East Hampton Town Board Meeting 3/17/26

001to East Hampton Town Board. We are live. Thank you, Jason. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the East Hampton Town Board work session of of Tuesday, March 17th, 2026, otherwise known as St. Patrick's Day. Michael, if you could please read the roll call. Council member Flight. >> Present. Deputy Supervisor Leese. >> Present. Council member Rogers. >> Present. >> Council member Ian Calder-Piedmont. Present. Supervisor Kathy Burke-Gonzalez. >> Present. If we could all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So, today we start the meeting with public portion, and we ask you please to kindly keep your comments to 3 minutes, and then we have seven

002topics today. Uh and we start with bids with Jeanne Carrozza. Then we're going to have a Route 114 affordable housing market study and update. That's followed by accessory staff housing discussion, followed by an ADU after hearing discussion. Then we will discuss ADU construction loan recommendation, uh real property tax exemption for ADUs, rent restricted or rent restricted employer sponsored housing, and a code amendment to chapter 255-1-20. That'll be followed by liaison reports and resolutions. So, first we start with public comment. Is there anyone here? David, you're up. Welcome. Thank you. Good morning. David Buda from The Springs. This morning I'd like to address your top one of your topics um for that you will be a topic A, the proposed residential accessory dwelling unit construction assistance program. Although my comments also do bear on some of

003the issues on another topic you'll be discussing, the post hearing uh discussion of the ADU code changes. First of all, this is a follow-up uh to a been email I sent you to remind you that the Community Development Long Island program that you are already participating in, the ADU plus one program, which is a forgivable grant program for the construction of uh ADUs, requires that all assistance be given to full-time residents. The CDCL's uh plus one ADU program requires proof of residency to ensure that the grant assists permanent residents rather than speculators or second home owners. You are so focused on the benefits of adding additional ADUs that unfortunately I think you're forgetting about the detriments that you were you would be contaminately you would be uh at the same time creating by allowing and

004enhancing the ability of non-full-time residents, investors who are only in involved in uh income-producing properties, you would be encouraging their additional purchasing of homes in the community that would otherwise be used by full-time residents. We unfortunately are becoming more and more a resort seasonal community and losing essentially the the spirit and of community in our town. I was absolutely shocked to as I watched the purchases, the recording of new deeds of residential properties in the town. I can report very dangerous statistic. Of the last 10 houses that were sold in the Springs and had their deeds recorded, seven out of 10 were purchased by limited liability companies. That's the same high percentage as in Amagansett. We are losing more and more of the full-time residents in this community and that is a long-term detriment. So

005you should, I suggest, do do nothing to encourage that trend. And by allowing non-full-time residents to participate either in these interest-free construction loans or in the ADU plus one grant program or any way allowing them to participate in both the rental registry program and the ADU construction program, you are actually creating a detriment to community that may outweigh the benefits by adding additional ADUs. Think about that. Now, one more thing specifically with regard to the proposed construction loan assistance. That's a million dollars that I suggest should rather go to the housing authority rather than to creating ADUs that might be built on properties owned by LLCs or income-producing corporations. But one of a couple of the aspects of the proposal that bother me most are the fact that the owners, whether they be a corporation

006or an LLC or an individual, only have to use that ADU in compliance with the town code for 10 years. That means that they're going to get the benefit of a $100,000 interest-free loan, require that the ADU be used in compliance with the town code for only 10 years, and then for the rest of the life of the ownership of that property, which could be infinite because corporations and LLCs can have an infinite lifespan, you can you can convey property owned by an LLC or corporation by trading stock, selling stock, or by changing the members of the LLC. That could be an infinite period of time. So, you might get the benefit of a 10-year compliance, and then the rest of the time that loan does not have to be replay repaid to the town

007because the there's no requirement. You're proposing only a 10-year requirement that the $100,000 interest-free loan be used for the to create that ADU and have it continue to have it maintained in the program. And I guess that's all the time I have, so thank you. Thank you, David. Would anyone else like to address the board? Jason, is there anyone on the line? Yes, we have one caller on the line. I'll unmute right now. Great, thank you. Hello, caller ending 8764, you're on the air. 8764, you're on the air. Hello. Oh. Hi, you're on the air. If you can mute the TV in the background, I'd much appreciate it. Okay, yes. I I didn't hear my number. Um it's Carl Buda, and um Hang on one second. The I wanted to um make a comment about

008the size of the ADUs. In in the expanded legislation, you're allowing smaller lots, but you haven't changed the limitation on the size of attached ADUs. And it's a minimum of 600 square feet up to 900 square feet. And I can tell you they have property that size. And in my neighborhood, there are homes on that size lot where the home is on one side of the lot and maybe only 900 or 1,000 square feet. They would be able to build basically another similar sized house on the same small lot. And I think that I hope you will give serious consideration to um with the expansion to include smaller lots to limit uh the size of the detached ADU on that size. And I I think it's a step backward. I want to bring your attention

009to in 1976 when the town hired professional planners to address some of the issues created by too many houses on small lots. Um they passed the urban renewal map. And this is a brief excerpt from the introduction to it. Said the town board The town board finds that the unregulated development of certain old filed maps, poorly planned subdivision areas uh recorded with the county prior to the implementation of planning and zoning in East Hampton poses a severe threat to the environmental and economic well-being of the population of the community through potential large-scale overdevelopment, overclearing of land, overcrowding of population, depletion of resources, erosion of soil, pollution of lands and waters, disruption of the town's goals of the town's comprehensive plan and zoning code. And that such old file map areas constitute {quote} {unquote} substandard or

010unsanitary areas referring to obviously the septic. Um I think, you know, I know everyone's intentions are good, but I we already have a crisis of the loss of habitat. Um and there are many properties where they will be able to to build one of these structures within the the setback restrictions on the property. And you only have to look at the Amagansett lanes to see that, you know, when people were taking these smaller homes and building to the limits of the zoning, and then everybody wasn't happy afterwards because of the huge size of these houses, and it was too late to do anything about it. So, you know, in medicine, when they want to help people, the first adage is do no harm. And um I think you have to look at this in the

