An East Hampton Town Board whose motto has been “All hands on housing” was divided 3-to-2 on Tuesday over two aspects of draft legislation that would create a new affordable multiple-residence housing use.
The disagreements had nothing to do with the need for more housing, however. Instead, Councilmen Ian Calder-Piedmonte and Tom Flight balked at the inclusion of what they characterized as “environmental restrictions” in the legislation, continuing a disagreement that began at last week’s meeting.
Even before the board began its debate, five residents spoke in favor of requiring certain standards for new multiple residences or conversions of existing homes.
According to the legislation, “Landscaping and screening shall prioritize sustainable practices, including the use of native, drought-tolerant species and minimizing the use of fertilizers and irrigation.” Further, it requires that all buildings be “solar ready and all electric.”
Marjorie Spitz of Montauk referenced Hurricane Erin, which was forecast to miss Long Island but to produce large eroding waves on East Hampton’s beaches nonetheless.
“Just like we are preparing for this hurricane approaching, this should be the lens through which we prepare for building affordable housing, to keep our environment and community safe and be a model town for others,” she said. “So, installing solar and heat pumps and having food-scrap recycling and composting as part of the conversation up front is so critical.”
Sustainable landscaping practices, too, should be an integral part of the conversation, said Leonard Green, a Springs resident. “Landscaping is not something that’s an afterthought. It’s an essential part of this proposal,” he said.
Councilman Calder-Piedmonte pushed back. “I know I risk making myself out to be a Disney villain to try to keep this part out of it — I care about sustainability — I just think that this is not where we’re going to make meaningful goals with respect to sustainability,” he said. “I was on the planning board for many years. You read code that was clearly well-intentioned, but the more regulations, the more rules you put in place, the more opportunity there is for that to be the hurdle.”
This irked Councilwoman Cate Rogers, who spoke strongly in favor of the proposed requirements.
“If we never make changes on anything we do in the future, all we’re condemning people to do, and us, is to repeat the mistakes of the past,” she said. “I don’t understand how we can say, ‘Well, this is an impediment.’ It’s cheaper than doing ornamental landscaping. It’s cheaper than using fossil fuels.”
Mr. Calder-Piedmonte countered that he was not advocating for weaker standards on the new housing category, just equal standards. “What a regular homeowner could do, or a business could do, is more than we’re allowing for somebody trying to construct affordable housing.”
“I’m happy to bring it back across town, if you’re saying you support that,” said Councilwoman Rogers. “I think that’s exactly where I’d like to go.”
A second point of contention was lot size. Along with Mr. Flight, Mr. Calder Piedmonte favored allowing the new use on lots as small as a half-acre, while the other three board members preferred a minimum of one acre (40,000 square feet).
“I don’t think that having the 40,000-foot requirement is going to deliver enough significant housing, frankly,” Councilman Flight said. “I don’t think at this point in time, with where housing is in the town, we can afford to be this picky.”
Councilman Calder-Piedmonte noted that applicants would need not only to have their property placed in an affordable housing overlay district, but also to receive a special permit from the Planning Board, both steps that require public hearings. Those safeguards would be enough to prevent housing being built in inappropriate areas, he said.
Councilwoman Rogers was concerned with exploitation. Citing the rental registry legislation, which she said had been “abused by non-local platforms that are just interested in extracting all that they can out of the community,” she supported the one-acre minimum to protect residential neighborhoods.
She was open, however, to allowing smaller lot sizes near commercial districts or transportation hubs. “Having an international development company come in and build for-profit housing up in the Northwest Woods, where residents are then unable to easily access all the other affordable needs that they have — childcare, transportation — it doesn’t work for me,” she said.
She also warned that impacts on school districts have not been adequately studied. Along with Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Ms. Rogers suggested starting with the larger lot size and re-evaluating in a year.
The supervisor, resisting what Councilmen Calder-Piedmonte and Flight had said in questioning the larger lot size, commented that “Right now, it’s at three acres. What we’re suggesting right now is to drop it to one acre.”
The contested changes were made to the draft legislation after an initial discussion on the topic on Aug. 12. Two other changes, reducing the minimum unit size to 300 square feet (for a one-bedroom) and setting the maximum density of housing units to four per 40,000 square feet, were less disputed.
Warts and all, the legislation will be posted tonight for a public hearing that will be held in early September.
