After coming under criticism for a proposal to broadly exempt town projects from the town zoning code if they are deemed "community resources," the East Hampton Town Board tabled a resolution to hold a public hearing on the matter at its meeting on Thursday night.
David Buda, a Springs resident, said scheduling the hearing with such short notice (it was to be on May 1) ensured "that the planning board would not have a reasonable opportunity to review, consider, and comment and transfer that comment to you on the very significant proposed change."
"There's much that is wrong with the proposal, both procedurally and substantively, but let me start with this: It's totally unnecessary," said Samuel Kramer, who, until January, was the chairman of the East Hampton Town Planning Board. "Can the town board cite even one example of some vital town need not being met or being unduly delayed because the town had to endure the inconvenience of complying with zoning?"
If adopted, the code change would enable the town to bypass the what is known as the "Monroe balancing test," which it used in the development of the senior citizens center, for which site work has already begun on Abraham's Path in Amagansett. Under that test, municipalities can weigh a project's community benefits against its potential impacts to decide whether it merits exemption from planning and zoning regulations and review.
Mr. Kramer, as chairman of the board in 2024, opposed the town board assuming what is called "lead agency status" in the review of the center, now projected to cost some $30 million, and sought a determination on the matter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which ultimately ruled in favor of the town board.
The proposed "community resource" legislation would also mean the town would not need to follow its own clearing laws, and it could even be exempt from the town's use and dimensional tables.
"The nature of a zoning code anywhere is that it inconveniences property owners. There is a tradeoff between the benefit to the town and the inconvenience to the property owners. This town has thrived because of its zoning code and just because other municipalities have passed similar laws, as it is proposed, does not mean we should pass such a law here," Mr. Kramer said. "Allowing an entire class of projects to avoid the strictures of the zoning code merely because those projects emanate from Town Hall rather than from a private developer undermines the legitimacy of the zoning code and the boards that enforce it. A bad project is a bad project. It doesn't matter whether that project is a public project, or a private project and the town board should not be given carte blanche to impose bad projects on the town."
No sooner had Mr. Kramer made his points than a builder, Larry Kane, stood up to speak in favor of the proposed legislation, or at least use it as an opportunity to state his opinion that the planning process needs fixing.
"What you guys do as a town is your thing," he said. "But I think what I'm here for is, and this isn't you, this is 40 years of zoning in this town, which has done a beautiful job, but I think we've gotten to a point where it doesn't work anymore. When it takes two years to do some processes just to change windows, something has to change."
Private developers and individuals looking to move forward with their own projects often complain that the review process moves too slowly.
Jon Tarbet, a local lawyer, filed a suit against the zoning board and the Planning Department on April 9, "to compel them to schedule a public hearing on [Kim Staller and Joseph Macari's] application for a special permit to construct a single-family home," at 20 Bendigo Road in Amagansett.
He said the Planning Department had identified protected "beach vegetation" on his clients' 11-acre parcel, requiring a natural resource special permit before they can build. In March, after months of delays in deeming the application complete, the Planning Department said a public hearing would be held in eight to 10 months.
"If an application is required to be reviewed within 10 days and a decision rendered within 62 days, 8 to 10 months to schedule a hearing cannot be deemed reasonable, especially when applications take up to a year to be deemed complete," Mr. Tarbet wrote in his lawsuit.
Kevin Scott, a resident of the Freetown area of East Hampton, worried how the proposed change could affect his neighborhood. He agreed with Mr. Kramer and called the legislation "an overreaction."
"These types of changes in the zoning could result in chaos," he said. "While the processes may seem long to developers, I think they work perfectly."
Mr. Buda agreed, calling the proposed change, "totally misguided" and "overly broad." If enacted, he said it "would have an unlimited scope of applicability, to the possible detriment of many owners of properties located adjacent to any town-owned land. There is nothing inherent in the political qualifications for one to run for and to be elected to the town board that qualifies any of you to supersede and disembowel the functions of the planning board, zoning board of appeals, and architectural review board in one fell swoop," he said.
According to Patrick Derenze, the public information officer for the town, the hearing will be noticed again at the May 1 town board meeting, meaning that the earliest the hearing can be held would be at the May 15 meeting.