011same way. Um you know, you're really degrading the single-family zoning and and uh there are environmental issues and all kinds of issues, and I want to just agree with my husband's comments. And another problem with allowing non-residents to build these units is here in my neighborhood, where you have a workforce year-round workforce rental housing, um they're they're generally eyesores. They're not maintained. There's no pride of ownership. No one There's the properties um have a negative impact on their neighbors. So, um I I you know, I hope you will take a second look at some of these things and really think it through. I personally I don't believe that the ADUs can or should be the solution for our affordable housing problem, but um I think it's better addressed by looking at an area like the

012Pits and creating two-family housing with the appropriate septic, and you've already have property that's denuded of habitation, and um that's food for thought. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Carol. Jason, is there anyone else on the line? We have no other callers. Okay. Uh so, we'll move on to topics. First up is bids with Genie Coroso. Welcome, Genie. Good morning. Good morning, Genie. All right. The first bid to accept would be for the Carl Fisher House restoration. Um, this is um, broke it up into four contracts for Wicks Law. Contract A for the site and building work, Ronald Webb Builder is the apparent low bidder for that in the amount of $2,779,688. Next is contract B, plumbing, Island Piping and Solutions in the amount of 98,000. Contract C for the electrical is also Ronald

013Webb Builder in the amount of $393,404. And lastly, contract D for the HVAC, Ronald Webb Builder again in the amount of $409,903. So, the grand total of all is $3,700,995. Next is um, the sports courts construction and resurfacing requirements contract. The Land Tech Group is the apparent low bidder for that in the amount of $581,060. And um, this will be broken up per proposal. It's an annual requirements contract. Next is um, Glock Glock handguns and associated items for the police department. Armchair Wholesale is the apparent low bidder for that bid in the amount of $101,152.50. This include a trade-in credit of $35,960. And lastly, we have notices for several different projects. First is shade shelters for Montauk Skate Park and Fred W. Thiele Recreational Facility. Abraham's Path Comfort Station site improvements. Portable toilets rental and

014servicing, and printing of miscellaneous forms. And that's it. Great. Does anyone have questions for Genie? I just have a thank you to Genie for working on some of these bids that are some are novel for the town, but others are also going to provide great great results to the town. So, I thank you for working with me on that. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Genie. Okay. So, uh before we launch into all seven of our affordable housing topics today, I just want to briefly frame today's discussion. Housing affordability has become one of the defining challenges facing our community. When the people who work in our schools, for our town government, health care system, and local businesses cannot find affordable housing here, it affects the entire town. Today's work session brings together several proposals, including

015updates to the Route 114 project, improvements to our ADU program, and workforce housing ideas. There is no single solution to the housing challenges we face, which is why we continue to evaluate a range of options. So, first up is the Route 114 affordable housing market study and update, and we're going to be joined uh today by Brandon Gibelman, who is the project manager for Empire State Development, and Arthur Samuel and Edward Lampson from BJH. So, Jason, if you could bring those folks into the Zoom, uh and I believe uh well, let me wait until they're up. They're joining now as we speak. Give me a moment, and I'll make sure everything's uh set up. Thank you. All right. It'll be bad shadow from the sun on that screen. Okay, every uh we're just we're waiting

016on Brandon to be joining in, but aside from that, everybody else looks like they are there. >> Okay, well Brandon was going to kick us off. So, um that's much better. Thank you, Jake. Second, he's joining from a different device. Let me just make sure. Great. Brandon, can you hear us? >> Brandon, can you hear us? Yes. Oh, fantastic, my friend. Fantastic. >> Well, welcome, gentlemen. Brandon, I think you were going to kick us off, were you not? Uh I was. Thank you so much, Supervisor, and thank you to the whole town board here. Uh it's a great uh if you don't know me, my name is Brandon Gimpelmann. I'm a program manager with the Long Island office of Empire State Development. Uh I'm specifically the manager of the Long Island Forward Housing program, uh

017which is a technical assistance partnership program where we offer a number of services such as the market and feasibility study uh that that we did for you on this project. Uh this is a very new program, and this was our first project under this program, so we're we're very excited uh that you've allowed us to um to work with you on this one. I just want to give a couple of quick thank yous to uh Supervisor Mark Gonzalez, the whole town board, uh Katie Casey from the Housing Authority, Mark Morgan Perez, uh as well as Sam Klein, the former grants coordinator, who was super helpful getting this off the ground in the beginning. Uh so, I just wanted to thank you very much, and with that, I will turn it over to BJH, uh which

018is the team that was hired for this project. So, take it away, Edward. Thank you, Brandon. Thank you. Um okay. Are you able >> Hello. Welcome to the East Hampton. Are you able to share your screen to take us through the presentation? Or would you >> I believe So, um Arthur, are you able to bring it up? Um yeah, let me know when everyone can see. We can see it. Thank you, Arthur. Okay. Okay. All right. And good morning, Supervisor Burke-Gonzalez, council members of the town board. Um my apologies we can't be there in person today, but thank you for the opportunity to present. Um I'm Edward Lamson. I'm a principal at BJH. I'm also joined by my colleague Arthur Samuel. And BJH is an urban planning and real estate advisory firm in New York

019City. Uh we are also the state's lead urban planning consultant on Long Island for the downtown revitalization initiative. So, as Brandon mentioned, we're we're engaged by the town and the housing authority through ESD's Long Island Housing Forward Program to conduct a market assessment and financial feasibility analysis of Route uh or the site at Route 114. Um we understand the challenge as the town faces severe affordability challenges, rising costs have displaced many year-round and seasonal residents, including young families, seniors, and local workforce. And housing mix and affordability is really critical to sustaining the town's community vibrancy and economy. So, to that end, the goal of this project was really to update um a 2020 market study that was conducted for Three Mile Harbor and to estimate a funding gap for a potential housing development on Route

020114, which has been the subject of prior planning studies from the town. Um so, next slide. So, this market assessment uh uh it's been a flag. Uh the market assessment focuses on 21 census tracts or areas in the town of East Hampton as well as parts of eastern Southampton. And this is the same study area that was used in the town's last market report for Three Mile Harbor and which continues to be a representative market area. Um similar to that report, we rely on various public and proprietary data sets, including the US Census, American Community Survey, um Zillow, CoStar, and the town's own data. And we'll present a few of the highlight slides, but I we've provided the full draft report for you to review as well. And we would also like to note that

