Neighbors of a Beach Hampton couple who live at 183 Marine Boulevard in Amagansett made it known to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals on July 22 that they would be no happier living near a house 10 feet higher than it is now whether its roof is gabled or flat.
It was the second public hearing on the application, prompted by changes made to the roof design in response to protests at the first one, on May 20.
Erica and Scott Belsky, the owners of the oceanfront house, replaced their original gabled-roof plan with a “flat-roof option” to try and quell the opposition. It didn’t work. Two neighbors attended the meeting to voice continued opposition, and an attorney representing three more was there as well.
Raising the house 10 feet would put it in line with current FEMA regulations, which, out of context, does not sound like a bad thing. Neighbors contend, however, that the real intention is to improve the views and expand the house’s livable space beyond what town code allows. They claim the Belskys are using FEMA standards as a loophole to bypass Z.B.A. restrictions.
“There are two sets of rules that apply here,” said Jeffrey Bragman, an attorney speaking for neighbors. “One is FEMA, and one is the zoning board of appeals. One does not overrule the other.”
“This new application is an entirely self-created difficulty,” he went on. “They’re creating the problem that they’re coming to the zoning board to solve. It’s a choice. And in making this choice, this board has the jurisdiction to look at the variances that it’s going to require.”
The proposed construction would require at least eight variances, including one to expand the gross floor area and another to allow the house to rise 35 feet above the natural grade, 10 feet higher than permitted by town code. The renovation would also violate the town’s pyramid law, which limits a building’s bulk to protect light and air for neighboring properties.
When the house was constructed, just over 15 years ago, it was compliant with FEMA standards, but they have since changed. Raising the house as proposed would convert currently excluded square footage, for an underground garage, into counted first-floor living space.
“Height and pyramid are a big deal in East Hampton,” said Mr. Bragman. “What makes houses really intrusive is when you violate the pyramid.”
Including an approved “cottage” on the property, which the Belskys also want raised, and which has some historical baggage, the property is already over the maximum coverage allowed.
In a letter to the Z.B.A., Jack Hassid, a neighbor, wrote that the cottage was originally a “non-conforming one-car garage with a guest suite,” previously located on the adjacent property at 189 Marine Boulevard.
Mr. Hassid claimed that the structure’s square footage had been counted by the Z.B.A. when it granted variances in 2017 to Richard Plepler, the owner of 189 Marine.
“What was not disclosed at the time was that Plepler and Belsky (who, I am informed, are longtime friends) had agreed to transfer the garage to 183 after the construction of 189 was completed,” Mr. Hassid wrote.
“This shell game enabled Plepler to get variances for a larger 189 Marine, and for Belsky to have a second residence on his property despite the prohibition of the Town Code.”
In 2020, Ann Glennon, then the town’s chief building inspector, denied a request to redraw the lot lines to transfer the garage to 183. However, in 2022, the Z.B.A. granted a variance permitting the modification. Before it was transferred, Mr. Hassid contends that Mr. Belsky had already renovated the garage into a cottage.
“The fact that the lot lines have been redrawn does not change the fact that the garage is a non-conforming, pre-existing use, despite the fact that the applicant now calls it a ‘cottage.’ As such, it cannot be expanded,” wrote Mr. Hassid.
Andy Hammer, the attorney speaking for the Belskys, said the flat-roof design was offered in response to concerns about the height and massing expressed at the May hearing, adding that the Belskys nevertheless preferred the original gable roof. Board members, he said, could choose which one they liked better, or deny them both.
He offered an analogy of sorts. “I would compare the flat-roof option on this house to sort of having a fluffy cupcake in your hand,” he said. “You simply flatten the cupcake with your hand so that the center depresses, and you get a resulting redistribution of the mass onto the flatter areas that you’ve created. The analogy doesn’t account for frosting, but at least it gives you a good general idea of what the architects considered.”
Mr. Hammer emphasized that the flat-roof option would be 2.9 feet lower than the gabled version. Mr. Bragman, however, pointed out that even the flat-roofed design exceeds the height allowed by current zoning regulations by five feet.
The Belskys’ lawyer also mentioned the recent surge of floods across the nation in arguing for the application. “A lot has happened in our nation and region since our last hearing,” he said. “Devastating floods have occurred in Texas and elsewhere, highlighting the need to be proactive. . . . “This is about safety, durability, and insurability, not vanity.”
Mr. Bragman again countered that the proposal violates too many zoning rules. “The applicant is basically saying, ‘I have to elevate the house, but I want to keep a house that was designed for a lower elevation,’ “ he said. “By doing that, he’s pushing through virtually every rule on house dimensions. Our suggestion is, if you want to raise your house nine feet and you’re going to spend more than 50 percent, build a house that’s designed for it.”
“This flat-roofed house that’s supposed to be an improvement is going to be 35 feet tall,” he continued. “It’s going to be 10 feet taller than the height limitation for a flat-roofed house. There is no reason to set that as a precedent.”
The public hearing was closed.
