Back in May, the East Hampton Town Board talked about zoning tweaks that had been proposed in response to a more all-encompassing call for greater building restraints. Now more than four months later, it is having a follow-on discussion about the same thing. Well-thought-out policy may be good government, but it is difficult to escape a sense that the board is slow-walking the necessary tougher changes by choice, wasting precious time.
Public demand to revisit the town’s zoning code was spurred by a growing trend toward ever-larger houses on small pieces of land. A frequently cited example came from the Amagansett lanes that run perpendicular to Main Street. Modest, one-story ranches are being replaced by tall houses that loom over the neighborhood. Lawns are turned into driveways. Tree-lined streetscapes are now dominated by high walls and oddly angled roofs pushing up against the maximum the code would allow. It seems less about aesthetics or comfort and more about curb appeal and resale value. Money is steamrolling the sense of place, and what had felt like home is not so familiar anymore.
Leave it to the town board to begin by talking about changes that few people would see, however. Instead of taking on the excessive small-lot redevelopment, they are bogged down with basements and to a lesser degree, the maximum-size houses on rare, mostly out-of-sight multiacre parcels.
In May and again this month, the board focused on whether or not finished basements, that is, ones with bedrooms, recreational spaces, and the like, should be counted against allowable-square-footage calculations. At the moment, the law allows houses to be designed to the limit without consideration of what is underground. The change being worked out would result in a new calculation yet to be decided for including a portion of basements in gross floor area limits. Big basements are certainly featured in real estate ads, the thinking goes, so why should they be exempt under the town code?
Some critics of the change observe that counting basement space would encourage greater above-ground construction. In some cases this could happen, but where house building plans are already drawn up to the maximum allowed, the impact of the new restriction would be minimal.
Where basements matter is that they can add a third or more to the total size of houses. Housing itself is a major contributor to climate change, so more square footage means more greenhouse gas emissions. Larger houses also need more care, adding to the so-called heavy vehicle trade parade on roads here and increasing demand for workers who cannot afford to live here and generally must make long, carbon-emitting commutes from parts west.
The part of the zoning code that at present exempts expansive finished basements in a calculation of house size is an obvious loophole that should be closed. At the same time, the town board should be encouraged to take on what happens above ground without much more delay.