Following several changes to legislation that would allow for rent-restricted employer-sponsored housing, the town board held a second public hearing on the proposal last Thursday.
Not enough changes, apparently, to create public support.
“I don’t think that the proposed changes do enough to address the issues, which remain of significant concern to me and I hope others,” said Samuel Kramer, a past chairman of the East Hampton Town Planning Board.
Kirby Marcantonio, who hopes to develop the long-unoccupied parcel at 350 Pantigo Road in East Hampton under the plan, and his lawyer, Christopher Kelley, have been pushing the board to pass the code change since 2023, when an unnamed “investor” purchased the land for $5.2 million.
If passed, the law would define and create rent-restricted employer-sponsored housing allowing for employers to provide housing exclusively for their employees. Rent could not exceed 130 percent of federal calculations for fair market rent.
The units, which would be monitored by a third-party management company approved by the town, must be located in both an affordable housing overlay district and a limited business overlay district. (The town board has the authority to amend both districts.)
No more than 60 units could be on a site, with maximum density calculated at eight units per acre. However, the planning board could permit up to 12 units per acre provided the developer met certain conditions, among them adding a sewage treatment plant, conducting a traffic study, and calculating the economics of the new housing to the school district.
Leases would be for a minimum of one year. If an employee were fired, or quit, they could remain in their unit for a grace period of six months, or until the end of their lease. If the employer and management company agree, the tenant could stay longer.
“Hiring a third-party property manager misses the point,” said Mr. Kramer. “The issue is not whether an employer may retaliate against an employee-tenant who might complain because he or she is not getting enough hot water. The issue is whether an employee might be afraid to complain to OSHA [the federal Occupational and Health Administration] about a dangerous work environment, or might not file a complaint with the E.E.O.C. [Equal Opportunity Employment Commission], or the attorney general, about a discriminatory work practice.” TK
“It’s naive to think that an employee will exercise those rights if he or she fears losing his or her home,” he continued. “I fear that this legislation will chill working people’s freedom of speech and job security at the cost of losing their home. The town should not be facilitating this kind of employer overreach.”
Lorraine Bonaventura, a local architect who lives nearby on Spring Close Highway, asked why the town hadn’t purchased the land itself, long ago. “There’s no answer to that,” she said. “It’s been sitting empty for 50 years.”
Ms. Bonaventura had many issues with the proposed development and the developers, citing lack of transparency, lack of experience, excessive profits for an “affordable housing” development, uncontrolled expansion, traffic and parking hazards (she noted two accidents in just the last two weeks near Pantigo Road), and creating a precedent that would allow for more large-scale development.
The units were supposed to be for local workers, she said, but East Hampton School officials had said they could not use taxpayer funds to purchase any. Further, she worried that a recent law change in New York State, which removes environmental review from certain affordable housing developments, could affect the construction.
“This change creates a perfect storm for massive development under the guise of affordable housing,” Ms. Bonaventura said. “Changing the town code to benefit a for-profit developer is highly concerning, particularly when the developer’s own counsel was intricately involved in drafting the very changes that will create a financial windfall for them and their undisclosed investors.”
Mr. Marcantonio attempted to address ongoing criticism regarding his unidentified third investor. “I have one investor. A local gentleman with 50 years rooted in the community and extensive experience with dealing with multifamily housing,” he said. He explained that the man had been ill and didn’t want the stress of having his name bandied about.
“I simply ask that you respect the fact that he is an honest local businessman, who is thinking of other honest local businesspeople for this project,” Mr. Marcantonio said. “We believe that the utility of this project, even if it only helps 47 businesses find a legal way of housing their employees, is more than worth the scrutiny that we’ve gone through and the scrutiny we will go through over the next couple of years.”
He added that he hopes to bring the project back to the planning board by the end of the summer.
“I’m tempted to say everybody loves affordable housing until it becomes a reality,” he said. “Then all of a sudden it becomes an issue of great concern.”
“I don’t oppose affordable housing there,” said Mr. Kramer. “What I oppose is enriching the businesses to the degree that they’re enriched beyond that which they should be, solely because the town is not addressing housing in the way that it ought to be addressed: by building housing.”
“There are myriad issues that arise when a business owns housing,” he continued. “Most of all, I think it’s inevitable that over time there will be pressure to increase density and decrease minimum lot size in order to maximize the value of this real estate.”
The town board has received at least one letter steadfastly against changing the code, from Mary Waserstein, a resident of Springs.
“Mr. Kelley and Mr. Marcantonio intend to use this change to not only develop the property at 350 Pantigo but, per Mr. Kelley’s letter to the Board dated April 1st, 2026, to develop an additional 48 condos at 60 Spinner Lane, as well as potentially a large-scale development at the site of Maidstone Gun Club,” she wrote. “In a separate letter Mr. Kelley even goes so far as to suggest that the Town remove the requirement that sites like the ones mentioned above have both the Affordable Housing Overlay and the Limited Business Overlay classifications — further removing any barriers to large-scale housing developments.”
She went on. “This is deeply concerning in that it will put a huge premium on any open spaces. Coupled with the lowered SEQRA requirements per Governor Hochul’s Let Them Build initiative, it will create a perfect storm for massive for-profit developments in East Hampton Town under the guise of Affordable Housing and Work Force Housing. Once this horse is out of the barn there is no going back,” she wrote.
A separate piece of less controversial legislation that would allow commercial properties to be developed with accessory, on-site staff housing, received a “negative declaration” from the town board on Tuesday. That means the board sees no environmental consequences from the passage of the law. Specific proposals to use the law and build staff housing will be reviewed for environmental issues as their applications come before the pertinent boards.
“This initiative aims to create a way for private businesses to directly provide housing for their employees and to contribute to addressing the vital housing need within the town,” wrote Eric Schantz, a principal planner, in April. “It is also hoped that such measures will help to alleviate some traffic congestion on Town roads by requiring fewer employees to commute into the Town.”
