MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF SAGAPONACK IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND STATE OF NEW YORK A meeting of the Architectural and Historic Review Board of the Village of Sagaponack was held at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 25, 2019, at 3175 Montauk Highway, Sagaponack, N.Y. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tom White with a flag salute. Present were Board Member Nick Martin, Robert Barandes and Emily Aspinall. Also present were Village Attorney Anthony Tohill, Village Building Inspector John Woudsma and AHRB Secretary Pat Arancio Remkus. Absent was Pingree Louchheim. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson White asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the January 28, 2019 AHRB meeting. A motion was offered by Pingree Louchheim, seconded by Meagan Ouderkirk and unanimously approved. APPROVED BY COMMITTEE OF TWO The following applications were approved by the Committee of Two consisting of Thomas White and Pingree Louchheim since last month s meeting: 1. Matthew Weinberg 43 Masefield Close 908-6-2-44 Applicant proposes addition of a bathroom on the 1 st FL and a habitable room with no closets on the 2 nd FL of an existing garage 2. Floppy Dog Properties II LLC 25 Daniels Lane 908-9-2-16 Applicant proposes installation of solar panels 3. Tarun Jotwani 29 Ericas Lane 908-10-2-13 Applicant proposes installation of solar panels AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 1
OLD BUSINESS AMENDMENT/ADDITION / RENOVATION Federico & Martina DeGiorgis 303 Sagg Main Street 908-4-2-24 Applicant proposes one story shed addition to the northeast side of the structure and a larger addition in same area that was previously approved and permitted in 2010, but never built Siamak Samii, architect, presented the application. He noted that the applicants are proposing a one story shed addition to the northeast side of the structure and a larger addition in the same area that was previously approved and permitted in 2010, but never built. The originally approved addition was 25 x 17 and the proposed addition will be 8 7 x 31 6, which will extend a bedroom and the garage. The materials will match the existing with the exception of the roof, which will be lead coated copper. Robert Barandes commented that he believes a floating roof would be more appropriate to the structure, but the rest of the Board did not agree. Chairperson White asked for a motion to approve the application with a lead coated copper roof. A motion was offered by Robert Barandes, seconded by Nick Martin and unanimously approved. NEW CONSTRUCTION 797 Daniels Lane LLC 797 Daniels Lane 908-10-4-31 Applicant proposes construction of a two story single family residence with attached garage, patio, pool house and residential entry gate Michael Macrina, architect, and Mike Forst, contractor, presented the application. Mr. Macrina stated that they considered the Board s suggestion and brought the rain screen siding down to the trim band. They have also provided a lighting analysis noting that they have reduced the windows at the rear by 15% by reducing the height of the windows on the 2 nd FL, reducing the heights of the windows and doors on the 1 st FL and reducing the width of some of the windows. The total lighting on that elevation has been reduced to 37%. Nick Martin asked if they are proposing to use the light emission glass for the south elevation as well to which Mr. Forst responded yes. Chairperson White asked what tinting they were proposing to use to which Mr. Forst responded that he thought the reduction of glass was in lieu of the light emission glass to which Mr. Macrina added that they will use smart glass throughout the south elevation. Chairperson White stated that the Board had also specified that they look into how much tinting they are proposing to use. AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 2
Mr. Macrina responded that they were talking about using the smart glass throughout the elevation. When the lights are on it would be opaque to which Nick Martin noted that smart glass means that it needs a switch, which means the switch could be off and they leave and the light is still shining. Low Emission glass pertains to the amount of thermal break between outside and inside, but then percentage of visibility loss is based on the specification of a special kind of glass that tends to be more expensive to which Mike Forst asked what the Board is recommending to the 2 nd FL. It was mostly about what can be seen from the beach and the peak of the house is barely visible. Nick Martin asked that they provide specifications of what they will be proposing, specifics of what areas they are proposing to have this glass and the Committee of Two can review that. He also asked them to provide two samples. Chairperson White asked for a motion to approve the application subject to the Committee of Two having a submission regarding the glass at the rear as to where it will be placed and the level of emission along with two samples. A motion was offered by Robert Barandes, seconded by Emily Aspinall and unanimously approved. 