“There is no single solution to the housing challenges we face, which is why we continue to explore a range of options,” East Hampton Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said at the start of a Tuesday town board work session with an agenda heavy on housing matters.
After agreeing that Tom Flight, dressed head to toe in green, was the most spirited councilperson at the St. Patrick’s Day work session, the board got right to work, taking aim at increasing the town’s affordable housing stock and mulling many pieces of legislation.
Only one proposed law had been the topic of a previous public hearing, a code change that would loosen restrictions for people wanting to build accessory dwelling units (or A.D.U.s)on their East Hampton properties.
The law would reduce the size of a lot an A.D.U. could be built on, from 20,000 square feet to 15,000, just over a third of an acre. It could also benefit those who don’t live in the area, because it would no longer require the person building the A.D.U. to live on the property and be its primary resident.
One thing wouldn’t change: the townwide cap on the number of A.D.U.s per school district, which is set at 40, yielding a maximum of 200 across East Hampton’s five hamlets.
Mr. Flight said thus far, A.D.U.s haven’t had “a significant impact on our school districts,” saying that only 10 percent had a child living in them.
Four of the five board members were supportive, meaning that the draft legislation will now undergo environmental review per the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, with the town board likely naming itself lead agency at a coming meeting.
Once the SEQRA analysis is complete, the board will vote on the legislation. It’s now seemingly on the path to become code.
Still, the board had a healthy debate on a particularly thorny topic: how to separate those who are community members using the limited liability company structure on their house for legitimate tax purposes, from outside corporate interests who are gobbling up local housing stock using L.L.C.s, and then making a killing renting in the summer.
The debate was sparked by Councilwoman Cate Rogers who said while she supported allowing A.D.U.s on smaller lots, she was having the “most difficulty . . . with the L.L.C.s and the second-home owner role.”
She worried most about problems that could arise with absentee owners. The law would make necessary a “property manager” denoted by the L.L.C. to deal with concerns, but Ms. Rogers said if there were a notice of violation at a property, the property manager likely wouldn’t receive it in a timely fashion.
“The violation has to go to the Secretary of State and then it’s sent to the corporation,” she said. “So, I’m trying to figure out how designating a person as a property manager has any impact whatsoever.” “If your property is in an L.L.C. ownership, if it’s your primary residence, or if you can prove that your primary residence is in the Town of East Hampton, build an A.D.U.,” she said.
Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte said he understood her concern, but that he didn’t feel it would be a problem, practically.
“I don’t think somebody who wants to do a luxury rental would necessarily pair that with an A.D.U.,” he said. Still, he agreed that there is a difference.
“A second-home owner, somebody who has a place out here, who spends a significant amount of time here, but might live someplace else, is very different than a pure investment. You know, somebody who owns an L.L.C. and otherwise has no ties to the community at all,” he said.
“I do acknowledge the concern that you don’t want to have a slumlord type of situation, where people are just trying to build as much as they possibly can and rent it out,” he added. “I don’t think that’s likely, but it’s a valid concern.”
Ms. Burke-Gonzalez echoes his argument.
“I’m comfortable with reducing to 15,000 square feet, and I’m also supportive of allowing second-home owners to build A.D.U.s,” she said. “For me, we do have that cap in place of 40 per school district and that is, for me, the guardrail.”
“To the point Ian brought up. If you’ve invested in a $5 million house, and operating it, unfortunately, as a short-term rental, I don’t know if folks are going to be putting an A.D.U. on that property, because it was a costly investment. There’s a certain look and feel and vibe that they go for when they’re marketing these short-term rentals, and I’m not sure they want a teacher living on the property if they’re charging $1,500 a night renting a room.”
There was less debate among the public. The March 5 public hearing drew only two to speak on the law: one was for it, and one against.
(An earlier public hearing, held in November, drew more supporters. However, the law had been changed enough during the drafting phase to require the second hearing in early March.)
No resident has spoken out as consistently on the law as David Buda, who showed up at Tuesday’s public portion to reiterate his criticism.
“You’re so focused on the benefits, you’re forgetting about the detriments you’d be creating by allowing non-full-time residents, investors, who are only involved in income-producing properties. You would be encouraging their purchasing of homes,” he said. This would only dilute the community further, he argued, citing “a very dangerous” statistic that showed seven of the last 10 properties in Springs were purchased by limited liability companies.
