Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner says contractor placed pool equipment off plan; zoning board closes hearing on variance request
Summary
Diane Caputi sought a setback variance to legalize pool equipment placed closer than allowed; she said the contractor installed equipment without showing the approved location and offered photos and explanation. Planning staff said the constructed location differs from approved plans after a stop‑work order in 2024.
The East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24 heard from Diane Caputi, owner of 126 Grant Drive, who asked the board to grant a variance allowing pool equipment to remain 13.2 feet from a side‑yard lot line where 20 feet is required.
Jay Kushner of the town planning department told the board the 16,647‑square‑foot parcel sits in an intensively developed residential area. He said a stop‑work order was issued on June 25, 2024 for pool construction without a building permit; a permit was later issued July 9, 2024, and the approved plans showed equipment in a conforming location. Instead, Kushner said, equipment was constructed in a southern corner, creating the need for dimensional relief.
Caputi told the board her contractor submitted the permit and never pointed out the approved equipment location; she said she only learned of the nonconforming placement after the stop‑work order. “I had a pool guy who submitted the permit and he never told me that it was in a specific location that it was actually approved,” she said. Caputi said she chose a location to avoid cutting trees and disturbing steep slopes on the hilly lot.
Board members and staff reviewed site photos and neighborhood context supplied at the hearing. Caputi said she understood the variance, expressed regret for the permitting problems and asked the board to consider the property’s topography and screening when weighing the application.
Member Burgerer moved to close the public hearing and the public record; the motion was seconded and the board concurred.
The board will consider the variance in a subsequent decision meeting.