021the this presentation reflects year-round demographics and housing patterns. And they may not incorporate seasonal economy or populations, and that's just the nature of the data sets that we work with. We know that, you know, because of the seasonal nature of a lot of the market dynamics, East Hampton is very different from most of Long Island municipalities. Next slide. The subject site is located at 776-780 Route 114, which is two sites making up 6.5 acres. The surrounding area is primarily single-family homes, and the closest multi-family property is over 3 miles away. The East Hampton Housing Authority is the owner of the site and recently completed a request for proposals process earlier this year. And is it currently in contract with a developer team to design and build the development in accordance with an agreed-upon design, budget,

022and schedule. Next slide. So, the next few slides are just about socio-demographics and housing from our market report. In 2023, the study area population, which includes, again, Town of East Hampton plus parts of Southampton, was 54,000, accounting for 4% of South Suffolk County's population. From 2013 to 2023, the population increased by 26% compared to 2% for Suffolk. And just for reference, the total population of the town is roughly around 28,000, while the additional, you know, areas that we analyzed in Southampton account for about 25, 26,000. So, the population reflects year-round residents and does not capture a seasonal population, which by you know, our estimates of what the census has captured as seasonal housing, it you know, there's not an exact count, but an estimate would be, you know, around 50,000 based on what we know

023to be seasonal housing according to the census. Um, next slide. So, there are uh 21 about just under 22,000 occupied housing units in the study area. 18% of those are renter occupied. 82% are owner occupied. Occupied housing only includes full-time housing, again. Um, thus, according to the census, just under 21,000 households are counted as secondary or seasonal residences. So, again, with the average household size of 2.4, that's how we got to around an estimate of 50,000 seasonal or secondary residents. Um, home values reported by the US Census are just over 1 million. Historically, the census has underestimated this stat, and for instance, on Zillow, um, recent asking sales listings in the study area, which tend to be more indicative of what's on the market or what's transacted, are closer to 2.4 million on average. Um,

024next slide. Uh, this um, income. Oh, sorry. I think I kind of mentioned um, the housing value, but um, yeah, we can go to the next slide. Seasonal tenure, um, seasonal population is estimated at uh 50,000, and a majority of workers are coming from 57% of workers are coming from outside the study area, meaning that, you know, the options for workers or they're living further out from where they work. Um, median home value again 1 million but before the listings as I mentioned are closer to 2.4 million. Household income is 135,000 and that results in kind of we look at the ratio between home value to home income or household income that puts it about 1 to 8. Suffolk County's home value is closer to 1 to 4 and affordable housing is typically around 1

025to 3. So that's just a mismatch between local income and the home values in Easthampton. And the that ratio is likely more disparate for what we would consider to be seasonal or temporary workers. Next slide. Of the of the 22,000 occupied households just about 4,000 are rentals with the median gross rent about 2,000 and 100 in the study area. Median rents can vary due to seasonal pricing that differs from the year-round rental rates. In terms of distribution most of the stock in the study area is about two and three bedrooms but there are very few studios and one bedrooms. Next slide. I think these are just a few slides about the multi-family market in the study area in 2024 CoStar which is a real estate listings database tracked approximately 1,800 multi-family units in the study

026area and based on that sample the asking rent per unit approximates what's in the census. Median gross rents are about 2,000 and the vacancy rate is 3.2. So relatively stable and low vacancy. Next slide. There are 390 income restricted affordable housing units in the the area roughly 10% of the housing stock in East Hampton, and they range from 30% to about 130% of the area median income. Um, one-bedrooms account for 52% of the current stock, followed by two-bedrooms according accounting for 30% of the stock. 127 units are designated for seniors or age-restricted, consisting of 92% one-bedrooms. Windmill one, um, is current is I think in the process of adding 20 additional units, which will all be one-bedroom units. Um, next slide. Uh, really key to addressing the town's affordable housing, um, strategy is is especially

027for smaller to zero or studio to two-bedroom needs are accessory dwelling units. There are a total of 61 accessory dwelling units in East Hampton, which are all rent-restricted up to 130, um, fair market rents. Um, there are 16 additional ADUs under construction or in the pipeline. And ADUs will house upwards of 250 individuals in studio to two-bedroom units with an average occupancy of 1.25 persons per unit. Um, next slide. Area median income So, these are the area median income or AMI limits for Suffolk County, um, in 2025. Residents earning 80% of the area median income would have rents ranging from 2300 to 3500 as a ceiling, you know, the most that we would go for what we would say workforce housing is closer to 130% AMI, and those rent prices range from 3751 to 5788.

028The average study area rents are roughly in the range of, um, 50 to 80% AMI in Suffolk County. So, a bit less than, you know, kind of what the cap would be. Um next slide. We also looked at market rents from various sources. The smaller units, studios and one beds, tend to be lower than 130 AMI. Um and this we're talking about market rents and in some cases lower than 80% AMI depending on the source. Our larger units, two and three bedrooms, have market asking rents that exceed 130 AMI. So, it's just a bit of variable depending on um the unit size. Um okay. And then Arthur Samuel, my colleague, will handle um just will walk you through some of the construction cost and financial feasibility um analysis that we did. All right. Thank you,

029Edward. Um okay. So, we looked at construction costs for recent um existing recent multi-family projects within our area. Um and we looked at the total costs and the total development costs ranges from 24 million to 35 million with total construction costs ranging from 7 million to 21 million. And I will note that the total development costs for all all all three of three of the recent developments, except Southampton, include um land acquisition costs. Next, we look at the RF the the proposals that Edward mentioned that were submitted to the housing authority for the site. And for the three proposals that we received, the development costs estimated between 15 million to 24 and a half million dollars for 44 to 50 unit um sites with the cost per unit ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 per unit.

