As large houses on small lots have changed the character of East Hampton Town over the past decade, a town working group has spent the past two years on an update to the town code to curtail this sort of overdevelopment.
Last December, the town’s Code Amendments Working Group suggested reducing what’s known as the “gross floor area (GFA)” calculation for the allowed building envelope on a site from 10 percent of the lot area plus 1,600 square feet to 7 percent of the lot area plus 1,300 square feet. An absolute maximum of 10,000 square feet was adopted by the board late in 2024.
But after pushback from architects, builders and local people with small houses on small lots looking to expand to accommodate their growing families, the Town Board loosened that recommendation to 7 percent of lot area plus 1,500 square feet.
Under the current code, a 2,600-square-foot house could be built on a quarter acre lot. Under the original proposal, a 2,000-square foot house could be built on that lot, and under the current proposal a 2,200-square-foot house could be built on a quarter acre.
But most who spoke at a March 6 public hearing on the latest proposal either said they favored the original 7 percent plus 1,300 square foot formula, or they were not in favor of restricting house size on smaller lots.
“I believe this is a gross overreach and taking of property owners’ rights and property values,” said the first speaker, John Barylski, a professional engineer and surveyor who has worked in East Hampton since the 1970s, adding that he thought board members should “go home and look up class action lawsuit.”
Group for the East End President Bob DeLuca was the first to speak up in favor of the original proposal.
“I’m concerned that the more generous formula before you may be ripe for challenge… One of the petitioners you might have just heard from,” he said of Mr. Barylski. “The original proposal was backed up by your comprehensive plan.”
Mr. DeLuca added that there is “broad support for continuing the effort to get a handle on the rising tide of oversized homes being constructed at the clear expense of our community’s hard one rural and semi-rural character.”
He added that the proposed limitations “are fairly consistent with the standards in neighboring towns and villages.”
“Take the kind of stand that has long set East Hampton apart from other communities that have surrendered to the inexorable pressure for ever-more development,” he added. “East Hampton can do better and we hope that you will.”
Concerned Citizens of Montauk board member Martha Krisel said her group is also in favor of the original proposal, “which was the result of more than a year of work sessions.”
She added that CCOM is also concerned about the environmental impact of large houses.
Lou Cortese of Montauk agreed.
“This continues to be almost universally accepted as a crisis,” he said, advocating for the original proposal. “Then one segment began their loud and clamorous campaign. They couldn’t say the reason they’re against it is because their profit margin may shrink… The argument is between individual avarice and community-wide welfare.”
In a letter to the board in favor of the proposal before the board, Biddle Duke said the town “is in a profit-driven race to build this place out of reach for anyone but wealthy retired folks and seasonal residents. Isn’t it way past time to tap on the brakes?”
Christina Buckley of Springs agreed.
“I love living in Springs, but if in a few years my house is surrounded by McMansions, hedges and electronic gates, I may chose to leave also. It’s because the soul of my community is gone and once it’s gone, it’s never coming back,” she said.
Ruben Cano, who works remotely and is a year-round resident, was opposed to the proposal. He said he needs space to work from home, and “residents with growing families do need room and opportunity to accommodate their growing needs.”
He added that he may need to make space for his mother to live with him.
Mr. Cano said he recently hired an architect to design an expansion of his home that would be “several hundred feet over” the new restrictions, and that many people may chose to “pack up and go back to Manhattan” if the restrictions are imposed.
“I want to make a pitch for building smaller,” said Ed Krug, a town Planning Board member and builder who said he was speaking as a private citizen. “I hear all the time ‘I want something that suits my needs and is manageable.’ Every time we allow an oversize house, we diminish our community character by that much. A thousand paper cuts later and we are not going to be an attractive, semi-rural place that is why we came here in the first place.”
Jess Frost of Springs said “these changes aren’t radical. They’re essential. They’ll protect the future of the town from its most invasive species, which is unchecked greed.”
Larry Kane and Krae Van Sickle both advocated for compromise formulas that they’ve pitched in the past. Mr. Van Sickle’s formula would have been more progressive and addressed the proportion of basement to upper stories, he said, while Mr. Kane’s compromise would have been 8 percent plus 1,600 square feet.
Sean McGee of East Hampton, who has been vocal in opposition to the proposal since it was announced, said no builders or developers were on the zoning working group, and one member, “has an evident and clear bias.”
“It deserves to be brought to a public vote. If you have the public support, you will be able to do that,” he said.
Jaine Mehring, a longtime advocate for smaller homes and founder of Build.In.Kind, who has since become a member of the town’s Zoning Board, responded to Mr. McGee’s comment, evidently aimed at her.
“I earned my seat,” on the Code Amendments Working Group, she said, adding that she’s seen no evidence to back up claims that the restrictions would lead to a catastrophe for the construction industry. She added that when Martha’s Vineyard enacted house size rules, property values doubled and “a number of towns around them adopted them too.”
“The only thing extreme is the shocking size of houses and the affordability crisis,” she said. “These are challenges to our overall sustainability. It’s human nature to look through the prism of self-interest, but if we really are part of a community, maybe we as individuals have to give up something for the greater good.”
Gloria Frazee of East Hampton said she lives in a four bedroom, 1,750-square-foot house that was built in 1924, and has ample space for family to visit at holidays and a beautiful yard.
“There’s an Irish phrase, a blessing: ‘May you have enough,'” she said, adding that she works with local high school students on environmental issues as part of the ReWild movement, and “it’s for them that we need to pass the reduction in gross floor area.”
“Have you heard of the hedonic treadmill? The more you get, the more you want,” she said. “We need to get off that hedonic treadmill…. This is what we need to preserve for future generations.”
Liz Miller, a lifelong resident of Springs, phoned in near the end of the meeting to say the people talking “are just missing an entire group of individuals here. We’re not trying to build 6,000-square-foot houses. We have tiny little lots and tiny little homes and we need to make them livable. This will push out people who are young and who want to have families here. The only thing left for us to buy is small houses on small lots. We don’t want mansions. There’s gotta be some sort of solution that leaves us alone.”
After hearing nearly two hours of public comment, the board closed the public hearing.
Keep Independent News on the East End
The Beacon is able to provide all of our content online free of charge thanks to support from our readers. Be a vital part of keeping our community informed!
