After two public hearings, one in May and another in July, and multiple changes to a law that would allow employer-sponsored rent-restricted housing complexes to be constructed in East Hampton Town, the town board had a final discussion of the legislation and moved closer to a September vote.
This despite some misgivings from both Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and Councilwoman Cate Rogers.
As written, the law will allow an applicant to use a special permit, which would need planning board approval, to increase the density of a development from eight units per acre to 12.
“I don’t support a special permit for increased density, as this is not true affordable housing,” said Ms. Burke-Gonzalez. “I would only support this legislation if it called for eight units per acre and did not have the ability to have a special permit that would take it up to 12 units per acre.”
She also said the rent restriction, which currently allows for tenants to earn up to 130 percent of the area median income, should be raised to 150 percent.
Based on the 2026 town income cap for tenants renting A.D.U.s, which also uses the 130 percent metric, those values are $149,630 for a one-person family, $170,950 for two people, $192,270 for three, and $213,590 for a family of four.
“We’re going to find that bigger businesses are going to be able to afford market rate for these condominiums,” Ms. Burke-Gonzalez said. “I think that what goes with that is possibly higher incomes. So, there is a gap, and I think going to 150 percent A.M.I., I would be supportive of.”
She also confirmed with Jake Turner, the town attorney, that any development built under the new legislation would have to be in both the Affordable Housing Overlay District and the Limited Business Overlay District.
“That is our understanding of the way that the code is currently drafted,” Mr. Turner said. This means that an applicant seeking to develop a property not in both those districts wouldn’t be able to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a change.
Councilwoman Rogers said smaller businesses would not be served by the code change because only large businesses would be able to afford the units.
“For me, a better code would be perhaps looking at a mixed unit, some at market rate, some at less than market rate to open up that target area,” she said. “Smaller businesses are struggling, and the people that work there don’t make 130 percent A.M.I. We’re still not addressing those folks.”
She also took issue with town employees overseeing projects for a for-profit development. “There are no fees in the legislation,” she said, to recoup the time they’d spend.
Finally, like the supervisor, she thought a special permit that would increase density should not be an option.
“The worst effort is no effort,” said Councilman David Lys, who was comfortable with the legislation and said the planning board would have to ensure the special permit standards were met.
Councilman Tom Flight was also supportive, acknowledging that there would be impacts, but that they could be both positive and negative. He used traffic as an example. “The largest driver of traffic we have is the trade parade,” he said. “If we have more workers able to live here, the trade parade decreases.”
Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte, who fully supported the law, and had the majority, indicated he will bring it forward for a vote in September.
