Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pool‑house bathroom request prompts board questions about ADU, setbacks at 45 Highway Behind the Pond
Summary
An applicant seeking to convert an accessory building into a pool house with an indoor shower drew questions about whether moving plumbing from an existing cottage would create a second habitable unit. Village staff urged conditions to prevent a second ADU and asked the applicant to return with clarified plans and photographs.
An application to convert an outbuilding into a pool house with a full bathroom prompted extended questioning from the Village of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals on May 8, as members sought to prevent the creation of an unintended second habitable unit.
Architect Steven (Stephen) Senabria, sworn for the record, said the project would relocate existing plumbing from a nearby cottage into the accessory pool house so pool users and guests would have on‑site facilities. He requested variances for side‑yard setback (structure would sit 4.4 feet from the lot line where 40 feet is required), gross floor area for the pool house (proposed 795 sq ft vs. permitted 250 sq ft), and to permit an indoor shower where the code prohibits it.
Village official Billy Hajek explained the history: the pool‑house structure is pre‑existing and was formerly a greenhouse; a 1982 variance allowed enlargement conditioned on no plumbing or habitable use. Hajek and board members emphasized that allowing plumbing into an accessory building risks creating an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a second habitable structure. Board members discussed conditioning any approval to prohibit sleeping and other signs of habitation and asked the applicant to return with photographs and a clarified plan. Senabria said the loft area does not have legal sleeping space and the applicant agreed to a condition prohibiting sleeping in the pool house.
Board members also asked staff to confirm the structure’s prior nonconforming status and prior plumbing history, and they left the hearing open to receive revised plans and a clear set of conditions to prevent the creation of an additional ADU on the property.