030And I will note that none of these develop development costs include the purchase or cost of land. So, next we looked at operating expense within the existing housing authorities portfolio and we the operating expense ranged from $7.29 to $15.35 per per square foot with an average coming out to $12.27 and with a weighted average of $12,632 per unit for operating expense. Next, we're going to move into the financial analysis of this slide of this site. So, BJH developed a discount cash flow model to determine the cash flow for for real estate project and also look at potential investment returns and ultimately assessing the potential project funding gaps. And essentially, what we're doing with this model is is looking at the feedback from the housing authority, developer proposals and the budget from the owner's rep and

031our own research to assess the site. So, we're going to go through a list of inputs to the model. So, for operating expense, we relied on the most recent data from Gardner's Point, a recent development within East Hampton. And so, we used that their high assumptions for the operating expense so that $12,172 per unit was the high based on Gardner's Point and we used the variance of 10 to 20% to determine medium and low with the toggle within the model to for a different scenarios. Next, we looked at income and expense inputs into the model. So, rents were based on 60 to 80 60 to 100% AMI based on Suffolk County's Nassau and Suffolk Counties AMI with a growth rate of 3% every year in the model and for unit mix, the scenario one, two,

032and three were based on the developers' proposals, the town and housing authority feedback, and also also feedback from the advisory board. Next is sources and uses input. So, per the budget from the owner's rep that's mentioned, current budget is 22 22.8 million for a 44-unit structure. Um this does not include the purchase of the land, the cost of the land, sorry. Um and currently the project has 7,842,000 committed in funding with the additional $6 million in funding pending from the community housing fund. And based on the model assumptions, the maximum loan that the project can carry is approximately 14 million 14.8 million dollars or about 65% of project cost. Um while the town may utilize bonds or bond anticipation notes, we assume a commercial loan for a conservative estimate. Um and that many of these

033initial assumptions are based estimates. Um it's it's based on this point, and we'll continue to develop this as the owner's rep develop the budget and the development process continues. And for the last the last couple of slides, we looked at the outputs of the model. So, based on the previous slides of all the inputs into this model, the project funding gaps range from a little bit over $8 million to $11.2 million depending on the AMI and the scenario unit mix. And when we add in the additional $6 million from the community fund, if that goes through, the gaps range from about a million dollars to four four million dollars depending on the unit mix again and the AMI ranges. And again, these values may fluctuate as additional funding comes in. The construction budget continues to

034be updated and financial approaches are solidified whether the town goes with bonds versus commercial loans, but these are This is based on best estimates and the anticipatory information that we have from the market report and that was basically our study. Okay. And maybe we can go back one slide. Um but yes, again, thank you to the board and we would also like to thank Katie Casey and Mark Morgan Perez for all their feedback as we developed this analysis and with that we're happy to take any questions. Sorry now, that was fast, but we had I was just going to say you flew through that. Fortunately, both the interim report and the all of the documents are on the town website. Uh and maybe what we'll do is we'll in our work session materials, but maybe

035Mark will also have a a link from your page so people can find it easily. Um do board members have questions for Edward or Arthur? I know there's a lot here to process. Yeah, I mean there's one interesting one for me which is, you know, you're reporting the demographics that since 2013 we've seen a 26% increase in the population that's recorded out here. That's year-round population to be clear. Um and a 22% increase in housing growth. So, we have not been keeping up with the housing needs that's come with the population growth. What that also potentially tells me that I don't really see in the data here, but I wonder if you could give some insight into is, you know, has the share of um second home ownership increased dramatically in that period? Um and

036if so, is there insight into impacts of that on not just um housing prices and rental rates, um but also just the general cost of living and affordability on the East End? Um I don't think we have the change from um quite yet, but I think we can definitely add that into um the final report. Um so we could get back on the 2010 20 I'm sorry, 2013 2023 change because I think we're using the 10-year period. Um but um so I think Sorry, I don't have an answer to to that piece, but I it's definitely something that we can get um pretty quickly. Thank you. Um to the second point, I think um you know, I I think it it that's probably the likely inference from all this data that like I mean what

037we would probably expect to see um is probably an increase in all I think I I mean I haven't looked it up, but I I think what we it's it's likely that it's probably an increase across all areas because that's what we've seen, and that they're definitely both related. The increase in the rent is probably tied to the influx um or lack thereof of you know, affordable options for both the secondary commuters. As we've seen, um you know, more I think what we have also seen is like you know, even though I don't have that data point um there has been the increase in um you know, workers and um the secondary population that is also not coming or living in the study area. So I think we can assume that it's tied to the

038fact that um you know, there's just not really affordable options in that, as you mentioned, the housing stock is not keeping up with the pace of population growth. Thank you very much for the information. I think there's a just a couple uh input lines that might have been missed. Um, uh maybe on smaller projects that we have done. The The only one I can really think of One of the ones I think of right now is 109 Hampton Street, even though it's within the township. It's still within the village of Sag Harbor. Uh Katie, you probably get that information to them. It's a small one. It's about four units on there. But overall, it's you're pretty much expressing in this report what I thought was happening out here. Then too, there's a dire need for

039affordable housing. Um, the cost of living and the cost of building only keep escalating out there. Thank you. Hi. Uh Kate Rogers. Um, thank you for this presentation and all this data. It does take a bit of time to absorb it. Um, but I have some questions. On slide 10 or page 10, where you're talking about rental households and you're describing median gross rents, is that market rate? Or is that affordable housing rates? That That This is what's reported by the census. And I think what I You know, what we always find, both the rents and also housing value typically are lower than what we would usually expect, um, compared to like asking rents or asking sales price. So, that's why we always kind of look to the other data sets like, you know, Zillow

040or CoStar, kind of these, you know, aggregators of what's on the market or what's currently being um transacted. Um, so the gross rents, that is really, um, for all all housing, so inclusive of affordable and market um across the board. And that's what's reported by the census. If we look kind of I think that other sources, I think on I think we might have had it on another slide, but um the depending on what the unit type, you know, the the market rents on like let's say Zillow or what's you know, on CoStar, these kind of like aggregators of what's listed, you know, the rents tend to be a bit a lot higher. Yeah, they are a lot higher. That's why I'm asking this question on slide 10 because if the median gross income by

041unit type were the rents listed here, I don't think we need to build affordable housing. So, I don't I don't know where there's a three, you know, a three One of the impacts that we're seeing here and one of the questions and Tom had asked it as well is if the if there was analysis of um of different types of rental, we're seeing different types of rental models coming into the town rather than the traditional year-round or or what was seasonal, we're seeing the short-term rental market as well. So, now when I look at Zillow, it's a rare house that I find that is less than 5,000 a month. That's maybe two, and then it jumps considerably to 10,000, 20,000 a month as well. So, I just wanted to ask about these figures cuz I

