A crescendo of criticism on a multitude of topics — a proposed parking lot at the Springs Library, beach driving on Napeague, a possible housing development on Spinner Lane, and a vote on an environmental determination for a code change that could favor private developers at 350 Pantigo Road — led to an emotional climax at last Thursday’s East Hampton Town Board meeting.
Ilan Rosenthal was ejected after an outburst during the public comment portion of the meeting that prompted three members of the board — Ian Calder-Piedmonte, Tom Flight, and Cate Rogers — to temporarily walk out. He had previously filed a lawsuit against the town over its purchase of 549 and 550 Wainscott Northwest Road.
“I’m feeling threatened,” Ms. Rogers said as she left.
After order was restored, the board listened to nearly another hour of public comment, making it the second consecutive meeting where that usually short portion of the meeting was extended for two hours.
Only one of the controversial topics was affected by a vote: The board split 3 to 2 on a resolution determining that legislation enabling rent-restricted employer-sponsored housing would have no environmental impact. In the language of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, that vote is known as a “negative declaration.”
In this case, the SEQRA declaration became a litmus test for the 350 Pantigo Road development.
That’s because the development needs the code change to allow enough density (12 units per acre as opposed to eight) to make it economically feasible, according to Kirby Marcantonio and his lawyer, Christopher Kelley, who, with an undisclosed third investor, hope to develop the land.
The two have also been tied to other housing plans as well, at Spinner Lane in East Hampton and a failed project at Three Mile Harbor Road, with code changes required for each.
Mr. Marcantonio spoke immediately after Mr. Rosenthal was ejected.
“We’re either all in this together or we’re going to tear each other apart into little pieces,” he said. “And as it stands right now, there’s almost no connective tissue in this town left. I’m here to simply ask that people listen, that people listen and understand that there are very, very, few opportunities left in this town to do housing of any kind, for anyone.”
“And if we wither away those with these very unfounded approaches,” he continued, “we’re simply going to be left to drift in a very big sea as we float across from one another and we disappear into the mist.”
The room was silenced.
Housing built using the Rent-Restricted Employer-Sponsored Housing legislation could not be rented for more than 130 percent of the fair market rent, according to federal regulations and would only be allowed on land in both the town’s affordable housing overlay district and in its limited business overlay district. Eight units per acre would be allowed, but the planning board, through a special permit, could allow 12 units per acre if certain conditions were satisfied by the developer. Units would be owned by an employer and rented only to their employees.
However, the board was voting not on the housing use itself; but merely on the environmental impact of the legislation that could ultimately permit the use.
If the board eventually passed the law allowing for that type of housing, a developer would still need to bring plans before the planning board, which would determine how much environmental review those specific plans needed.
“Thousands and thousands and thousands of our residents have signed petitions, been online, written letters, and shown up at meetings saying they do not support the development approaches by Kirby Marcantonio and his partners,” said Mary Waserstein, who is helping to organize a write-in supervisor campaign for Jerry Larsen. “Yet somehow this is back on the agenda. So, what I’d like to understand is if we have thousands and thousands of our residents saying, ‘No thank you, Mr. Marcantonio,’ Why would you vote ‘yes’?”
“The issue is presenting a for-profit multimillion-dollar commercial venture as a rescue mission while asking the town to change its zoning rules,” said Zach Vanderbeek.
He tied the vote to the negative declaration that was once issued for the East Hampton Battery Energy Storage Center at 3 Cove Hollow Road, which has turned into an environmental calamity, contaminating nearby drinking water wells.
“This board should not want to be remembered as the board that faced a water quality crisis and then adopted a framework serving private for-profit ventures without demanding the highest level of transparency and environmental scrutiny,” he said.
“The level of discomfort, concern, and opposition among the public about this type of employer-sponsored workforce housing is very high, very detailed, and I think in many cases valid enough to justify a reconsideration, if not an actual withdrawal of the proposed code,” said Jaine Mehring.
“This code seems as if it was written in support of a specific application and at the behest of an individual developer,” she continued. “I respectfully say that doesn’t meet the bar of good planning or best practice. This is unusual, and I don’t think it lives up to your regular standards of very disciplined and analytical processes that serve as the basis for creating and crafting new code.”
Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and Ms. Rogers voted against the resolution.
“I will be a ‘no’ vote,” said Ms. Rogers. “However, I recognize that this is a standard course of action for any code change. There’s no particular project attached to the code, so it’s always a negative declaration. However, I am a ‘no’ vote on the proposed code change, so therefore, to be consistent with that ‘no’ vote, I am voting ‘no’ on the SEQRA determination.”
“I do not support the proposed local law as written, and the ability to receive a special permit for increased density for a project that is not truly affordable housing,” said Ms. Burke-Gonzalez, also tying her vote on the SEQRA determination to only one specific development it would allow: at 350 Pantigo Road.
“This vote does not mean any project is moving forward at all,” said Councilman David Lys. “I will vote ‘yes’ on this and we’ll continue on.”
“We have to act on this,” said Councilman Flight. “We have to have housing. It’s not going to be perfect how we deliver it, unfortunately, but we have to keep pushing and we have to find that right balance.”
“The Green at Gardiner’s Point, which I think is a phenomenal project, was built by a for-profit developer,” he added. “The fact that the private sector is coming in to try and help address this issue is a good thing.”
“If people think that speaking loudly and intimidatingly and not focusing on facts and having a civil dialogue is going to be helpful to whatever side of a particular cause they’re on, I think that’s a bad approach,” said Mr. Calder-Piedmonte.
“I think it would be bad governance to just go with the loudest, the most vocal people,” he said as he cast his ‘yes’ vote on the negative SEQRA determination.
At Tuesday’s meeting, he addressed the Springs Library parking lot, saying that “there is no final plan” and that there was still the “possibility of creating a grass parking area.”