770 Main LLC 770 Sagg Main Street 908-5-1-32 Applicant proposes construction of a two story single family dwelling with finished basement, attached three car garage, unroofed patios, covered porches, pool house and painting studio Melissa Dedovich, Peconic Environmental, Sam Mitchell, architect of Mitchell Studio, Melissa Reavis of Hollander Design, John Popp, owner and Eric Bregman, Esq. were present. Chairperson White stated that when they were last before the Board, it was requested they provide a rendering with a view from the bridge, additional detail to break up some of the gambrel look, analysis that shows where the actual roofline will be and to provide for the Board s reviews those plans which were already rejected by the property owner. Ms. Dedovich stated that they have listened to the Board s comments and made revisions to the roof and the building details. She stated that the owner, John Popp would like to address the Board. Mr. Popp stated that he was saddened that some of the elements of his house are being fundamentally questioned and his architect will speak in more detail and address some of the issues that were raised. One of the reasons they assembled the team they have was to tap into the extensive divergency of the east end so as to present something appropriate within the longstanding history of the shingle style in the region. He stated that he purchased the property in 1996 at a time when there were still three lots subdivided on the pond between his property and Bridge Lane. He got engaged to his wife on Sagg Main Beach in October of 1999 and spent that weekend with Bob Dash. He was a good friend and he has one of his paintings. It is a scene of the view coming across the bridge from Bridgehampton. It is a 6 x 4 painting. He is sensitive to the Sagaponack landscape and to the landscape of the east end. He has been a regular contributor to the Peconic Land Trust, which ultimately purchased those three lots. The lot will be developed preserving that view from across the bridge. They never considered any other style other than shingle style over the last twenty years. In terms of the architects that they have dealt with in considering the project, they met with Francis Fleetwood, John David Rose, John Laffey, Robert Stern, Peter Cook, Frank Greenwald and others. They actually developed a full set of plans with Frank Greenwald back in the early 2000s, but after working with him on another project, they AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 3
decided to use someone else. He was referred to Sam Mitchell over six years ago by a personal friend who has done three projects with him. We not only appreciate his traditional design, but also appreciate his attention to detail and an approach that focused on building a house for me from the inside out that reflects the way we actually use the house. I go through this to indicate that our love of a traditional gambrel home is not following any recent trends, but reflects our strong preference to the consistent with what we see as the past and our own taste. Every member of his family has had an opportunity to participate. He has asked Sam explicitly over the year to make references to east end gambrel houses such as Silas Schuyler s Quackenbush house and Robert Stern s Sunstone, which are in world class categories of eastern Southampton homes To his knowledge there is not a single gambrel style home along the pond on the Sagaponack side. In the small four lot subdivision, which he is a part, there is a Fleetwood home and a pink stucco building in a kind of boxy media to the north of them. In finalizing his plans he requested that the entire home be flipped to reduce exposure to Bridge Lane. He is sensitive to minimizing exposure to their house as well as trying to create privacy for themselves in the proximity of Bridge Lane. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to take the Board through their process of developing this house specifically why this house and why the length. He stated that they developed the plan for the way the Popps will use the house. They looked at many alternatives. He presented earlier schemes, which included L shaped plans. They moved away from that because of the approach to the property and how the house would welcome family and visitors. He also showed an inverted L with the driveway on the other side of property. They also explored a third option where the house started to get longer, similar to where we are now, and that is a response to the best use of property and this is where we ended up with all of the main rooms facing the pond to the west. We did not end the process there. We went back several times to the site plan and examined whether we were really using the property in the way that would work best for the Popps, for the views and for the layout of the rooms. Mr. Popp stated that he did not want to see the bridge and he did not want a pool with open views to Bridge Lane. Mr. Mitchell stated that once they arrived at a general strategy for the house, they spent many more months in examination of parts within the plans and if they exist the way the rooms should be arranged and do they work best in this way. They worked from smaller scaled plans to much more detailed plans by zeroing in on various parts