042haven't seen prices like this Yeah. a very long time ago. No, no, I exactly. Then, you know, that's also why, you know, we saw from the census, you know, the median housing value is 1 million, but really when you go to Zillow, it's closer to 2.4. So, I think here we have kind of the aggregate of, you know, studio, one beds, two beds, and threes. And so, as you can see, Zillow average, you know, it's already the studio is 2.2, so 2,200, so it's already above. And then if you look at the three bedrooms, it's into the 7,000 plus and Um so a much higher um for sure and you know, I think these are more indicative of market rents or what's being transacted. Um but you know, historically the census figures have tended to

043be on a conservative or much lower um range. So I think this is just more kind of um gives you a bit of color as to what different sources or what different data sets are saying. Thank you. >> I think also if there's a possibility here that this data point can get skewed because you know, you know, as we have ADUs in the town, you know, the rent that can be charged on them might be zero. Um or $1 because it's going to a family member or you know, for multi-family housing, that data point has to be included in the data potentially which might skew this down to what it actually truly is cuz I I agree with you, Kate. I think these numbers are way off what I understand the local market to be.

044>> Right. And and it says in parens on slide 10, 2023. So is that the 2023 rates? They were there. >> Yeah, so this is from Well, I mean, this is from like US Census and um what's between every So the census is conducted every 10 years and then in the interim, we have what's called the American Community Survey. So the most recent Well, they in in the past month, they just released the 2024 data. We're kind of on a delayed, you know, data release. So at the time that we conducted this study, we pulled what was the most recent data or public data set which is the American Community Survey for 2023. We now have the 2024 data, so we could update, you know, as much as we can um to the 2024. But

0452024 is the largest, you know, public data set that we have. And then obviously Zillow, CoStar, those are, you know, real estate databases that are updated to current. So, you know, we that's kind of why we wanted to present, you know, our standard is to always present the official public data sets, but also, you know, we want to couch that with providing you also with, um, you know, the the most recent that we also have is, um, based on kind of these proprietary or, um, these databases that are also available. So, it kind of tells you the full story by having all these these, you know, different, um, you know, the the combination of sources, I would say. Okay, thank you. Also on page 44, seasonal tenure, um, sure, the number that you have for

046East Hampton study area, year-round population is 54,081. Um, I thought we were around 28. That's because it includes Southampton, right? It's two tracks. >> Yeah. Okay. I just, thank you. Thank you. Yes, that's correct. Um, so, what we took was the study area from our prior, we were up basically updating a lot of these data points from the last time the town underwent, um, a market report like this was about five years ago. We used the same study area, which includes parts of East and Southampton just because, you know, it's the combined market is probably representative of the general housing market across, um, East Hampton. Thank you. I Yeah, I just want to say say thank you. I didn't realize this was the first study as part of this program, but, uh, I think East

047Hampton, we're certainly grateful for it. I think it's it's incredibly important not only for the 114 project, but it will also shed a lot of light on what we need to do with affordable housing generally. I think often there's there's a rub or friction between addressing a problem that that to me is just very apparent and I think anybody paying attention to housing in East Hampton realizes that we have a problem that we need to address and sometimes there's friction between, you know, how long you want to take with a study and actually making meaningful progress on the issue itself. And you guys have come forward with this very, very quickly, which, you know, I'm I'm grateful for cuz I'm a believer that we have to keep making progress on the problem that that I

048know exists. But at the same time to have this data to sort of direct our and guide us on what type of projects we're going to do or how the 114 projects looks and other projects is very, very helpful. Um, I do have one comment, which is on the funding gap page. I we don't I don't think we addressed the 130% AMI and my understanding is that is what we're gearing the 114 project towards. It would probably be fairly easy to add that, but it would be nice to see um because of course as you get into higher AMI levels, the funding gap becomes more difficult and that funding sources are hard to find. Um, but of course rents are a little bit higher. So I would like to see what that looks like. Um

049and that's that's really all all all I have on this. I'm again grateful for all the people you said thank you to that that that helped make this happen, but also your team and anybody at the state that helped. I think there's often a misconception about East Hampton because there is a lot of wealth here that, you know, we don't have an affordability problem or or a housing problem. People don't think of of the fact that we have a really desperate affordable housing crisis and so I'm I'm grateful for your work on this and I think it's going to help us going forward. I could I just have a question. It's on page 55 of the longer the longer deck and it's the stakeholder takeaways. So, obviously you guys, you know, have really dug in

050deep here as to our market. Um and you know, as we work on our next project, I guess I I kind of look at it through that lens. What do we you know, we've gotten Route 114, that's a moderate income. Am I using the right word, Katie? You know, up to 130% AMI because we only have one other housing community like that and that's Springs Fireplace Road and that's 13 one-bedrooms and 13 two-bedrooms. So, we've only got 26 units in that 130% AMI, which is why the board wanted to move forward on 114 with that kind of composition. But, what should we be looking for as we tee up our next project, right? Um I know you took a deep dive into the lists that the Housing Authority has and I'm guessing so does Windmill

051Development Corp have for their projects. If you were if you were the decision-maker sitting at this dais, what would you recommend for our next project? Um well, a couple things. I think the housing waiting list is I think primarily one, two and so I mean you know, and that that kind of is based more on who is signing up for it. Um you know, the need could be more in twos and threes, but I think just based on your wait list, it it is geared more towards the ones and twos. Um the other part of it, I know uh you you know, it is not unique to me, but there is probably a substantial aging um And and there is another slide I think on later maybe it's like 36 or so. You know, there

052is an aging problem. So aging in place is really crucial and you know, I same I think it was mentioned. You know, it's there is a misconception that it is you know, wealthy but a lot of wealthy seniors. That's also not the case. It's like there is a lot of seniors in the in the town that you know, are also being priced out. So I think age restricted housing is really crucial to you know, the dignity of aging in place and aging in the place that you've spent many years in. But yeah, it's just by those two data points alone. I would say um you know, we have to get more seniors housing. We have to get more um ones and twos for like the folks who are that would be more geared I think

053towards younger populations and professional populations that want to stay. Um and we're not talking like necessarily I think the key thing about all of this is also the AMI. You know, we're not talking you know, uh we're we are also thinking of like workforce housing. You know, you can price it. Um we're not saying saying like market but also not deeply affordable. And that kind of middle income is missing in a lot of communities and is missing from the focus of a lot of affordable housing. So I guess that's another third set like this middle income housing. Um I know you just mentioned it supervisor but that is really I think the direction that you know, we should you know, just based on what we've seen um what I would probably say. So So you're

