’s efforts, the board decided to continue the hearing at their next meeting, in May.
The board also agreed that The Rosery L.L.C., at 146 Main Street, can add a second-story addition, subject to conditions. Members were unable to rule on another application, at 16 Gould Street, because a quorum was not present.
