The East Hampton Town Board dropped a surprise into another lengthy discussion of proposed zoning code amendments in the wake of a well-attended public hearing on Nov. 7. The board agreed on most amendments as written; however, in a straw poll, four members voted against a measure that would include a portion of basements in the gross floor calculation of residences.
At present, no portion of a basement is counted in the measurements. Councilwoman Cate Rogers was the only board member who wanted that changed. For now, basements will not be included.
In a second surprise, the board decided by a split, 3-to-2 vote, that maximum house size should be slashed in half and capped at 10,000 square feet.
A coalition of members in the building trades argued strongly at the hearing that including basements in gross floor area calculations would lead to more house aboveground, exactly where no one wants it. One of the main impetuses for the proposed amendments was to reduce the amount of massing in new buildings. A second argument put forth by the tradespeople, that if basement area were counted homeowners would illegally finish their basements without the proper inspections, also seemed influential.
After Councilman Tom Flight indicated he was not in favor of counting basements, he was followed by Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte. “I think this is a reasonable compromise,” said Councilman Calder-Piedmonte of the amendment, which would have included the first 600 square feet of a basement and 50 percent of the area over that amount, in calculating a house’s gross floor area. “I don’t think it’s a crazy idea.” However, after hearing the main concern of the public, that houses were too big, he said, “The proper way to address that is at the G.F.A. formula. I think we would be more effective to go right at the heart of the issue and not do this first.”
The formula, also known as the dimensional table, ties the size of a house to the size of its parcel. Later in the meeting, Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said a presentation on it could be held at the Dec. 3 town board work session.
Councilman David Lys, clearly troubled by the way neighborhoods were losing their character to overdevelopment, agreed. “Massing aboveground is my main concern. It might be simpler right now to go and do this within the formula. I believe we have to take a deep look at taking points off the formula right now.” In 2017, the gross floor area formula was changed so that the maximum house size on any lot went from 12 percent of a lot area plus 1,000 square feet, to 10 percent of the lot area plus 1,600 square feet. “I’m in favor of decreasing both of those numbers to get to a point where it will affect aboveground massing. I would like to explore that immediately, not waiting months, but at the next work session.”
Councilwoman Rogers explained her view that basements, while belowground, still had an impact that the town’s comprehensive plan asked the board to consider. She argued that removing native soil and digging basements below groundwater levels were important issues. Further, because builders were taking advantage of the code, she said basements were having a visual impact. There is nothing in the code forcing builders to measure the grade before and after construction, she said, so they are getting away with digging out around basements, exposing them as a third level. She wanted to make sure the board was at least supportive of stopping that practice. “If we uphold the other proposals, I agree this can be moved to the formula discussion,” she said.
Supervisor Burke-Gonzalez was also not in favor of counting basements. She argued that the very rich could hire lawyers and potentially defeat the code in court. On the other hand, those who couldn’t afford a lawyer to challenge the legislation might choose instead to finish their basements beyond 600 square feet illegally. “It’s a safety issue for me,” she said.
She acted as the swing vote in favor of capping house size at 10,000, joining Councilwoman Rogers and Councilman Flight, after Councilman Lys and Councilman Calder-Piedmonte indicated they were against the cap. Both men felt the dimensional table should dictate the size of a house. “If someone has 10 acres, they should be allowed to build a larger house,” said Councilman Lys. “A 20,000-square-foot house is huge,” said Councilman Calder-Piedmonte, “but if we’re going to address the formula, a lot of this is going to be captured.”
“We are addressing a cap, which is different from a formula on a dimensional table,” said Councilwoman Rogers. “It’s how big is too big in this town?” Again, she made the point that it was also about consumption of materials and lot disturbance, both of which the comprehensive plan tasked board members with considering.
There was a surprisingly long debate concerning pool houses, which previously have not been defined in town code, even though they are now widespread. Their size is capped at 200 square feet, largely because they’re permitted to have internal plumbing, which the town board feared could lead to abuse as they could easily be converted to living spaces. Councilman Calder-Piedmonte, along with Councilman David Lys, thought the code should make clear that only one pool house was permitted per property.
“I see a pool house as being a luxury,” said Councilman Lys. “I have a bathroom inside my house and I have a pool. And if I have to go to the bathroom, I go inside my house.” He wanted to be sure a pool house couldn’t be built without a pool. Jameson McWilliams, the deputy town attorney, said that as the code is now written, the pool house was accessory to a pool.
Councilman Flight thought the 200 square feet could be over restrictive, and Supervisor Burke-Gonzalez agreed. As written, the code had overhangs and covered patios included in the square footage calculation of the building. The board reached consensus that there could be an allowance for overhangs, so that a shady area could be attached to a pool house.
Ms. McWilliams talked the board through nearly two dozen amendments, with straw polls taken after each one to gauge board support. The board agreed that all buildings and pools should be a minimum of two feet from groundwater, with new exceptions for piers, pilings, and support structures that may need to be installed within groundwater. The board also agreed that each survey should include elevations at the four corners of a property, plus the highest and lowest elevations on the parcel. If the difference between the high and low points on the property is over four feet, then topography with two-foot contour lines would also be required.
With plenty of notes, Ms. McWilliams was tasked with tightening the language on the amendments in time to be discussed again at the Dec. 3 meeting. Supervisor Burke-Gonzalez said “in a perfect world” the changes could be adopted at the Dec. 5 meeting.
The board also solidified language that set the start date for the legislation as March 1, 2025.