054So just question. Yeah. So I I would you recap your your you're saying more senior housing, more one and two bedroom uh units and uh looking at middle income. Looking at middle income, because like where the AMI stands, you know, I I think that's it's it's a question about, you know, the types of diversity of housing and diversity of income levels as well, because affordability, there's a wide band, you know, even within that, deeply affordable up until workforce. So, um, and frequently what gets left out of the conversation is kind of the workforce and the middle income housing. And I we are definitely not creating enough of that not only in the Hamptons, but also on the island itself. So, um, throughout Long Island, I think that is sort of the challenge, you know, because

055as a developer, you know, you could either take the subsidies to create deeply affordable, or you could just build market rate, and kind of this middle gets left out of the conversation. So, um, I think that's really I think the challenge, and I think, you know, especially here, given um, the makeup of the workforce and seasonal population that you know, and also the cost of living out in East Hampton, um, and kind of in the study area, um, you would want to look more into, you know, look at we're looking at all housing, obviously, but um, the middle income is definitely, um, a concern, I would say, um, and something to our challenge, so to continue to look at. Yeah, I I would completely echo that sentiment. And, you know, look, I think we we

056see this operationally. Um, I I think many of you big municipal or health care operators out here face this challenge of, you know, people who work being able to live out here, and the knock-on effects that creates in the community, um, from traffic, which we'll we'll hear a lot about soon, as you know, as the season heats up um, and just the ability to fulfill critical functions. You know in the sanitation department we've cut positions. You know the highway department you know the guys girls operating in that department during the last storm were really stretched and you know getting more people into that department is is critical and and finding them housing is critical because I think you know there's there's a shift happening certainly within IT we're seeing it ourselves with open gov that

057you know some aspects of operations we can you know designate to software and IT but certain critical functions we have to have people living here to operate the town and I think that workforce housing it is absolutely critical and I agree it's been under looked in the past. Yeah and I I agree with you on the on you know looking at the middle income completely at a hundred and you know approximately a hundred thirty five thousand dollars a year. And another another aspect of this is what's happened in our town is is that market no one's building for that market anymore. East Hampton was always a place where you had a range of house size a range of house costs but we're seeing with the median income going up to over two million dollars no

058one is building housing for that market anymore. That middle market the employees the the staffing the critical critical infrastructure of the town actually. So as we see most new construction coming in much larger than that much more expensive than that. I think it's it's I agree with them my colleagues and you that it's critical to build to that to that market. All right. Well, I just want to thank you gentlemen Brandon Edward and Arthur for joining us today taking us through this study and I know the housing authority we had they had a meeting on Thursday the Board of Commissioners, and they're really doing a deep dive into this study, and I'm sure there'll be more that we learn from it. So, Katie, I trust that as as this evolves, you'll share with us what

059your, you know, findings are. So, thank you again, and we really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. So, next up is our special counsel, Ed Rielly. He's going to be leading a discussion on accessory staff housing. Um, I don't know if you Ian Ian, if you wanted to set this up at all. Yeah. Um, I'm really excited to be having this discussion. You know, this is a first look at um, an idea that's been I think talked about for for some time, and and most recently it's been discussed publicly as part of other affordable housing conversations that people who own land and businesses who want to address their own housing needs for their employee employees on site have asked that, you know, we try to accommodate that. And I think, you

060know, very loosely, the board has been supportive in concept. Um, it's just very difficult to actually turn a concept into code that both allows for what you want to allow for, and and doesn't have loopholes that allow for other types of developments that are are not desirable. I want to thank Mark Morgan Perez for the housing director for his work on this. Tina Lagorio and the planning director for her work. And I especially want to recognize, you know, Ed Rielly, who did a lot of heavy lifting, and has just been so helpful on on this topic and on other affordable housing issues. And and Eric Shantz from the planning department, who really did a lot of the the details here. Um, I'm supportive of this legislation. Like anything that comes before the board the first

061time, there there are going to be changes, I'm sure. So, I welcome input from from the board members, obviously, and and anybody in the public who either thinks positively or negatively about this, or might be somebody who would want to use this. Let us know um you know, what you think and then I hope to bring this back soon. I think as that last conversation indicated, we have a real need for housing, workforce housing. This middle income is a lost um target for us that we just aren't aren't doing enough for it. And the idea of of producing legislation that would allow for, you know, private funding to take care of this problem in some in some way is is I think a really great thing. So, thank you Ed and everybody involved and I'll

062turn it over to you. Well, thank you. Uh good morning, members of the board. Turner. Um I I don't think I you all have a memo from me on this. Uh I don't think we need, given your agenda today, to go into the need. It's clear from today that there's a desperate need for housing. Uh this singles out There has been a demand within the town for employee housing by local businesses who could put some housing on their properties. And that's what this local law was intended to address. Um the And what what what we've given you here now is a new local law that the idea being that on within someone's business within the town, they could create either single-family home, uh apartments, or a rooming house uh within that property. Now, all this

063is going to be subject to not only the zoning of that district that the property's in, but also the health department's septic load density rulings, which is key and we'll talk about that a little bit more. Um So, the main thrust of this initiative is to create a way for private businesses to put some housing on their own property at their own expense. There's no public investment in this. Um I think before we discuss the actual details of what this entails, um we had to work very hard and and Eric was very helpful with all this and trying to figure out the flexibility of this. Every single business property is going to be different and we're trying to address it with one local law, uh the different zoning areas, different groundwater management zones, uh different

064sizes of properties, different needs. And then the the key issue, the one that will really limit the ultimate use of this and will limit what will affect every single number that we come to talk about is really the uh Suffolk County's what they call their density load uh statistics. So, um so, if if a for example, if you have a private business that has a certain use, the health department assigns a particular uh gallonage to that use, whatever that whether it's a restaurant or a hotel or a farm, uh everything has something assigned to it and it's based on the size of the use and and there are calculations for expected uses. So, anyone coming in to apply for this special permit is coming in with that already with that use already taking up some

