Proposed changes to the East Hampton Town Zoning Code, which, among other things, would slash the allowable maximum house size from 20,000 to 10,000 square feet and require portions of basements and attached garages to be counted toward a structure’s gross floor area, were aired at a well-attended, nearly three-hour hearing last Thursday night.
Thirty-three people spoke, with the majority in favor of the amendments. If the goal of the changes was to achieve balance between industry desires and more sustainable development, perhaps the mixed comments indicated progress.
Real estate and building professionals said certain ideas were counter-productive, while others pushed the town board to be bolder. Both sides agreed the dimensional table, which ties house size to parcel size, should be updated. Multiple commenters acknowledged the imperfection of the changes but understood them as a necessary step.
The town board discussed the amendments at three work sessions prior to the public hearing. The “us versus them” attitude that characterized the first two sessions had become somewhat muted. At times, industry players offered qualified support for the proposals, yet it was clear they felt they deserved more influence over the process.
Their criticisms largely coalesced around one idea: Adding finished basements to a building’s gross floor area was problematic. The legislation currently ignores the first 600 square feet of a basement but counts 50 percent of the square footage over that toward the house’s total. So, for example, if a 10,000-square-foot basement was constructed, 5,300 square feet of it would be included in the gross floor area calculation for the house.
“The latest draft of the legislation is not quite ready for prime time,” said Christopher DiSunno, an architect representing a group of professionals in the building industry. “As you will hear from others, incorporating cellars into the gross floor area calculation is the biggest problem in the current proposal.” Indeed, seven others stated that counting basements would lead to more building above ground, exacerbating the “massing” problem the legislation seeks to resolve. Britton Bistrian, a land use professional and part of Mr. DiSunno’s group, said that if the legislation was passed, basements would be finished anyway, “and they will not meet life safety codes. That’s a heavy thought to think about.” Kieran Brew, a real estate broker, echoed the disquieting sentiment. “If we don’t allow basements to be finished to code, they’ll be finished not to code.”
“Technically it’s free space,” said Michael Brown, an architect. “If it’s below grade, this isn’t affecting massing or aesthetics of the property.” But not everyone agreed. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it does make a sound,” said Jaine Mehring, a member of the town’s zoning board of appeals and founder of build.in.kind, a citizens’ group concerned with overdevelopment. “Just because you build below, it does make an impact, on neighbors’ affordability, the environment, and the sustainability of our community.” A man named John, whose poor cellphone connection made his last name unintelligible, tied building size to maintenance. “Some of the consequences of huge houses include our insane traffic situation out here,” he said. Chris Mangieri, a Springs resident, said house size directly impacts neighborhoods because of the “insane” hours those who maintain large houses and their properties are allowed to keep: 7 a.m. until 8:30 p.m., seven days a week.
Bob DeLuca, president of the Group for the East End, said “a lot of the changes strike a good balance.” As for the debate about monster basements, he said, “Some of these things only happen in East Hampton.”
Another theme was the erosion of community character in developments with smaller lots, which was advanced through a discussion of the town’s dimensional table. Under current rules, the maximum square footage of a house is determined by taking 10 percent of the lot area and adding 1,600 square feet. So, on a half-acre lot, a 3,778-square-foot house can be built. On a quarter-acre parcel, a 2,689-square-foot house is legal. Often, however, the houses they replace are a fraction of those maximum levels and all acknowledged that neighborhoods are rapidly changing.
Summarizing the view of many building professionals, Dan Weaver, a land surveyor, said instead of messing with basements to address massing, “Looking at the formula table is a better way to go about it.” Leaders of community groups who were not connected to the building or real estate industries, including Kay Tyler, executive director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk, and Carolyn Logan Gluck, president of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee, said both were good ideas: Count basements and update the dimensional table.
“Supersizing houses on small lots is a problem,” said Pat Trunzo III, who comes from a family of builders. However, he argued against cutting the maximum house size in the town. A 20,000-square-foot house on a five-acre parcel is “in tradition with this community,” he said. Richard Whalen, a land-use attorney, supported that stance. “If someone builds a 15,000-square-foot house on the south side of Further Lane, I don’t care,” he said. “I think you have to take it a step further and deal with house sizes on smaller lots to maintain neighborhood characteristics and affordability.” Most speakers however, understood that excessive house size was directly linked to a whole host of environmental and quality-of-life issues that couldn’t be ignored.
Tradespeople also bristled at the suggestion to increase the separation of structures from groundwater. For septic, they agreed, but the bottom of a basement? Or footings? No. Others were influenced less by expediting applications through boards and more by sustainability and water quality in general, such as Alexander Peters, the president of Amagansett-Springs Aquifer Protection, who said, “The maximum house size allowable should be no larger than 8,000 square feet. Basements should be at least four feet above groundwater.” The legislation currently calls for a two-foot separation from groundwater; right now there is no standard except for septic systems, which must be at least four feet above the groundwater supply. “Massive houses have been and are being constructed that will poison the aquifer,” contended Mr. Peters.
It was a lot to wade through. Exasperation, perhaps, ran even closer than groundwater to the surface for some.
“Is it worth it to build an offensive structure fenced in by a monoculture of arborvitae and privet hedges that contribute nothing to our local ecology?” asked one caller named Nadine. “People prioritize the state of their lawns over the state of our bays.”
Carol Steinberg described a project that was being built next door to her: The lot had been overcleared, and even though the town eventually issued a stop-work order, “The trees are already gone. Replacing venerable old trees with 60 evergreens is not really a solution,” she said.
The town board chose not to immediately vote on the legislation, though it did close the in-person portion of the public hearing. Written comments will be welcomed until 4 p.m. tomorrow.
