WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf
27east.com

Story - News

May 14, 2014 9:56 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Southampton ZBA Approves Front-Yard Pool--Again

May 14, 2014 10:13 AM

The Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals has once again approved a variance for a Bridgehampton property owner to allow a swimming pool to be constructed in what is defined as the front yard of the home, despite town code precluding front-yard pools.

In the decision last week, the board majority supported the finding that allowing the pool to be constructed in a front yard was reasonable, because much of the rear yard of the property, owned by Janet Finkel, is constrained by swampy wetlands that run along the rear of the property, and that having the pool in front of the house would not negatively impact the character and atmosphere of the neighborhood.

Opponents, however, decried the decision as an evisceration of zoning that will set a precedent making it harder for the board to apply town codes in protection of neighbors’ rights in future applications.

The Finkel property’s pool has been the focus of a six-year saga and legal struggle. Having initially denied the application in 2009, and then overruled a finding by the town’s building inspector that the lot was “waterfront,” the zoning board approved the pool request in 2010—only to have the decision overruled and sent back to the ZBA by a state court. The new application, essentially the same as the one approved previously, was again approved by a 4-1 majority of the board, with the two newest members opting not to cast votes.

In the decision, the board found that variances for front-yard structures in the surrounding neighborhood, including one for a swimming pool, had been granted in the past, and that Ms. Finkel’s situation warranted similar consideration.

“While the board in 2009 found it appropriate to deny applicant’s requested variances ... since then, it is clear ... that this board has found that there are circumstances when open front yard views may be obstructed for the benefit of the property owner,” board member Brian DeSesa wrote in the decision. “This is especially true for the applicant’s lot as it is burdened by significant wetlands.”

Attorney Jeffrey Bragman, who represented two neighbors, David DiDomenico and Arthur C. Romaine, in opposition to the application, said this week that the ruling would harm the power of zoning laws.

“It’s a terrible decision for the town,” Mr. Bragman said. “It upends the protection of front-yard setbacks. It just tells people that they can’t rely on zoning to protect them from a zoning board doing a favor for someone they think deserves it.”

Mr. Bragman said he did not know whether his clients would mount another court challenge to the ZBA’s latest ruling. Reached by phone, Mr. DiDomenico said he has not yet decided whether he would continue fighting the board and his neighbor. He declined to comment on the ZBA’s decision.

“The ZBA has spoken twice and has responded to the concerns the judge had—hopefully, [the neighbors] will decide to be good neighbors and live and let live,” Ms. Finkel’s attorney, John Bennett, said. “The house next door has a pool in the front yard, and I don’t think it has ruined their neighborhood.”

In its first ruling on the case, State Supreme Court Justice William Rebolini overturned the ZBA’s 2010 approval, but did so because he said the board had failed to explain or justify why it had reversed its previous denial of the application. He did not, however, rule on whether the evidence in support of the variance justified its issuance.

Board member Adam Grossman was the lone vote of dissent on the most recent finding. Helen Burgess, who had not been on the board during the review of the application, abstained. Laura Stephenson, also a new member, was absent the night of the vote.

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Why do people in the hamptons feel that a pool is a god-given right? Sometimes it's just not appropriate... who the h*ll wants to swim in the front yard anyway?
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on May 14, 14 11:12 AM
Something smells about this decision.
By oystercatcher (126), southampton on May 14, 14 11:37 AM
1 member liked this comment
I agree with Nature on this one. Not being able to build a pool is not a hardship. Especially when you bought the house you are surrounded by wetlands. The board member Adam Grossman continually says at meeting that zba decisions are not precedent setting. Court decisions are based on case law, and now everyone who can't build a pool will be able to build one on undersized lots. Amazing they made this devision.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on May 14, 14 6:01 PM
furthermore - the BZA is quasi-judicial (you have to be sworn in to testify) so it holds water in court cases.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on May 15, 14 9:33 AM
how is this news worthy of comment? Why does anyone even care?
What is the big deal about a front yard pool? People have ponds in their front yards and I don't see the fabric of society unraveling.

IMO FWIW You guys really will just complain about anything.
By user.name (46), the jungle on May 14, 14 7:54 PM
2 members liked this comment
But you better make sure your leaves are raked up.
By rvs (106), sag harbor on May 14, 14 8:14 PM
The history of this property indicates this permit was sought to increase sale and or rental value rather than for personal use.
By bambi (76), bridgehampton on May 15, 14 5:29 AM