of the house to look at all of the room arrangements. They did many studies of each of the rooms. All of these things reflected back on what the house would look like. They started with the idea that they were building a shingle style house preferably with gambrel roofs because it is the expressed preference of the Popps. What they looked at were many of the better precedents of the east end, many gambrel roof buildings in Sagaponack, but our real inspiration was the Quackenbush house, which has a really beautiful asymmetrical organization of the building that gives it some dynamic. They wanted to avoid, and he is sensitive to Board s comments, building a house that is like too many other houses and too symmetrical. These are illustrations of the kinds of things that they did not want and the Board did not want.houses that are repetitive and symmetrical and that do not really express what is happening in the house. They were developing a plan reflecting what they did with the massing of the house. They did a quick analysis compared to one of the houses they did not want to be like. The simpler house has a very distinct center line and you can flip that house right and left and everything is exactly the same. Our goal was a more dynamic composition and trying to emulate the Quackenbush house. He noted that in the Quackenbush house there is no true center in the house. There is a porch, but that porch is asymmetrical. There are two gambrels, but they are very different. They had the opportunity to have a much AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 4
higher gambrel because there was no height restriction at that point. Within that elevation there is repetition of elements that are spread in a romantic composition. There are triple windows that are not exactly the same, but at least grammatically the same. You have these local symmetries. There is asymmetrical gable with an attic window that is off-centered to the windows below, which now have their own symmetry. There are elements of the composition where the façade has recesses and projections. The porch projects forward and there are recesses cut into the façade, which gives it a play in light and shadow and makes it a lot more interesting. They were attempting to achieve some of the same things with this house. They do not have the amplitude with this house to vary the volumes that the Quackenbush house has, but they have volumes that are similar varying them in a way that makes them more interesting. The tallest, broadest cross gable is a gambrel with more important rooms with the living room below and the master bedroom above. The more idiosyncratic volume has a breakfast room and kitchen with a bedroom above, but not as balanced as the gambrel of the more formal rooms. On the other side of the house there is a symmetrical gambrel where there is one room that faces the east side of the property. On the other side of the house there is another asymmetrical gambrel that has the front door and a first floor entry that is somewhat less imposing or grand as houses such as these where you would know immediately that the front door is going to be in the middle of the house under the biggest gable. Similar to the Quackenbush house they spread the building elements around the house to distribute the energy into that elevation. In the front elevation there is a series of curves, some in, some out and there is not a symmetry about those. Like the Quackenbush house they have some places where they cut into the façade to create shadow, other places that project out to highlight other elements and the result is two front and rear elevations. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to point out the differences from the previous presentation and what they are presenting at this meeting. He stated that once they had this long house, one of the things they tried to do was to break the ridge line of the main body of the house. It is linear, but still has a character defined by this main block and two subordinate wings. They are not dramatically changed, but they worked on the plan on the two end elevations so that they slightly dropped two ridge lines and made more definition between those three more heavily than in the previous presentation. They made changes to the windows so there is more variety. They changed the 2 nd FL center windows on the rear elevation so they are smaller windows, they changed one of the windows in the gambrel, eliminated one of the elliptical windows and on the front elevation in the center of the house there was a pair and four windows that were very much similar and they changed those to a single window and a triple. They introduced a different vocabulary for the garage wing as a strategy to take the three accessory buildings, studio, pool house and garage, and made them a little simpler and look more like agricultural buildings. Those are the buildings that can be most seen from Bridge Lane as the house turns that short end parallel to the lane. At last month s meeting there was a comment that the gambrels were too similar in their detail. They removed the long arch above the window on the gambrel at the rear and added a small vent above. They also reduced the chimney heights. Nick Martin thanked Mr. Mitchell for all of his efforts noting that it is a meaningful submission. Melissa Dedovich noted that the garage is still part of the main house, but they have changed the cladding of the garage so it appears different from the main house. Mr. Mitchell added that the garage has been shuffled east by 8 so it screens the house better to the west. Ms. Reavis also noted that they have added two more trees on each side of the garage to help screen it more from Bridge Lane. Nick Martin asked if those trees are deciduous to which Ms. Reavis responded yes. Ms. Dedovich stated that this is a seven acre property and will not be very visible. AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 5
