Bamboo bans, beach party limits, and the proposed $25-million-plus new senior center on town-owned land were all on Tuesday’s East Hampton Town Board agenda.
On the invasive species front, the board is considering updating current law to incorporate the “best aspects” of bamboo-ban rules in Riverhead and Southampton, said David McMaster, an assistant town attorney. Among other bamboo-centric issues, he discussed the rights of a so-called “bamboo homeowner,” and what happens when it comes to buying a property that contains bamboo plants.
The town defines a bamboo homeowner as “a property owner or any person or business entity in control of real property in the Town of East Hampton who has planted or grown or caused the planting or growing of bamboo on their property and/or permitted or permits the growing of bamboo on his property that had initially encroached onto their property from an adjoining or neighboring property.”
New language that “allows for existing bamboo on properties to be grandfathered in,” but “prohibits the introduction of new bamboo on your property or your neighbor’s property,” is being considered, Mr. McMaster said. Any property not grandfathered in would require mandatory bamboo removal. “When you purchase a property, you inherit the property rights of the previous owner,” Mr. McMaster noted.
Bamboo is not a plant that respects property lines. Bamboo “runners” have been known to pop up in a neighbor’s asphalt driveway, or even grow within house siding. What, then, can the neighbor do about the unwelcome arrival of this “encroached” nonnative plant?
“Each bamboo property owner shall be responsible to ensure that the bamboo planted or growing on his or her property prior to the effective date of this chapter does not encroach or grow upon any adjoining or neighboring property or properties,” reads the proposed new code, “including all public property and rights-of-way held by the Town, and shall be required to take such measures as are reasonably expected to prevent such bamboo from invading or growing onto adjoining or neighboring properties.”
New language targeting the growing popularity of catered events on public beaches is also under consideration. There were 75 such events in 2022, 71 on ocean beaches, three on bay beaches, and one at the Maidstone Pavilion in Springs. Of the ocean-beach events, 26 were held on Atlantic Avenue Beach in Amagansett, 12 on nearby Indian Wells Beach, 12 on Beach Lane in Wainscott, five at Kirk Park in Montauk, and two on Napeague Beach. Friday was the most popular day for the events, which require a special permit, with 23 of the 75 taking place that day.
Atlantic Avenue Beach, also called the Coast Guard Beach, was identified as the only beach where two catered events occurred on the same day — five times from July through September, with the number of guests ranging from 43 to 60.
The total number of attendees at specially permitted catered beach events was 2,293, or an average of 32 people per event, not including staff.
To address the growing popularity of these events, the town is proposing a new permit: the “seasonal special event permit.” Essentially, it would be a rolling permit designed to regulate commercial activity on town beaches.
Another change: Any special event held on property purchased with community preservation funds would now need a town board resolution before it could happen. The town may also require approval from the fire marshal’s office if a generator is to be on site. (That would come with a fee, to be set by the board, for the marshal to conduct an inspection.)
A public hearing on these and other proposed changes will be held on Feb. 16. Adoption of any new rules would follow in early March. A state review of the proposed changes would then ensue, in time for the rules to take effect in early April.
The town also moved closer to adopting a design for the new senior center at 403 Abraham’s Path in Amagansett, but a few issues remained; representatives of R2 Architecture were on hand Tuesday to sort them out.
Two proposed designs — the “Linear” and the “Windmill” — have emerged as the contenders. Two board members, David Lys and Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, firmly support the Windmill concept. The other three members, in particular Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc, had asked the architects how solar panels could be installed in the Windmill design without blowing up a budget that’s estimated to be north of $25 million, up to $28 million.
“We don’t think the solar is as big an issue as you are representing,” R2 Architecture’s Carol Ross-Barney argued. She and her colleagues stressed that whichever design was selected, the buildout costs would likely be in the same ballpark, given that each design comes in at roughly the same square footage (23,045 for the linear design and 22,726 for the windmill).
Town board members also had concerns about the size and location of parking lots. The architects responded that the firm had focused not so much on the nuts and bolts of parking as on the schematics of the building itself. The town board said it wanted more of those nuts and bolts before proceeding to a final decision.
The firm promised to get back soon with more detail about anticipated expenses on the two competing designs, along with some ideas on how to organize the parking.
