Twenty people spoke at an East Hampton Town Board public hearing last Thursday night on a potential 13.5-acre land acquisition in Wainscott, most in favor of the town’s plan to use $3.975 million in community housing funds to buy the parcels at 549 and 550 Wainscott Northwest Road.
However, the seven who spoke against it, all nearby neighbors, came armed with both arguments and a lawyer, Jon Tarbet, who told the board that he represented 11 others as well.
Mr. Tarbet started with a question. “Does the need for affordable housing outweigh the last 50 years of environmental protections provided by previous town boards to this area?”
The land is in a water recharge overlay district, which means it comes with additional regulations due to the disproportionate quantity of rainwater that seeps through it on its way to the aquifer. It’s also a fully wooded tract containing habitat of the now federally-endangered northern long-eared bat, and is located in a state-designated special groundwater protection area.
Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, said the size of the lot allowed for significant flexibility.
“While at this time there is no housing plan, if the board pursues development in the future, the property would require a change in zone and SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act evaluation] based on whatever the housing plan is at the time,” he said. “This will require additional public hearings with input from the public. For now, the initial goal is to acquire this rare parcel while it’s still available.”
Then again, as part of her “Let Them Build” agenda, Gov. Kathy Hochul recently floated the idea of removing SEQRA review for some affordable housing applications. It’s not clear if that change would impact 549 and 550 Wainscott Northwest Road and any future development, but if so, the environmental effects of developing the site may not be fully understood.
Mr. Tarbet said that since the board was using C.H.F. funds for the purchase, it compelled the town to build affordable housing there.
“So, the environmental review, that question about whether affordable housing outweighs the need for the water recharge, that has to be done now,” he said. “What I object to is the board saying that we can land bank this. The community housing fund does not allow you to land bank.”
Others, in fact 13 others, landed on the “affordable housing is more important” side of the question, or had faith that the town would conduct a rigorous environmental review.
Katy Casey, the executive director of the East Hampton Housing Authority, disagreed with Mr. Tarbet’s point on land banking.
“I am a big supporter of land banking,” she said. “A big argument for the community housing fund was to enable the town to be a little bit more nimble. In the past, parcels were lost because the funds weren’t immediately available. You had to bond.”
What could happen if the land is sold to a developer? That was a question answered by Jaine Mehring, who was speaking as a citizen, but is a member of the town’s zoning board of appeals.
She said that since the residential parcel is zoned for five acres, and over a recharge area, 70 percent would need to remain undisturbed. Still, two two-acre properties could be created and fit 12,000-square-foot houses, including underground space and accessory structures.
Instead, if a “pocket neighborhood” that still respected clearing with 1,250-square-foot houses were developed, “You could probably have 18 to 24 affordable houses, that could house families who work here,” she said.
Alyson Follenius, a member of the East Hampton Town Democratic Committee, agreed. “Purchasing these properties now ensures they will not be purchased by some luxury developer to then sell to folks who may only be here for two to three months out of the year.”
But again, the close neighbors were opposed and threatened legal action should the town pursue an affordable housing development on the land.
“Affordable housing is most effective when it’s located near infrastructure, transportation, and services, and this area completely lacks those, defeating the goal of responsible development,” said Brad Marks, who lives across the street from the parcel.
“At this point we’re simply asking the board to slow down, provide full transparency, disclose the actual contemplated plans, and conduct a complete and lawful public review before moving forward. Otherwise, we’re going to get caught up in this legal battle.”
Then there was a caller from very far away, Martin Drew, who now resides in Puerto Rico. Mr. Drew participated in five of the 10 public hearings on Thursday night and has consistently criticized the town board and police for not enforcing parking and right-of-way rules near Rita Cantina, where members of his family still live.
“I don’t oppose housing, but I oppose these purchases,” he said. “We should be focusing at the airport (a hub of the community) where 100 acres, I understand, is available now, because a lease is expiring with the gun club. With 100 acres, we can do a lot of housing, and we already own it.”
Ilan Rosenthal, a commercial realtor based in New York, who purchased the neighboring parcel in 2021, said the town was being hypocritical. He received a stop-work order for working without a building permit and was charged with overclearing, ultimately requiring him to receive a variance.
“For like three years, all I hear about is the aquifer,” he said. “You guys made me get a variance. I had to do SEQRA just to get a variance to keep my house the way it was. Now here you are saying, ‘You get charges, but we should just develop this land to do whatever we want.’ “
His father, Yaron Rosenthal, spoke as well and continued with the theme of hypocrisy. “If you do not want to protect the environment, then change it for the whole area. So, we can buy other areas and put up, you know, giant structures there.”
“I would like to point out that all of East Hampton is environmentally sensitive,” said Gloria Frazee. “We live near the water. We have a single-source aquifer and everything we do as individual homeowners and as a town has a huge impact on our environment.”
“Some people have said this is a rush to develop,” she continued. “I would say that we are making up for decades of lost time as we try to cross every ‘T’ and dot every ‘I.’ “
Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez clarified what the board meant by land banking.
“We do not mean land banking forever,” she said. “We mean buying the property now to secure it, to create development plans later. We have not had the opportunity to create those plans yet due to the limited window the property has been available.”
The hearing was closed.
