Neighbors press zoning board on wetlands, ADU and setbacks in revised 15 Jones Road proposal

At a continued hearing before the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals on March 6, the applicant for 15 Jones Road presented revised plans that retreat the proposed garage from a 17-foot setback to a 20-foot accessory setback and lower the proposed garage ridgeline to approximately 19.1 feet, aiming to reduce visual impact on the neighbor to the south.

The applicant’s counsel told the board that lot constraints and an existing accessory barn prevent achieving the 50-foot principal-structure setback. Architect Pietro Ciconiani, sworn before the board, said because an accessory barn already exists on the property the proposed garage must be treated as attached for setback measurements and explained practical limitations to achieving a full 50-foot setback.

Neighbor Kim Hovey of 27 Jones Road, who said she is a real estate broker with Compass, urged the board to consider the cumulative impact of the project: she listed proposed changes including additions to the main residence, demolition and conversion of an accessory structure into a two-bedroom ADU, a new pool and patio, landscaping within the wetland buffer, and a new sanitary system. Hovey said the property sits in a FEMA flood zone, noted existing stormwater pooling on heavy-rain events and raised concerns about septic sizing tied to increased bedroom counts. She said the existing gross floor area was 7,221 square feet and described the proposed footprint as about 10,346 square feet with six bedrooms after changes; she asked whether the ADU could be removed to reduce septic and wetland impacts and requested any construction start be delayed until October to avoid summer noise.

Board members questioned alternatives to the proposed layout. One member who revisited the site said he believed the application likely fails the five statutory criteria for area variances—citing substantial intrusion into neighborhood character, environmental sensitivity and the self-created nature of the request—though other members said recent reductions to the garage footprint were helpful. After public comment and questioning, the board voted to close the hearing; no final approvals or denials were recorded for this matter at the March 6 meeting.

The applicant and the neighbor both discussed mitigation measures: the applicant described proposed dry wells, leaders and upgraded septic measures to capture runoff and reduce nitrogen entering the wetland; the architect said external stair placement was revised to avoid further encroachment toward the wetland.

The matter will return for the board’s further consideration when it completes its deliberations and receives any requested revised plans.