A new application has been filed for a house in the dunes at 124 Beach Lane in Wainscott. The home would be within sight of the 30 acres of land recently preserved by the town for $56 million, a move that has sparked controversy.
However, even if the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals wanted to deny the new application, its history of past approvals may prevent it from having any real ground to stand on. Like a shoreline being beaten away by years of onslaught from the tide, the Zoning Board’s moral high ground on the matter has been gradually eroded by numerous previous concessions.
Legal Precedent and Zoning Challenges
Denise Schoen, a lawyer with the Adam Miller Group who spoke for the applicant, worked hard during the Jan. 21 meeting to demonstrate how the board had already acquiesced to similar or even more egregious applications in previous years. Two earlier applications for larger and less resilient homes had been approved by the board within the past two decades. While those houses were never actually built, the board nonetheless approved them, leaving them few legitimate reasons to deny this application.
The applicant’s current plan is to demolish the existing 2,550-square-foot house and build a 5,898-square-foot one-story residence with a pool and 3,571 square feet of decks and terraces. This proposed plan would not require a zoning variance. However, due to the freshwater wetlands, barrier dunes, and beach vegetation, a natural resources special permit from the Zoning Board would be required.
“This section of Wainscott oceanfront has been one of the most severely flood- and erosion-prone locations within the town,” wrote Brian Frank, the assistant planning director, in a Jan. 2 technical analysis of the application.
Adjoining properties have “obtained numerous building permits over the years to add significant volumes of beach-compatible sand to augment or rebuild the barrier dunes that are the primary protective formations for the residential improvements on the respective properties.”
Between 2005 and 2013, the owner of 124 Beach Lane added 3,000 cubic yards of sand to the beach on six separate occasions.
“The fact that the dunes need to be nourished doesn’t mean necessarily that this project is going to have a negative impact on them, it’s just part of the process of maintaining a dune system that can change over time,” Ms. Schoen told the board.
Environmental and Structural Concerns
During Superstorm Sandy, the dune was destroyed, and a house to the west was obliterated. In 2013, the dune was reconstructed, and its crest has remained stable since at least 2018.
“The vulnerability of this property to coastal erosion and flooding makes it a poor candidate to aggressively redevelop as currently proposed,” Mr. Frank wrote. “The application should be redesigned to significantly reduce the scale and intensity of the new development.”
“The applicant has taken the recommendations of FEMA and of the [Planning Department] in serious consideration and has decided to build to velocity flood zone standards,” Ms. Schoen told the board. The house will be one story with “breakaway walls” underneath, allowing water to flow beneath it “if we ever hit that 100-year storm.”
There was no discussion about what happens to those walls in that scenario.
Nonetheless, while these changes have largely satisfied town officials, Mr. Frank acknowledged: “The incorporation of the building to velocity flood zone specifications in this area where they’re not mandated is a significant raising of the bar in terms of coastal protection.”
Concerns from Neighbors and Board Members
However, these assurances have not appeased the project’s neighbors.
“In this case they’re not complying with FEMA, they’re exceeding FEMA,” said Andy Hammer, an attorney speaking for two neighbors. “I think there’s an obvious reason why you would want your first floor to be as high as you could possibly have it on this property. The view gets lovelier and lovelier each foot you go up.” He said it could be lowered to reduce the home’s visibility.
Ed Johann, a board member, and Roy Dalene, the board chairman, voiced their own concerns about protecting the dune during construction. Anecdotally, these comments also inadvertently demonstrated their belief that the application is likely to be approved. “In all of these cases we’re concerned that the construction demolition happens from the landward side, that we don’t see equipment on the seaward side on the top of the dune,” said Mr. Johann.
Ms. Schoen agreed to a list of mitigations that would protect the dune during construction, and the public hearing was closed.
