In East Hampton Village, Proposed Family Compound Opens A Can Of Worms

A small but perfect storm has been gathering in East Hampton Village. John and Suzanne Cartier’s plan for a second residence behind the Osborne Jackson House on Main Street has made issues of zoning, preservation and easements more complicated for the village, which on December 13 was denied a temporary restraining order to prevent the Cartiers from going forward with their building plans.

“We wanted to freeze this thing until there’s an outcome,” Village Administrator Larry Cantwell explained Friday. The village’s special counsel, Joel Markowitz, asked for an injunction to “preclude the proposed disturbance” to the Cartiers’ property while a judge was considering the larger question of whether a 1975 scenic easement on the Cartiers’ property prohibits the construction of a second house. That decision can be expected to take months, Mr. Cantwell said. “Without a temporary restraining order, the Cartiers can apply for a building permit any time” and the village would grant it if it met all requirements, he said. The Cartiers had not applied for one as of December 28.

Their plan is to enlarge and move the present house at 105 Main Street toward the back of the two-acre lot, where their children and grandchildren would live, and to build a new house on another part of the property where they themselves would reside. They had applied to the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance, but the ZBA determined in November that they did not need zoning relief, leaving aside the issue of the easement granted the village, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Village Board.

Gordon and Amanda Bowling, who live next door to the Cartiers, have said that if the village allows another house on the Cartiers’ property they in turn will not allow their own property to be “devalued by a similar ‘large lot’ easement that the village does not value.”

“Since our lot is bigger than the Cartiers’,” they wrote in a letter to the ZBA, “we too would have the same rights that they do to create a family compound. ... If the village considers a family compound to be appropriate for the Cartiers’ property, then it is appropriate for ours as well.”

Ms. Cartier’s family gave the historic Osborne Jackson House to the village, and the easement stems from the subdivision of the property at that time. The Cartiers’ remaining property, which is 88,807 square feet, has not been divided into two separate house lots, but the ZBA interpreted an exemption in the zoning code, which allows an accessory building to a single-family residence “which contains dwelling accommodations for domestic employees or members of the household of the occupant of the single-family residence” to pertain to the Cartiers’ situation. Both buildings would have to meet all the zoning requirements that two houses on two separate lots would have to.

“The board is sympathetic with the fact that the Cartiers went through the process, made a case before the zoning board, had hearings and received a decision in their favor,” Mr. Cantwell said. “In those situations the board is reluctant to pull the rug out from under people.” But he added that the Cartiers’ particular situation could “create larger implications” for other properties in the village.

The Village Board has proposed to repeal the zoning exemption, which the Bowlings’ attorney, Anthony Pasca, said has been on the books for at least 40 years. At a December 21 public hearing, Mr. Pasca expressed his clients’ support for repealing the exemption, describing it an “anachronistic vestige” that was “inartfully worded” and “grammatically confusing.” The exemption is inconsistent with current-day specifications for things like gross floor area and Suffolk County Health Department “flow rates,” the attorney said, adding, “It doesn’t fit within that modern scheme.”

Furthermore, he argued, the exemption devalues the village’s proposal to offer a “zoning bonus” to the owners of 25 timber-frame buildings that it hopes to see preserved with historic landmark designation. The bonus would allow the owners to build a guest house to compensate for restrictions on what they can do with their historic buildings, and the village wrote them letters saying “you would be the only people in the village” to enjoy that option, Mr. Pascal said.

“As long as this ... loophole exists, that’s not true,” the attorney said. “If you’re going to be true to them ... then you should close the loophole.”

The Village Board did not take action on repealing the exemption on December 21, as it had not yet heard back from the Suffolk County Planning Commission, which was reviewing the proposal. The hearing was held open until the board’s next regular meeting on January 18.