In the wake of the East Hampton Town Board agreeing to slash the maximum allowable house size from 20,000 to 10,000 square feet townwide, the board focused Tuesday on recommendations from the Planning Department to change a formula that would also reduce the maximum gross floor area of houses by tying that to the size of their lots.
Based on evaluations done with the zoning code amendment working group, Tyler Borsack, an environmental analyst, suggested the maximum house be 7 percent of a lot area plus 1,300 square feet. At present the formula is 10 percent of lot area plus 1,600 square feet. That would, for example, yield a current maximum house size of 5,956 square feet on a one-acre lot. If the new formula were adopted, it would allow for a maximum house size of roughly 4,350 square feet. On a half-acre lot, the maximum house size would decrease from 3,778 square feet to 2,825 square feet.
Even before his presentation, two opposing perspectives on adjusting the formula in what is known as the dimensional table were voiced during the public comment portion of the meeting.
“I think to go, at this point, to 7 percent plus 1,300 would be too drastic and too quickly,” said Larry Kane, a builder. “Our proposal would be to go to 8 percent and keep the 1,600 square feet. Some code changes you did were difficult. This is a pretty easy one. If two years from now, you need more changing, easy thing, just take one number, cross it out and move on.”
“These decisions are consequential,” said Jaine Mehring, a member of the working group and of the town zoning board of appeals, “and should be thought about for the next decades. It’s not just, ‘Oh, let’s give it a shot and see how it goes.’ I don’t think that’s the most productive thing for the town and it leaves property owners wondering what’s coming next. I think we want to deliver some clarity.”
Someone who does not have an occupation that relies on the zoning code or is not especially interested in numbers and how they translate to spatial relationships between parcels of land could be forgiven for not understanding how the words “dimensional table” could trigger heated debate. However, the conversation, which the board plans to continue at the Dec. 17 work session, will surely draw more opinions as it moves forward.
The dimensional table is a key document in the town’s zoning code arsenal. It sets values, based on lot size, not only for the maximum gross floor area of a house, but for setbacks for principal and accessory structures, lot coverage for buildings, and total lot coverage. The reason why the town board is considering amending its values is because, just as in 2017 (when it was adjusted down from 12 percent of the lot area plus 1,600 square feet), “monster” homes are still seen as a threat to the community character, a problem outlined in the town’s 2005 comprehensive plan.
However, whereas in 2017, larger houses were confined to larger lots, in the last few years building trends have shown builders “maxing out” coverage on smaller lots, leading to incongruities in communities that historically had been characterized by affordable, smaller houses.
“We’re a town of smaller lots,” said Mr. Borsack. He said that based on the Planning Department’s analysis of lot sizes (70 percent are less than an acre), the formula reduction would lead to a “fairly consistent 25 to 29 percent reduction across the majority of properties in town.”
The suite of 22 amendments offered by the zoning code amendment working group endured another round of edits at Tuesday’s meeting, and Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez suggested that the board could adopt them into town code tonight.
The dimensional table was largely left out of the last six months of town board conversations regarding the zoning amendments aimed at closing loopholes that Councilwoman Cate Rogers said were yielding much larger houses than were allowed by town code, in contradiction to the town’s own comprehensive plan. However, it was always there, like the last piece of a puzzle waiting to complete the picture.
“A tremendous amount of data has been collected since May 2023 that went into this recommendation,” she said. Four years of building permits were analyzed as well as zoning lot sizes and construction trends. “It’s not a fresh look. We’ve been analyzing this since the inception of the committee.” She said the idea was not meant to be “incremental.” “Starting at 7 percent and 1,300 was the first level where we hit an effective change. Go lower, it becomes more restrictive than we would like to start at.”
The town board was largely supportive, although Councilman Tom Flight worried that as a result builders would attempt to maximize where allowed, such as with attached garages, where 600 square feet would be exempt from gross floor area if code amendments are passed Thursday. “Is this inadvertently going to encourage everyone to build a garage?” Nonetheless, he supported the numbers.
“This piece strikes at the heart of what people are concerned about,” Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte said. “I favor the percent adjustment more than the square footage, but I would like to hear from the public,” He added that Mr. Kane’s proposal, made during the public portion of the meeting, “Probably doesn’t go far enough.”
“This is decreasing above-ground massing,” said Councilman David Lys. “These numbers are zeroing in very close where I’d like to be. I can get behind this.”
“I’m behind the 7 percent,” Ms. Burke-Gonzalez said. “With the plus 1,300 I wasn’t expecting, on a half-acre, a 25-percent reduction. I’d like to hear from residents. We’re close. I don’t know if 1,300 is the number.”
“We’re looking to make an effective change, make it once and have it stick, not just for a year or two,” Ms. Rogers said. “I think we should do one and be done for a while.”
“Agreed,” Ms. Burke-Gonzalez said.
