Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press ZBA over proposed tennis court at 162 Jobes Lane amid wetlands questions
Summary
The Southampton ZBA heard conflicting testimony over a requested variance to locate a tennis court closer to front and side lot lines than the code allows. Neighbors raised sequencing and noise concerns; the board asked for environmental (200‑foot wetland buffer) clarification and continued the hearing to Aug. 20.
The Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 6 heard a contested variance request from 162 Jobes Lane LLC to place a tennis court within required front and side setbacks. Applicant attorney Carl Benacasa told the board the request was modest and explained why a flag lot and a nonjurisdictional wetlands letter made the requested 70‑foot front setback and 10‑foot side setback reasonable.
Benacasa said the court would sit effectively 30 feet from the nearest improved parcel when the flag strip serving an adjacent lot is considered, and argued precedent in the neighborhood supported relief. "The variance request is is not substantial," Benacasa said, adding the court would be sunken and that the applicant had submitted a letter of non‑jurisdiction to the environmental division.
Neighbors and counsel pushed back, alleging the tennis court followed a pattern of sequential variances and overdevelopment. Neighbor Eric Bregman said the house under construction showed the applicant could have avoided the request earlier and said the application felt "self‑created"; the board requested evidence before adopting that theory. Board members emphasized they seek the minimum relief necessary and repeatedly asked for a clear map showing the 200‑foot wetland buffer and any environmental constraints before taking action.
The board also asked the applicant to meet with affected neighbors to discuss mitigation (vegetative buffers, sound reduction) and to provide the wetland boundary and non‑jurisdiction letter. The hearing was adjourned to Aug. 20 to allow the environmental division and parties to supply the additional materials. The board recorded the motion to adjourn and carried the voice vote.
