Court Sides With Southampton Village ARB Over Changes to Lewis Street Tudor House

It’s not always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission — at least when it comes to matters before the Southampton Village Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation.

The owner of a 1920 Tudor Revival-style house on Lewis Street learned that the hard way last week, when his effort to overturn a decision of the board, known as the ARB, failed.

The homeowner, Charles Falcao, received a stop-work order from the village after starting work on the home without a building permit. So in 2021 he applied to the board for approval to make changes to the house and add a balcony.

After the board rejected that proposal and instead approved a revised design plan more in keeping with the original structure, Falcao and his builder, Michael White, went ahead and added the balcony anyway, without a building permit, and made a number of other alterations.

When the board again refused to sign off on the balcony and other changes, Falcao filed a petition in State Supreme Court that sought to annul the ARB’s unanimous vote. Then, on Wednesday, March 29, State Supreme Court Justice Kathy Bergmann handed down a decision siding with the ARB and denying his petition.

ARB Chairman Mark McIntire said on Monday that this is an important court decision, because one of the things the board hears about constantly from residents of the village is the need to preserve the architectural history of Southampton.

“We thought it important to preserve the original intent of that structure,” he said.

According to a June 2022 ARB decision, which the justice reproduced in full in her own written decision, Falcao applied in January 2021 for ARB approval to “disrupt the roof line” of the home by constructing a second-story balcony and proposed some additional exterior alterations. The ARB decision noted that this application came after the owner had already many “certain improvements” to the premises without a building permit and without ARB approval.

McIntire said that part of the roof had been torn off already.

The board found the proposed changes to the roof line and the addition of a balcony on a small property and close to the neighbor to be inappropriate.

Then, in February 2021, after several meetings, the ARB ultimately approved a design that would include no changes to the exterior elements or finishes of the house, including the slate roof tiles, red brick chimney, olive green door and window casings, and stucco. The roof line would remain intact, and there would be no balcony under the approved design.

“The applicant proceeded to construct the house not in conformity with the approved plans, and in fact, constructed many of the details that were proposed in their original presentation to the board on January 11, 2021,” the ARB decision states.

The work to the house did not incorporate any of the design changes that the board had approved in February 2021, according to the ARB. Rather, the work included the balcony — with incorporated lights and speakers — that had been rejected previously.

Additionally, the slate tiles were replaced with a metal standing seam roof. The stucco was refinished and the color changed, and black-frame windows were installed in place of the trim that was supposed to be painted olive green.

The owner then applied to the ARB to approve the as-built construction. The ARB noted at the time that the board would not give deference to work that had already been completed and also would not act with intent to punish the applicant for working without approval. Falcao’s petition disputed that assertion, stating that the ARB members’ animus toward White swayed their decision, and it further argued that other houses in the neighborhood have metal roofs and black trim.

The applicant’s builder had informed the board that the slate roof was 100 years old, badly damaged and dangerous, and that the balcony was added for light, safety and ventilation.

The ARB resolved on June 13, 2022, to deny the application — a move that would require him to remove the balcony and put a slate roof back on the house, among other moves to undo his unpermitted changes. Falcao filed a petition to the State Supreme Court on July 12, 2022, seeking to annul the ARB’s decision.

Bergman wrote that it is the court’s determination that Falcao and White, deliberately made changes to the home that they knew did not conform to the ARB’s February 2021 decision. She called the owner’s application for approval of the as-built changes “patently unreasonable,” and suggested that owner could have appealed the February 2021 decision rather than proceeding with unapproved changes.