1 Photo
The Southampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned Robert Kraft's application for variances to add an elevator to his Meadow Lane residence.
The attorney for New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft wanted an answer from the Southampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals on April 27 regarding whether the board would approve his client’s application for variances to accommodate an elevator in his Meadow Lane residence, but the board adjourned the matter instead, requesting more information before rendering a decision.
ZBA Chairman Mark Greenwald said the board is waiting for an updated survey and an exterior and interior inspection, but Kraft’s attorney, Michael Sendlenski, asked that the board close the record on the application and vote and told the board that the request for an interior inspection will not be granted.
“We owe it to the applicant and the community to ensure a complete record is made,” Greenwald said, reading from the prepared statement. “There are several items that I believe are necessary for the board to assess fully this pending matter.”
The chairman said that in the application made to the ZBA, the owner authorization/endorsement provides consent to inspection by village employees and representatives. He said a particular reason for the inspection is to determine whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means. In this case, that would mean whether the residence could feasibly accommodate an elevator without the height and sky place variances that the applicant has asked the ZBA to approve.
“In order for this board to fully address the question of feasibility, the board, I believe, needs to see the inside of the structure,” Greenwald said.
He added that the board has asked the applicant for a complete list of prior variance application determinations related to the property. “Requiring this is not an academic exercise,” he said. “Making sure that the board understands the full history of the property is essential.”
Greenwald also said “several discrepancies remain” in the documents presented to the board, including conflicting reports of the total lot area, and noted that the residence’s gross floor area sworn to by an engineer appears to exceed to limit for a lot of that size.
“As a result of its inconsistencies, unclear guidance is provided for the board, suggesting the need for the submission of a revised application and additional notice as may be required,” Greenwald said.
The board unanimously approved the motion to adjourn without specifying a date. Greenwald at first said the matter would be adjourned until the ZBA received the requested information, but Sendlenski broke in to say, “No, you can’t indefinitely adjourn my application.”
ZBA attorney Jeffrey Blinkoff advised the board to pick a date “for control purposes.”
Sendlenski asked for the next available board meeting, though Greenwald said he doesn’t think that is realistically enough time for a revised survey and a site visit.
“There will not be an interior site visit,” Sendlenski said. “… You have no right to ask for that or require it of the applicant.”
The board ultimately adjourned the matter until its next scheduled meeting, on June 13.
