Landowners Object to New Limits on East Hampton Village House Size

Owners of large properties in East Hampton Village, many of them communicating through attorneys, gave no quarter in their collective denunciation of the graduated formulas the village has proposed for limiting the square footage of houses and accessory structures according to the size of the lots they sit on. 

At Friday’s public hearing on the village board’s proposed code amendments, speakers, armed with reports, illustrations, statistics, and warnings of fiscal catastrophe, took turns criticizing a study and subsequent recommendations from the village’s planning and zoning committee. Among other things, the legislation was called misguided, draconian, discriminatory, and a solution in search of a problem. The village board was told that it would be taken to court if the legislation was adopted and also that affected property owners would take matters in their own hands by registering to vote here.

Last month, Robert Hefner, the village’s director of historic services, told the board that the present practice of applying only one set of size and  coverage standards for all residential lots might irreparably harm the character of the village that has developed over 350 years. With the village’s 2002 comprehensive plan in mind — that residential development and redevelopment be compatible in size and scale with the surroundings — the committee recommended new formulas for lots larger than 40,000 square feet. The formulas, Mr. Hefner said, would still allow large houses, multiple accessory structures, and generous lot coverage. With one exception, however, speakers saw it differently, most ignoring Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr.’s request to limit comments to three minutes. Elbert Edwards, the village trustee who chaired the committee, did not speak.

Chick Voorhis of Nelson Pope and Voorhis, a consulting firm based in Melville, who represented several property owners, criticized the “flawed methodology” of the committee’s study. “The data does not support the findings as expressed in the legislative intent,” he said. That 173 properties, or less than 20 percent of potentially affected lots, had been sampled was insufficient and unrepresentative, he said. “The study has not defined what is compatible or incompatible. Large homes on large lots don’t necessarily have an impact.”

Joseph P. Rose, who recently wonsubstantial variances from the appeals board for his Hedges Lane property, warned the board of legal challenges if the legislation was enacted and said they “would be successful.” Mr. Rose, a former chairman of the New York City Planning Commission and director of the Department of City Planning, predicted a “long, expensive, turbulent process that would create ill will that doesn’t need to be created.”

Richard Whalen, an attorney whose firm, Land Marks, often represents property owners before local boards, was among those who warned of other dire consequences. The sale of village properties that are larger than an acre is responsible for a disproportionate share of the town’s community preservation fund, he said, calling the fund “the number-one methodology in East Hampton Town to preserve open space, historic sites, and structures.” Laws that reduce the building potential of large lots would impact their sale value, reducing the C.P.F. revenue, he said.

Bringing history into the debate, Pat Trunzo, a contractor, said, “Grand estate houses have been built in East Hampton since at least 1880 and they have richly contributed to the character, the economy, the community, and the special sense of place that we all prize and cherish.” Mr. Trunzo also said there would be “certain harm to the second-home economy, to local builders like me and my family,” and to the tax base of the village and town.

Raj Alva, a homeowner, was more dramatic. I “almost spit my breakfast up,” he said, when he read about the proposals in the April 9 issue of The East Hampton Star. He took the warnings into the political realm. Having spent “hundreds of thousands” on architectural plans and an application before the zoning board of appeals, he and his wife, he said, will change their voter registration from New York City to East Hampton. “I suspect a lot of my neighbors will as well,” he said.

After hearing 16 speakers, who were unanimous in opposition, the board finally heard an encouraging word. Ann Roberts of Egypt Close, speaking on behalf of the Ladies Village Improvement Society, said the organization supported the 2002 comprehensive plan. “Periodically, adjustments need to be made in order to maintain our beautiful surroundings. . . . Proportional laws help sustain the character of our village for the future,” she said.

Although no one mentioned the recent astronomical sales of large properties on Further Lane — one for $62.5 million and another, of three contiguous lots totaling 16 acres, for $147 million — the knowledge of what has been happening in village real estate affected the atmosphere of the proceedings.

After almost two tense hours, Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. said the board would keep the hearing open and allow written comment through June 15. “We’ve listened and hopefully will gather some more information by way of email or written communication,” he said. “We’re only as good as the input we get from the public we serve.”

  The existing formula for the size of “principal” structures — 10 percent of the lot’s area plus 1,000 square feet — would remain in place for lots up to 40,000 square feet, or just under an acre. On lots of 40,000 to 80,000 square feet, a principal structure could be no larger than 7 percent of the lot area plus 2,200 square feet. For lots greater than 80,000 square feet, the proposed formula is 3 percent of the lot plus 5,400 square feet. A house on an 80,000-square-foot lot would be limited to 7,800 square feet.

While the present maximum size of accessory buildings, 2 percent of the lot plus 200 square feet, would remain in place for lots under 40,000 square feet, the committee recommended 1 percent of the lot plus 600 square feet for lots from 40,000 to just under 80,000 square feet, and one-half percent of the lot plus 1,000 square feet for those 80,000 square feet or larger. On an 80,000-square-foot lot, the maximum for all accessory structures would be 1,400 square feet.

  Maximum coverage, including all structures, which is now 20 percent plus 500 square feet across the board, would be reduced to 15 percent plus 2,500 square feet for lots 40,000 to just under 80,000 square feet, and 10 percent plus 6,500 square feet for those that are larger. Coverage on an 80,000-square-foot lot would be limited to 14,500 square feet. In addition, both the village and town have laws limiting residences to 20,000 square feet regardless of the size of their lots.

Some of the speakers returned after a short break to oppose other proposed code amendments intended to counteract the village trend toward oversized basements. One amendment would add a definition of the word “story,” and another would prohibit a cellar from extending beyond the exterior wall of the first story of the building it is under. Linda Margolin, an attorney, opposed the former amendment, saying it was “clearly a back-door effort to include basements” in floor area calculations.

A clerical error precluded action on the latter amendment after Ms. Margolin pointed out that the original public notice for the hearing had used the wrong date. The second notice had been corrected, June Lester, the village board secretary, said, but it was unknown if it had been published at least three days prior to the hearing, as required. The board decided to republish the notice.