Battle of Little Pool on Big Bluff

[caption id="attachment_55527" align="alignright" width="300"] Bruce Bronster at Sag Harbor Village Hall.[/caption]

By Douglas Feiden

Controversial Sag Harbor builder-developer-homeowner Bruce Bronster made it abundantly clear at the Harbor Committee meeting on Monday that he wanted a swimming pool on the water-facing lot he recently bought and now seeks to develop at 47 Terry Drive in Azurest.

“If you can create a pool that doesn’t bother the neighbors, that has appropriate setbacks, that’s hidden from the neighbors, that’s not too deep, or too big, or too noisy, it’s a very healthful type of recreation,” he said. “There’s been lots of studies, people who swim live longer, and their incidence of heart attacks is halved.”

There were just two problems that came to light during a spirited, 50-minute discussion of the Manhattan attorney’s proposal: First, some neighbors said that, actually, they were “bothered” by the pool. And second, board members and their attorney pointed out, the setbacks for the pool were not, in fact, “appropriate.”

On the contrary, the pool was way too close to a bluff — roughly 40 feet closer than it should have been, they told him. Structures, which include pools, are required to be set back 50 feet from such features, but preliminary plans indicate the pool is only 10 feet away.

At issue was Mr. Bronster’s plan to raze an existing home on an 8,000 square-foot parcel in the traditionally African-American neighborhood, erect a new 2,700-square-foot dwelling, remove decking and asphalt — and build a swimming pool that would be modest in size and only 5 feet in depth.

Flashpoint No. 1 was that pool, which would be sited near the crest of a bluff on the property’s bayside. In recent months, it has become a rallying cry in the three adjoining, historically black communities off Route 114 — Azurest, which was founded in 1947, Sag Harbor Hills, dating to 1950, and Ninevah Beach, established in 1952.

Flashpoint No. 2 was the role of Mr. Bronster in the project:

A partner at white-shoe law firm Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP, the developer has incorporated about a dozen limited liability companies that are listed as owners, principals, agents or managers of homes or lots in the three enclaves, filings made with the New York Department of State in 2015 and 2016 show.

Those LLCs, domiciled at Mr. Bronster’s Harrison Street home, have attracted the ire of neighborhood residents, who say they’re troubled by a recent, rapid turnover of land and homes and who have voiced fears at village meetings that large-scale building is jeopardizing the area’s heritage and character.

At one point, Mr. Bronster seemed to acknowledge he’d become a focal point for those critics.

“At community meetings, I’ve invited everybody to look at all of my plans for all the things that I’m doing, and I think there is some general opposition to me, as the builder-developer, but there can’t be specific opposition to this pool because nobody has had the courtesy to have a conversation with me about it,” he said.

Mr. Bronster defended the pool as environmentally friendly and ticked off its benefits, saying, “The pool’s water is not as clean as drinking water, it’s cleaner than drinking water because it’s ozonated. It’s more like rainwater.”

Besides, he added, “We’re not talking about 7,000 or 10,000 or 15,000 gallons, this pool would have fewer than 4,000 gallons of water in it. And its foundation will be sturdier than the foundation for a house.”

And he said, “I don’t know of any specific objections to the pool.”

That brought a sharp rejoinder from Denise Schoen, a village attorney who represents the Harbor Committee: “Our village code requires it to be set back 50 feet from the bluff,” she said. “You’re proposing 10 feet. That’s a huge difference. So that in and of itself is an objection.”

Five area residents sent the board letters opposing the pool, and a handful showed up in opposition, including Renee V. H. Simons, a Sag Harbor Hills activist who said it should honor the village’s 50-foot setback requirements for new structures in bayside lands.

“We have rules for a reason,” she said. “Just follow the setback rules, and disapprove unnecessary structural precedents that break the rules and encourage scope creep.”

In an interview, John Shaka, the Harbor Committee chairman for the past 14 months, said he was unaware of a similar precedent. “We do things on a case-by-case basis, but I can’t recall anything on this scale regarding bluffs,” he said.

Agreed Ms. Schoen, “There is no precedent under the new wetlands law allowing a pool or any structure to be 10 feet from the top of a bluff. The structural integrity of the pool is not the issue; it's maintaining the integrity of the bluff on this parcel and neighboring parcels.”

In the meeting, Mr. Shaka said the “crux of the problem was the intensive engineering of a pool so close to the bluff, which should remain a natural feature.”

At that point, Mr. Bronster, who is expected to return to the board with a formal proposal, said he’d address the objections and revise elements of the proposal.

“I would only want a pool if it could be engineered correctly to protect the integrity of the bluff because otherwise, the house would fall down,” he said. “Whatever it takes to have the integrity of the pool be appropriate with the code, I would obviously do.”

Earlier, Mr. Bronster said he’d spent a “boatload of time and money” and that people were objecting without fully knowing what he was proposing.

“Are you proposing a pool?” asked committee member John Parker. “I am,” said Mr. Bronster. “And do people know you’re proposing a pool?” Mr. Parker pressed. “Yes, they do,” came the response.

“And do they know you’re proposing a pool that violates the setbacks?” Mr. Parker wanted to know. “I don’t know the answer,” Mr. Bronster replied. “Well, are you proposing a pool that violates the setbacks?” came the next question. “Evidently I am,” the builder said.