Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool House Aducode topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA debates pool‑house plumbing and ADU precedent at 45 Highway Behind the Pond
Summary
Architects said they would move shower plumbing from an existing habitable cottage into a pool house; village staff warned that the pool‑house rules bar showers and limit size (250 sq ft and 14 ft height), while the structure discussed is larger and taller, and suggested applying as an ADU to avoid enforcement problems.
At the June 12 meeting of the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals, architect Steven Sabria described a plan for 45 Highway Behind the Pond to transfer bathroom plumbing from an existing habitable cottage to an existing pool house so the cottage could be converted to a non‑habitable gardening/storage structure.
Sabria said the plan would not add any new structures, additional square footage, or additional lot coverage; it would tie into the existing low‑nitrogen septic system and remove sleeping capacity from the cottage. He described the loft and back room in the building being converted as storage or non‑sleeping space and said there would be no new sleeping areas in the pool‑house structure.
Village planner Billy Hjack told the board this approach triggers enforcement and precedent questions because the village’s pool‑house limits are designed to discourage habitable use: a detached pool house is permitted up to 250 sq ft and 14 ft in height. He noted that the structure under review was recorded at 795 sq ft and 19.5 ft tall in the materials prepared for the board and that a shower is not permitted in a pool house under the code. Hjack warned that swapping plumbing between buildings could create a larger nonconformity and recommended that if the owner intends actual habitable use, applying for an ADU and the appropriate variances would be procedurally cleaner and safer for long‑term enforcement and public safety.
Board members debated whether the property’s specific circumstances — including reported incidents of golf balls striking the former pool house and the owner’s need to move the pool house for safety — distinguish this application from ordinary pool‑house enforcement concerns. One member suggested that the relocation of plumbing to serve the pool area could be treated as a distinguishing factor if the board finds the circumstance unique.
After extended discussion of enforcement, size, and precedent, the board closed the hearing for this application.
