Dan's Papers - April 25, 2008 - Footprints in Sand

To many people, the word "grandfather" evokes warm feelings of a beloved man who dotes over his progeny and provides a sense of security.

To people on the East End, grandfather evokes warm feelings about a beloved piece of real estate deeded to an owner who dotes (and gloats) over his property, which also provides a sense of security - not to mention a certain smugness that comes with living just a little out side the law, and the setbacks.

We're talking about grandfathered properties - structures that were in compliance at the time they were built, but because of rezoning are noncompliant - yet completely legal. While grandfathered properties have earned the respect of the zoning boards, they rarely endear themselves to neighbors, particularly new neighbors who are beholden to the most recent zoning regulations.

Imagine a residential area rezoned to half-acre lots, where there's an existing property on a quarter acre. Imagine that the property, once conforming, has a 4,500-square-foot home, attached garage and pool. Then you have a half-acre lot, with an owner who has not been grandfathered. An unentitled bastard, the red-headed stepchild of the community.

If this scenario were in East Hampton, and if a proposal recommended by the Town Board to limit building size were approved, that new owner could build a house "only" 3,400-square-feet, right next to his neighbor's behemoth. The current law allows for building coverage up to 20% of the property size, or 5,999 square feet (whichever is less) on a lot under 40,000 square feet. The current incarnation of the Town's proposal recommends 12% of lot coverage, plus 1,500-square-feet.

The Town Board believes that, when it comes to the size of a single-family dwelling, enough is enough. The proposal read, "The construction of very large 'monster' homes has begun to threaten the character of the community." But many members of the community are strongly opposed to the recommendation. Some have formed a very vocal citizen's advisory committee against it, and their point of view may have clout - months later, there are no meetings scheduled on the proposal. According to Town Clerk Fred Overton, "It's hanging out in limbo right now."

In the meantime, while the fate of building sizes hangs in the balance, there have been rumblings in the East Hampton real estate community. Literally. The ground is rumbling as some developers scramble to put a stake in the ground, a footprint in the door, so to speak, by digging foundations without immediate plans to build. According to an employee in the building department, as long as the foundation is backfilled and inspected, and its size conforms to current codes, it will be grandfathered in. Consider it a very large placeholder.

Suffice to say, many people find zoning regulations too regulatory. And for those without a legacy to stand on (or an empty lot to stamp a footprint), there is "the application for variance." The Zoning Department Board of Appeals is crammed with lawyers, builders, homeowners and neighbors speaking for or against requests ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime. This week, two variance applications hit the courts. One falls under the ridiculous category. Actually they both fall under the ridiculous category, even though they're at different ends of the spectrum. They include two homeowners in Georgica who seem to be tremendously altruistic, and one builder in Springs who is desperately pragmatic.

In Georgica, Kathleen Pike and Louis Forster applied for a variety of variances, partly in the hope of saving a large sycamore maple tree. Saving the tree would also allow the homeowners to build a tennis court on the far reaches of their property, about ten feet closer to neighbors' lots. And another variance is required for them to build a garage connected to the house by a breezeway. That structure would be 8,295-square-feet where "only" 7,401 are allowed. All of their proposed additions would amount to 13,750-square-feet of coverage on the 1.5-acre lot, exceeding the allowable lot coverage by 488-square-feet.

At the other end of the spectrum is Bradford Roaman, a contractor who recently built a house that exceeded the allowable size (and the specs on his building permit) by 40 square feet. At a hearing, Roaman proposed moving part of an upstairs wall, which would necessitate two variances for the remaining 10 square feet of overage. Those variances amount to about an inch in the front and 2 1/2 inches on the side. (Perhaps he should first look closely at the property - maybe there's a maple sapling sprouting up.)

One proposal is just 3.5% larger than what is allowable. The other, 2.5%. Tiny numbers, until you pit a 13,750 against 1,540 square feet. It is, as they say, all relative. But sometimes in the case of zoning, only "blood" relative will do.