Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Pool Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board keeps pool application for 15 Jones Road open amid wetlands, septic and tree concerns
Summary
At its June 14 meeting the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals kept the hearing open on a proposed pool at 15 Jones Road after hearing that the project needs multiple wetlands variances, could require removal of two mature trees and sits above an aging septic system; the board asked for a landscaping plan, a street-view photo and will return the matter to a future hearing.
The East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals on June 14 left open a hearing for a proposed swimming pool at 15 Jones Road after raising questions about wetlands setbacks, stormwater and the removal of mature trees.
John Tarbet, the applicant’s representative, said the Chase property’s existing house burned about 25 years ago and was rebuilt, and that the owners are seeking relief to install a modest pool “only six feet deep at the deepest point.” Tarbet said the pool would be located over existing lawn and that the project “meets all side yard and front yard setbacks” except for the wetland setbacks, and that the site “is probably arguably better than what a lawn would do to the wetland.”
Board members pressed for more detail. One member noted two large London plane trees would likely have to be removed for the proposed location; another asked about the property’s 1980s-era septic system and whether the pool installation should be tied to a future septic upgrade. The board asked the applicant to provide a landscaping and screening plan, and requested a photograph from the street to show how visible the raised pool would be from Jones Road.
Tarbet said the team tried to minimize dimensional variances and avoided needing front- or side-yard variances; he said the area chosen is a relatively flat portion of the lot and that alternative locations would still bump into the wetlands. He agreed the applicant would provide supplemental plantings along the street and consider replanting to replace removed specimens.
The board explicitly discussed whether the pool would create an environmental detriment given its location within the wetland buffer and whether a reduction of lawn area as an offset would be appropriate. Members signaled that a modest “give-back” — reducing lawn or creating a new vegetated buffer near the wetland — could help offset the requested relief.
Before adjourning the matter, the board left the hearing open and asked the applicant to return with a landscape plan, screening details and a photo from the street to document visibility. The board will revisit the application at a future meeting when those items are submitted.