Mr. Mitchell noted that they lowered the ridge of the pool house by 2. Chairperson White stated that the existing privet hedge on the south is only 8 high and is thin. There is a 2 difference between that hedge and the hedge on the east to which Ms. Reavis responded that the existing screening is to be cut down to 6 and allow it to grow back. They will be used to protect the row of new privet to be planted on the interior side of the property. Chairperson White commented that the changes helped, but he personally is still turned off by the gambrels. We ve had our fill of these in the Village. This is similar to one closer to Sagg Main on the opposite side of Bridge Lane. The other suggestion the Board had made was to shift the garage around so it does not extend the length. He stated that it is a formidable amount of mass. Robert Barandes asked that we look at the Quackenbush house and the feeling tone of irregular nature of this house and the uniqueness of the way that it is presented and then we look at the new house. The incredible length takes away from the design and all of the uniqueness is buried in the massiveness. They changed the garage, but it is still connected. He feels the garage should be disconnected and moved. He stated that on the west elevation, the tower to the far left, seems like an error. It is so different from all of the other elements to which Mr. Popp responded that it was a specific request. Robert Barandes stated that the two wings add length, but they do not add to the building. That is what the Board is here for and to help with. We are concerned with the views and the screening. He noted that they left in the three oval windows, one on the west elevation and two on the front elevation. Because of the clarity and thought brought to shapes and sizes, etc., they seem to erupt without that core element of saying this is part and parcel of this home. Mr. Mitchell stated that they have looked at separating the garage, but maintaining the connection is important to the owners. He noted that the garage is not very visible because of the planting plan and the feeling of separateness is there because of the plantings. By moving the garage one way or another would make it more visible from Bridge Lane. He stated that they would be willing to look at other ideas as to what we can do with that, but their feeling is that you would see less house if you have that connection. They developed a long house because of how the Popp family will live in the house. Ms. Dedovich stated that the surrounding houses were built to take advantage of the pond view. She provided a view from Bridge Lane noting that this will be the smallest, narrowest end of the house, which is ¼ mile from Bridge Lane and is 300 from the wetlands and the scenic easement. If the Board is so inclined, they can add cryptomeria, which is 30 high, and completely block the house if that is what the Board is looking for. She stated that the Board is hearing how vested the family is in this design. They have owned the property for a long time. They worked very hard to find the right architect, who gave a bullet point list of all of the changes they have made in order to keep Mr. Popp and his family happy and satisfy and address the Board. She is hoping that they could do additional landscaping to make the house less visible and covenant something to keep the hedge at a certain height. Perhaps we can work it out that way. Robert Barandes stated that there are multiple issues regarding the garage. The primary issue is the view of our citizens as they enter this community along Bridge Lane and the second is the nature of the home itself. The position they have taken relative to the positioning of the garage deals with the vision that people see. He understands why they want to have it connected. He would not want to have to walk to his garage either. The questions is whether or not the connection should be built as it is or clarified so that the vision from your entrance as you walk up to your home happens to screen the garage from the people who enter this house. He AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 6
