House-Size Limits Are Fair, Necessary

It’s about the money. That was the clear takeaway from the reaction at a May 15 hearing on additional limits on large-lot house sizes proposed by the East Hampton Village Board. In one of the more heated board meetings we have seen of late, representatives of property owners, as well as a few owners themselves, objected in the strongest terms to possible rules changes that would tighten the formulas governing how large a house can be on lots of an acre or more.

The reductions would be substantial. For example, under the village code right now a new house on a 2.5-acre property can be as large as 11,000 square feet; if the board were to approve the changes only an 8,400-square-foot house would be allowed. All other things being equal, an 11,000-square-foot house is going to sell for a whole lot more than an 8,400-square-foot one, hence the howling.

The East Hampton Village Board, which showed signs of capitulating amid the onslaught, ominously keeping the record open for additional comments, should hang tough. Protecting the village’s charm and character must come first; accommodating billionaires and real estate investors must be of somewhat lower priority. That the proposal has earned the support of the Ladies Village Improvement Society, concerned as ever about our sense of place, is notable. Its view should not be discounted hastily.

But there is more. One of the most ludicrous statements to come from the phalanx of opponents at the hearing was from a paid consultant who said that large houses do not necessarily have an impact. This is patently false; the bigger the property, the bigger the demands for staff, maintenance, resources such as water, and the greater its ecological footprint in terms of waste and emissions. Consider the massive “trade parade” traffic jams, largely created by workers building, renovating, or simply tending the Hamptons’ large houses. Think, too, of the housing crisis now coming into sharp focus. There is certainly a relationship between the needs of those who cater to the rich and the difficulty mom-and-pop businesses have paying employees enough to live in the area. There is a significant problem here and it can only be exacerbated by ever-greater residential construction.

An interesting parallel can be found on Martha’s Vineyard. The Massachusetts island has had to cope with many of the same issues East Hampton and its neighbors are now experiencing. There, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, a powerful planning agency covering the island’s six townships, operates on a basic understanding that some projects are so big that they can have a regional impact. Most often, the commission studies subdivision proposals and the like, but from time to time it has ruled on large single-house residential projects as well. If big projects can be said to have a cumulative effect there, why not here?

East Hampton Village officials should not believe the hype. As for threats of litigation, it should be remembered that special interest lawsuits are often inevitable when officials stand up for the common good. Well-crafted limits on residential projects have a long history here, will prevail in court, and should be fully supported.