After a difficult debate that ended in compromise, the East Hampton Town Board agreed at its work session Tuesday to bring an updated formula that links house size and lot size to a public hearing in early March.
The board settled on a maximum house size of 7 percent of lot area plus 1,500 square feet. Right now, the formula is set at 10 percent of lot area plus 1,600 square feet.
(After separate code revisions made in December, the maximum house size in the town, regardless of lot size, is 10,000 square feet.)
The five-member board had five different opinions and at times, things got wonky, despite a presentation by Councilwoman Cate Rogers that included photographs and plenty of examples.
“It’s complicated, but that’s how I would recommend everyone try to look at it, in almost cubes in 3-D forms of houses,” said Councilman David Lys at one point.
On one end of the spectrum, Ms. Rogers recommended a maximum gross floor area of 7 percent and 1,300 square feet. On the other, Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte pushed for 7 percent and 1,800 square feet (close to the building industry’s recommendation of 8 percent and 1,600 square feet), a suggestion that seemed to irk Ms. Rogers.
“It’s not enough to make a discernible difference,” she said.
“Three percentage points means a lot as you scale up,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said, defending his proposal. (The board had agreed previously that slashing the percentage side of the formula has a greater impact on larger lots, while the static number impacts smaller lots more.)
Councilwoman Rogers argued that the reason the board was attempting to take on the issue again, after the formula was revised only in 2017, was that it had not gone far enough. “We’re here again because the community asked us to be here.”
The conversation also risked expanding past the boundaries of the formula. Ms. Rogers’s presentation included an analysis, based on numbers from Zillow, Airbnb, and Vrbo, of the short-term rental market, which she used to highlight the commercialization of the town’s residential areas. She argued that having homes represented by corporations like Marriott Bonvoy, or StayMarquis, ultimately reduced affordability for younger families.
“The essence of reducing G.F.A. is to protect young families and have them be able to build a family home on small lots and have the small lots not be bought up to be exploited by commercial entities in our residential neighborhoods,” she said.
“The increasing commercialization of our residential areas is really what’s killing property prices out here,” said Councilman Tom Flight. “People are coming, they’re not looking to live here, they’re simply looking to get the maximum return on their investment. How we mitigate for that, I think, is worthy of further discussion in a separate piece.”
“I agree commercialization is a problem, but I want to be very careful about tackling that by reducing house sizes,” said Mr. Calder-Piedmonte. Then he broached a different subject, arguing that allowing 600 square feet as of right for people who have the space to add an attached garage wasn’t fair to those on small lots who could not fit one. “I’m a little worried about that now if we’re minimizing house size. It could be living space for a family that might forgo a garage if they could get that extra 600 square feet to use for living space.” However, that too, wasn’t an actionable item.
The goal of the board was to move to a public hearing, and members went into compromise mode.
“We have two board members that are at 7 percent plus 1,400,” said Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, after Ms. Rogers agreed to move to 1,400 square feet. “We have two board members, Tom, you had said that you could go with 7 percent plus 1,600, correct? And David is there as well. Ian is at 7 percent plus 1,800. So, I don’t know if perhaps we should go to public hearing.”
Councilman Lys noted that the entire board seemed comfortable with moving to 7 percent and began to focus on the square footage.
“We’ve already made the change where we only changed a percentage and that did not help our small lots,” said Councilwoman Rogers, arguing that the static number needed to move down.
“We split the baby and go to the 1,500,” offered Councilman Lys. “I would just like to get to the public hearing.” Reluctantly, noting that four other members were ready to compromise, Mr. Calder-Piedmonte agreed.
So, for example, if 7 percent and 1,500 became law, a lot that is 10,000 square feet (roughly a quarter-acre) could hold a house that is 2,200 square feet. However, there are exemptions that could boost the livable area in the house that are not included in the calculation, such as a finished basement or an attached garage. Add a basement to a 2,200-square-foot house and the number moves to 3,300 square feet. Add an attached garage (with a basement beneath it as well) and the number jumps to 4,500 square feet of livable space on a 10,000-square-foot lot.
An affordable accessory dwelling unit also would not count in the gross floor area calculation.
It was not just the board that was split. The public comment portion of the meeting was busy, with five speaking for the proposed changes, and three against. If the board notices the hearing at its Feb. 6 meeting, the public hearing could fall on March 6.