065space as far as what they can do as far as the septic load. Since we don't have public sewer systems here, uh this is key to what would be allowed. Um if there's private uh if there's public water, that could help very much in in the calculation. So, uh the health department's going to look at every single property and they're going to look at what the original business is doing as far as their usage and then that will dictate how much housing actually can be added. So, all the numbers that we talk about and and we've put forth in the in the local law are really subject to that limitation. That's a floating limitation based on a lot of factors, um the type of use, the zone, the the groundwater zone, the size of the

066property. So, um the actual number of units that would be is going to be a function of that and we can't predict that in talking about it today. Um, as far as the site requirements that the local law suggests, uh, will be permitted by a special permit. Um, in all residential zones B through A10 and all commercial zones except for those uses designated in the use table, uh, as industrial uses. I mean, we took the position that those you don't want houses built in some of those, uh, rougher industrial uses. But everywhere else in town it would be would be a special permit subject to site plan site plan special permit and ARB approval. But but not parks and conservation. Uh, but not parks and conservation, no. No. And and may I just ask, um,

067right there because I'll lose my train of thought as you go on. Um, it this is, uh, meant to be for, uh, businesses, for commercial properties, correct? Commercial uses, yes. Commercial uses. So, the idea that this would be okay in all the residential zones B through A10 is if there's commercial use on a property in that zone? >> Uh, I'd say I'd answer that with yes. However, we've also provided that non-conforming uses would not qualify for this. So, if you have a if you have a non-conforming use, you can't expand it Right. >> within that zone. But if there is something that the residential zone permits, it could be done. But al- agriculture comes to mind to me immediately and there may be some other permitted uses within the table of uses for at for

068residential but not non-conforming uses. And not obviously residential homes. No, no, this is strictly for business. >> Okay, just want to clarify that. Thanks. Uh, that's the intention anyway, yes. Um, so, uh, we we've arrived at a number, uh, we've had conversations with the health department before coming here so that we we have a sense of what they would look at and how this would work. The proposal that is in front of you has a limit of 16 people per per property no matter its size or whatever. That would be the upper limit that would be allowed and again it would be allowed in different combinations. It could be within a rooming house which could have 16 rooms or eight rooms with two people or if they can get the septic filled that they need.

069Um or in an apartment between 300 and 1200 square feet. A house between 600 and 1200 square feet and a a rooming house where the rooms would be 70 feet for singles and 100 for a double room. But a maximum number of 16 occupants either way. Um the setbacks and coverage would all be whatever the zoning district is that the the business finds itself in. Um and it's an accessory use only so you can't put housing on something that doesn't already have a business under this special permit. It needs to be accessory to the principal business use. Um again non-conforming properties are not eligible and probably worth repeating many many times because it it's it's an important factor in doing this. It's all subject to the density load calculations by the health department. Um Ed,

070just quickly you said 16 people per unit maximum? >> No, 16 units at 16 people per property. 16 people per property, okay. Um and that again subject to other restrictions. Um but that's the most you can have at the under the most helpful circumstances to the business. Um but you know on a one acre lot that's probably not going to happen. Right. Um by the way we we've said that the minimum size to start with is at least an acre to begin with as a minimum size for this permit. Um Can I just ask do we have a definition for rooming house? We do now. This that's Yeah. >> That's what this is and where did the just where did the 16 come from? Is that um from the county or is that something that

071you you know that was a deliberation that you had before you came to us? Uh both those things. Okay. So uh the the rooming house within the proposal local law there is a new definition for the code for rooming house which we've essentially taken from the health department regulation. >> Got it. And we use that word that term because that's what the health department uses. So rather than call it something else and have it clash with the health department we use that particular word. I mean it it it could be more than a rooming house. It could be somewhere where there's shared facilities. Uh shared kitchen, shared common space. Um but we're using the health department's term. The the 16 units uh people basically is somewhat arbitrary but did come out of a a look

072at really how many people could you really expect to get on say a two-acre piece given the prior business use density load and some housing uh and we picked that as a somewhat arbitrary but but it it does fit into about a two-acre use. Um I mean it's subject to the board's uh but that's what we're suggesting. Um the we we've put the maximum rent charged at the 130% of AMI just like you have in a lot of the other provisions in the code. Um no income restrictions in what we've proposed. Again, going to back to some of the conversation you had today um and a business may want to put key employees in there who are not at a lower income level Um or put laborers in. So, we we we didn't include an

073income restriction in this. It could address the middle in some ways that we were just talking about. So, our suggestion is no income limits. The restrictions we're proposing to put on this to try to keep some control over it is there will have to be a lease. The lease will have to be at least 90 days. Sometimes you're going to have some seasonal or part-time employees. No more than a year so we don't have a problem of this extending too far and somebody having a 5-year lease. The the tenant needs to be an employee of the business on that property. There has to be that relationship in order for this to work. We're suggesting that where we're going to make a condition of it's within the local law that the tenant that the the employee,

074the occupant is a tenant under the New York State Real Property Law. So, that there's no question that they're not a licensee or they're not under they're under a guest or some other legal arrangement. So, that tenant will have the rights all the rights any tenant has in New York State as an occupant of the house under a lease. So, if you have a dispute with your landlord, there are some tenant protections and we've also added a 30-day extension so that if someone's terminated in their employment, they have 30 days before that clock even starts. So, to provide some some control over the concern about the housing not being stable or protective of the occupants of the tenants. And then we we've added a provision that everyone has to get a permit. Any applicant for

075this has to get a permit from the housing office. So, we have some control and management and awareness of following that. They'd have to come in each year with a new lease. Um, and report in on on the progress and what's going on there. So, we'd have some oversight there. Um, I mean, that's essentially it. Uh, it it is a new way to, as as the supervisor said earlier today, there's no single solution. Uh, this is a solution, a possible solution, something that's been considered by the uh, the um, the comprehensive plan 20 years ago talked about uh, something similar to this, an overlay district. Uh, that was never acted upon by the town boards then. Um, so, we we don't have anything like this that provides housing for business. Uh, having people live locally

