After a recent move to increase density allowances from eight units an acre to 12 for senior-citizen-only affordable housing developments, the East Hampton Town Board this week discussed making the same adjustment on any affordable housing parcel.
Eric Schantz, the town’s director of housing, said that the main concerns from a planning perspective with allowing the extra density were septic flow and traffic increases. However, since the Suffolk County Department of Health Services doesn’t limit density at all when a development provides its own wastewater treatment, he said density restrictions were purely “self-imposed” on sites with their own sewage plants.
“Obviously, we’re not looking to go ‘sky is the limit’ on this,” he told the board.
“How many existing developments already have sewage treatment?” asked Councilwoman Cate Rogers. The Green at Gardiner’s Point on Three Mile Harbor Road in East Hampton and Gansett Meadows in Amagansett, came the reply from Mr. Schantz, who noted that if the board chooses to permit the change, one of the safeguards would be that the property must have sewage treatment. “So, in a way, it provides an incentive to these properties to update their sewage treatment facilities,” he said.
Other safeguards would be that applicants must complete an impact study on the school district from increased enrollment, and a traffic study.
During the analysis of the recent density increase for the senior-only developments, the board considered worst-case scenarios for traffic. For example, it asked, “If each development maxed out their units at 60” — the town doesn’t allow housing units larger — “how bad would traffic get?” Mr. Schantz’s answer was not bad at all. “We found it doesn’t significantly increase generated traffic on site,” he said at one point. At another, he said, “You’re talking about an additional vehicular trip once every five minutes.”
Mr. Schantz painstakingly went through each of the parcels, developed or not, in the town’s affordable housing overlay districts and said that if they were all developed out to 12 units per acre, that hypothetically, the town could add 160 more affordable units. However, the real number would be much lower.
“Basically, it’s less than a third of what the theoretical max would be,” he told the board. Even if the code is changed, the maximum for each site would remain at 60, and there were other limitations, sometimes based on lot constraints, that would prevent each site from achieving the density ceiling. “I don’t think this change will have a big impact,” he concluded. “We won’t get a substantial number, but we could get more, and every little bit helps.”
The board was tasked with deciding not only if it liked the idea, but also if developers should be required to receive a special permit from the town planning board. Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez didn’t want developers to be turned off to building affordable apartments because of an onerous town requirement.
“Even if they’re adding units to an existing development, under town code right now they would have to go in front of the planning board,” said Mr. Schantz. “The process is really the same. The special permit gives the planning board more standards with which to review the request.” He said that in Southampton Town, where the maximum density is already set to 12, applicants need a special permit from the town board. He argued that giving the special permit approval purview to the planning board instead, would streamline the process.
Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte said this was a slightly more complicated question than increasing density for the senior-only affordable housing developments, which is why it was separated out from that legislation. “We didn’t want the senior density to get bogged down,” he said. It came down to economics. Because affordable housing features capped rents, building more units might make the projects more viable for developers. Dimensional regulations wouldn’t change, and he did not think they would affect the town’s character. “We aren’t creating the opportunity for massive development,” he said.
“The affordable housing regulations haven’t changed in quite some time, while the need for affordable housing has increased dramatically,” said Councilwoman Rogers. “If we’re going to use the word ‘crisis’ and mean it, then we should support this type of density for affordable housing.” Adding additional buffers and screening because of the increased density would not be necessary, she said, especially if native plants weren’t going to be required. The board agreed. “Why wall something off? And if it’s not native, I don’t want to see more non-native species around. Gansett Green is not hidden, and it’s beautiful,” she said.
The proposal will get an airing and comments from the Planning Department and board. As part of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, an environmental assessment will be conducted. Once those boxes are checked, the board indicated it would be comfortable moving the proposed legislation to a public hearing.
