Dering Harbor Architectural Review Board meets
A dozen residents showed up in Dering Harbor Village Hall on June 20 for the second round of discussions by the Architectural Review Board regarding the house proposed for 1 Dering Woods Lane, submitted by the Dering Woods Lane LLC.
At its May 30 meeting, the ARB had given the LLC three weeks to resubmit its plans with an emphasis on style, quality of materials, setback requirements, site plans, landscaping, among others.
On Saturday morning, the LLC was represented by attorneys Joel Sunshine and Brian Feinstein, accompanied by their architect’s draftsman and landscape designer, along with numerous samples of materials, photographs, artist’s renderings of the building, prototype of the actual windows — and many more revised plans.
Mr. Sunshine quoted from the ARB’s own mission statement in defending the revised design of the property, noting that every effort had been made to respond to residents’ previous comments and to address the requirements of the ARB.
The “farmhouse” look had been minimized and the quality of materials upgraded, Mr. Sunshine said; other architectural styles in Dering Harbor had been taken into account and they had tried to use materials they had seen elsewhere in the village. In their design, substantial changes had been made to the siting of the driveway and in relocating the garage to meet setback requirements, among others.
Neighbors of the property and other residents generally made many of the same comments they had at the previous public hearing in May — referring to the “hodgepodge” of design elements, quality of materials, “squished” windows.
The landscape designer was new to the discussion and presented detailed drawings of the property and his recommendations for plantings and paving materials. He was challenged by some residents on a number of these, particularly in his selection of deer-resistant plants and trees — you should have done your homework, one resident said — about Shelter Island deer.
In response to another comment, the designer said that he had only just received the topographical surveys and therefore some details in his plan were not complete.
At the conclusion of the public comments, one resident noted that there were a number of different architectural styles in the village, some more pleasing than others. “I don’t find this one offensive at all,” he said. Mr. Feinstein put it another way as the meeting was ending. “Architecture is art and art is subjective.”
In the ARB discussion that followed, Susannah Rose said she still felt that the plans had a number of different styles; the house doesn’t look like it belongs here, she said. Given the fact that the revised plans had only been received two days before the meeting, members were reluctant to make a decision without more time for review.
It was also noted that the revised plans would “trigger” another review by the building inspector.
ARB Chair Heather Brownlie did, however, compliment the LLC for what they had done to address the ARB’s concerns.
In conclusion, the ARB voted to refer the revised plans back to the building inspector and to accept the LLC’s agreement to extend a decision for 28 days to July 18, without waiving the ARB’s right to an additional 60-day review period, if necessary, from the date of a response from the building inspector.
Switching gears to a much less complicated application, the ARB looked at plans for the addition of a porch to the Shore Road home of Alfredo Paredes and Brad Goldfarb. After a brief discussion, the ARB agreed that pending written confirmation from the building inspector that no variance was required, the plans as submitted met all village requirements.