noticed that in the images, they have not emphasized the length of this house when you enter it, they hide that piece. The nature of what you are considering is for the aesthetics of the home rather than the aesthetics of the vision from the street. You have offered to do something in having the Hollander firm give us some sort of commitment to make sure we can protect, which is an easy way of resolving some of these issues and he is sure that the Board will consider that and hopefully give you an impression of how to do that that. Emily Aspinall stated that the primary problem with the length of the house is that this house is the Quackenbush house plus two wings. It is not the Quackenbush house. It is much bigger than the Quackenbush house. There is a wing on each side of the central portion, which is reflective of the Quackenbush house, and that is certainly understandable. You want views of the pond. Anybody would to which Mr. Popp responded that unless you are on the 2 nd FL, you cannot see the water. It is not about the view of the pond, it is about maximizing our life. Chairperson White stated that the Board wants to digest this new information and, therefore, cannot make an approval today. Eric Bregman asked if the Board wants views from somewhere along the bridge itself to which Nick Martin responded yes, noting that the Board wants daylight and night views, all views from the public, across the pond, from the northwest, direct west, southwest, direct south and southeast. Also provide winter and summer views. Mr. Mitchell asked if the Board would be receptive to enhanced screening with more evergreens from the bridge view to which Robert Barandes responded that the Board would be receptive. We have to make clear to any applicant with reference to this specific house, we have specific needs. As a Board you cannot imagine how the next applicant will come in and say but you approved that and it has nothing to do with it. Our efforts are always for consistency and straight forwardness and transparency for you and for you to us. Ms. Dedovich stated that she will also update what was previously submitted for the site plan review and add in the views. Emily Aspinall asked if the trees to be planted will be deciduous to which Ms. Reavis responded yes. Chairperson White asked that she bring photos of specific plants and a planting plan to next month s meeting to which Ms. Reavis agreed. Chairperson White asked for a motion to adjourn the application to the March 25, 2019 AHRB meeting at 10:00 AM. A motion was offered by Nick Martin, seconded by Emily Aspinall and unanimously approved. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. DEMOLITION 1. Beach House Four LP 41 Gibson Lane 908-9-1-26 Applicant proposes demolition of a single family residence and decks Mary Jane Asato, Esq., attorney for the contract vendee, presented the application. She stated that her clients are the owners of the two properties to the east of this property. This property is owned by the Halsey family, who looked into moving the house, but found that it was not conducive to moving. She stated that it was AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 7
originally moved to this site by their great grandfather so the girls would not have to change into their swimsuits in the open. The house was much closer to the water. It was moved landward and added on to years later. Ms. Asato stated that her clients have no plans to build another house in the foreseeable future and they will not merge the lots. It will remain a single and separate lot. They do want to maintain the parking on this lot and will submit the proper paperwork in order to do so. She stated that Ed Hollander will landscape the property. They will fill the crawl space after the demolition with topsoil and landscape and review the parking area. Chairperson White asked for a motion to approve the application. A motion was offered by Robert Barandes, seconded by Nick Martin. The application was approved with Chairperson White abstaining. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. 188 OMH LLC 24 Fairfield Pond Lane 908-6-2-16 Discussion on proposed house John Kean, architect, explained to the Board that his clients fell in love with another house and wanted him to duplicate it on their property at 24 Fairfield Pond Lane. He drew up sketches and showed them to the Village Building Inspector John Woudsma, who explained that there may be a problem with the gambrels and he had concerns with similarities within the design and suggested he come before the Board for input. Mr. Kean stated that in trying to balance what the client wants and what the Board wants, he re-designed a simpler house with the same floor plan, yet less complex. The Board reviewed the design with the Mr. Kean who explained that it will be a shingle house and not visible as there are extensive plantings around the property. The Board explained to Mr. Kean that, when reviewing an application, there are guidelines that they follow such as building integrity into the fabric of the architecture, not having a spec like design and having architecture close to historic references or unique references. SELECTION OF COMMITTEE OF TWO FOR MARCH Chairperson White and Nick Martin will be the Committee of Two for March. MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING Chairperson White asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion was offered by Robert Barandes, seconded by Emily Aspinall and approved unanimously. TIME NOTED: 11:55 AM PATRICIA ARANCIO-REMKUS Secretary to Board AHRB Minutes 2.25.2019 8