Only two people spoke in favor of legislation that would allow “employer-sponsored” housing to be developed within East Hampton at a public hearing last Thursday: the prospective developer and his lawyer. Seven residents spoke against the proposal.
Despite the lackluster support, if passed, the legislation would allow for housing units provided by an employer exclusively for occupancy by their employees and their employees’ families. Rents would be capped at 130 percent of the area median income (or A.M.I.) and units would be monitored for compliance by a third-party management company approved by the town.
Christopher Kelley, the attorney for Kirby Marcantonio, a developer and co-owner of 350 Pantigo Road in East Hampton, where 47 such units have been contemplated, called upon the board to immediately adopt the law. In nearly the same breath, he said that once the board adopted it, he hoped they would consider “enacting an essential worker exception so that medical personnel, school district personnel, municipal employees, and public safety workers may rent there regardless of their combined family incomes.”
He also asked that the board remove one of the special permit standards, “the limited business overlay district criterion, which would severely limit the scope of the legislation and its effectiveness, and limit projects to properties on Montauk Highway and North Main Street.”
His comments later prompted a response from Katy Casey, the executive director of the East Hampton Housing Authority.
“I hadn’t planned on commenting on this,” she said, “but I believe I heard a suggestion that there might be a lifting of an A.M.I. cap for certain exclusions. The more I hear about this particular plan, the less it sounds like affordable housing to me.”
“If you were to pierce the 130-percent A.M.I. cap on a privately-owned condominium, there is no control over who lives there for how long, frequency, or occupancy. There’s no way that any town office would be able to keep a handle on that.”
“So, I thought I did hear, just this evening, that there’s a suggestion of not having an income cap on the occupants of these condominiums. I believe I heard that correctly. And that was kind of the little bell I was waiting for. And I hope you heard it.”
Others were less diplomatic about the for-profit condominium idea benefiting directly from town legislation.
The special permit standards in the legislation say a site must be at least three acres, and that there are eight units maximum per acre. However, the planning board has the option to allow 12 units per acre. If the law passes, since 350 Pantigo is nearly four acres, it could hold 48 units instead of the current maximum of 32.
“Let’s be very clear about the zoning change,” said Mark Shilen, who called the proposal a “con game.” “The zoning change is about money. It’s about millions and millions of dollars. I don’t think enriching some developers with millions of dollars, in this case $16 million, is the right way to achieve affordable housing.”
Mary Waserstein agreed. “Amending our town code for the benefit of a for-profit developer is deeply concerning,” she said.
“The only ones who will benefit from this are luxury chain brands, country clubs, and large groups who can afford the million-dollar sticker price” -- $1 million has been the assumed cost to purchase a condo -- “This is not for local businesses.”
“The previous owner of the property had attempted to subdivide the property into three lots and was denied,” Ms. Waserstein continued. “But because the phrase ‘affordable housing and work-force housing’ is being attached, we are throwing away all restrictions out the door.”
“The proposed revision leaves most of these matters involving the design and implementation to the planning board and I’m fine with that,” said Samuel Kramer, with some emphasis. He was once chairman of the planning board, but resigned after learning he was to be demoted following his assertion that the board should have had more say in review of the senior citizens center on Abraham’s Path. That project is now stalled.
He worried that the condominium structure could provide “a massive windfall” for the developers, but what concerned him most was “the wisdom of tying employment to housing.”
“While we all hope that people will act in good faith at all times, I cannot help but worry that the ability of workers to complain to their employers, or to gripe about the conditions under which they work, will be stymied, at least when their homes are owned by the same people for whom they work. I fear retaliation against loudmouths.”
“I think it’s important to ask whether a housing crisis means that the town should be in the business of increasing the value of already successful businesses merely because the town seems unable to build that housing,” he continued. “If the town needs housing, the town should build housing.” “Sam brought up a very interesting point,” said Mr. Marcantonio. “How does housing tied to employment work? Well, right now it works in single-family homes throughout this area where tenants have no leases. They have no tenants’ rights, and they are at the whim of their employer as to whether they get to stay or not.”
“Our housing is going to be transparent,” he continued. “It is going to have tenants’ rights. It is going to set rentals for the workers that are within the town’s 130 percent affordable rate. They will not be thrown out, whether they disagree with their boss or not, because they will have a three-to-six-month period of residency. That is taking what is currently the grayest of gray housing out into the light,” he argued.
“As a private project that takes no money from the town, the state, or the county, we do need to make a profit to make this work,” he said, addressing a criticism. “The recent market study commissioned by the town itself shows that the average cost to construct an affordable housing unit here is roughly $700,000. We will charge more than that. It’s only rational.”
Mr. Kelley said Stony Brook Medicine wrote a letter supporting the legislation and added that it was supported by the planning board as well. (The planning board did question the density and wondered if it would generate too much traffic.) However, perhaps surprisingly, no other employers showed up to speak in support of the proposed code change.
The public hearing was closed.
In other housing news, Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said Tuesday that the New York State Department of Homes and Community Renewal would hold a public meeting this week and likely rule on East Hampton’s application, as part of the state’s Move-In NY program, for 16 houses at Cantwell Court.
Mark Morgan-Perez, the town’s director of housing, said, “We expect that to happen. It’s very good news for the town.” In October, he gave a presentation to the town board about “cross-mods,” which are a hybrid of manufactured and site-built houses.
“The homes should be deeply affordable, and the delivery timeline could be within six months,” he said.
“We’re grateful for the governor’s partnership on this,” said Ms. Burke-Gonzalez. Gov. Kathy Hochul recently endorsed Ms. Burke-Gonzalez in her primary against East Hampton Village Mayor Jerry Larsen, who has made inaction at Cantwell Court part of his critique of the current town government. (The subdivision was approved by the town’s Planning Department three years ago. According to the town’s website, construction was to begin in the fall of 2024.)
The board also noticed a public hearing to allow for accessory staff housing on June 4. Staff housing could be rooming houses, apartments, or single family homes provided at a business’s location.