076will help with them being involved in the community, using local uh, local stores and businesses, and being part of the schools and other events. Um, so, that's the the thinking behind uh, doing this. Um, I Can I just ask a question? Yeah, can I just Can we make sure that Eric Schantz is in? I don't know if he's in the meeting or not, just cuz he he had a a important hand in this, too. So, he might >> Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely, he did. Yeah, I don't think he's in. Jason, if is Eric Schantz So, just while we're waiting for Eric >> please. I want to really thank you and the whole team, including Eric, for for looking at this, uh, and coming up with, I think, a very sensible solution. For me, um, workforce

077housing cited at the employers' resident at the at at at the business solves a number of issues, and also takes care of some of the guardrails that I'm always worried about for abuse, uh, for things turning into market-rate rentals, etc. Employers, um, need housing for their businesses, and to allow employers to house workers on their property, to me is is a a really great step forward in this crisis. I think that it's sensible. What you've come up with in terms of density, everything. And of course being tied to the to the Suffolk County is something we're all aware of. Now, if a if a business also has property for sewage treatment plant, would that would they be able to the density would still be at 16. We're not looking to put sewage treatment plants on

078top of properties. >> Correct. I mean, sewage treatment plants are extremely expensive. You need a lot of tenants, a lot of people living there to make that to justify that. But aside from that, we're limiting it to 16. We we don't Also, we're trying to keep the density within anyone property at a certain limit as well. I'm happy to see this this iteration and look forward to moving it forward in discussion and eventually public hearing. Yeah, I I I think it's a really good piece to move forward. I do have one two questions. I mean, I'm just when I think of commercial businesses I know throughout the different hamlets, most of them are leased by people as opposed to owning the properties themselves. So, is is there a pathway for business owners who are lessees

079of said properties to be engaged with this or is this really always going to be for the land owner themselves? We haven't addressed that question. Um Personally, I think if there's a proper lease and it's a long-term lease, if a business wants to invest in creating that housing, obviously it wouldn't be any good beyond the length of a business's lease, but if it met all the other requirements, I don't see why it couldn't be done. Okay, thank you. With the approval of the obviously of the landowner. Well, yeah, I mean you're going to need site plan and and all of that. I mean this is going to get a lot of review. Okay, thank you. Um Ian, thank you very much. And Ed, also, the memorandum is wonderful. Um for myself, I think this is

080another level of how the town board is continuing to move forward on all different types of designs, novel or such, to our affordable housing crisis. And you mentioned the comp plan 2005, this completely matches what I believe in goal four and goal five of that comp plan. Um the size, I believe, of the one acre zoning that we're looking at is a guardrail to start out right now, but again, that seasonal overlay um seasonal employee overlay district those were specifically in Montauk and some of the areas around the harbor and such where there's smaller properties like that. That could be something that we can use some of these template things, bring that back cuz that might encapsulate those smaller pieces of property, less than one acre, but it's a great place to start right now,

081and maybe that might be the next stop, you know, pass the baton. Ian, again, we bring that back because that would help some of the smaller properties that I think we might get some gain out of. Um questions, details, I think if you don't mind me just talking it out. Um the non-conforming issue here because there's many businesses that actually are commercial businesses that are actually pre-existing non-conforming that are businesses in residential districts on there. Uh I don't know how we're going to address that cuz many of those businesses, Montauk, Mattituck, and other areas, will also probably like to join into this type of need for seasonal uh cuz many of them are are hotels where you need a large number of employees too, so um I want to see how that can maybe potentially

082be addressed in here, but maybe that's something separate to this or a different layer of that that special permit on there. Um I actually don't mind personally having this allowed in in some of the in the industrial zone properties also. Industrial properties that we might have either from anything that could be in in Wainscott to Springs or other areas, they need employees also. Uh and though and that might be something that I wouldn't mind considering to also allow in the industrial format because those are some of the locations that do have larger properties over the one acre on there and that could be a benefit to them. So I I I personally wouldn't I would would would like to continue looking into the positives of doing that instead of excluding industrial zone properties. We have

083a lot of those in Montauk, but some of those are actually smaller than one acre. Okay. Can I just just to be clear on that? >> Please. Uh excuse me. It's permitted by special permit in the CI and CS zones, but under the use table there are certain specific what are called industrial uses which are more unpleasant uses but town law yeah that sort of thing. The things we don't even have a lot of them in an abattoir or a distillery or whatever. But I guess we have some distillery. But um it was those in particular. It wasn't a a blanket no CI CS. I mean you might want to I don't have it with me right now, but just that one category not business uses and not commercial uses, but what are called industrial

084uses even though it's the CI zone. I'll agree with you there. I appreciate that clarity on it. sort of the more harsher uses within that zone. Okay. I'll I'll look into that again, but thank you for that clarity. Um a couple details on here I don't mind looking at. Um A 2,000 sq ft house on a acre property on there I believe for a maximum of three bedrooms is is a little large larger than I would be wanting to see. Particularly if it was 2,000 sq ft, you know, it's going to be difficult to actually make that with your lot coverage on a piece of property. Um The also within this is that it's a minimum of one bedroom uh including a shower for every six occupants. I got There's six in my house including

085four daughters. That would be a nightmare every morning or evening time. So, that's a small little detail. I would probably say at least two two bedroom bathrooms in there on there. Uh there if this is for seasonal workforce housing, they're working people are working hard and I think that just, you know, that I I understand the communal use but I there's also a part of that's just reality. I think two bathrooms minimum uh for that would be fine. Sorry, you know, it's a minor thing. Yeah. Uh again, we'll continue to discuss I I think it's good experience that you're speaking from. I mean, how am I going to do my hair? You know, um uh so the 70 square feet for a one-person bedroom, I thought the town code was 100 square feet minimum for

086one-person bedroom. I would want to just check on that to make sure that matches the town code on Yeah. on there. Um These in and I would want to make sure that these these uh uh units when built that the bedrooms also with proper egress would be able to be allowed in basements, too. On there. Uh so, I I don't know if that needs to have clarity in there or if that's already within our standard uh building, also. Well, I mean, it's all subject to the building and fire code. Thank you. It's not prohibited right now. >> It's not prohibited if it if there's two means of egress. Okay. Sure. Reconfirming. Parking, I think the parking's a little light on there right now. Um if it's one bedroom knowing that most of these individuals might

087be working on the property, but some of them might also have cars. So, I want to try to find out how if there's one parking per uh per space per family home or such. I know there's going to be a total lot area, but I don't mind also looking at uh the parking calculations for the businesses that were already be be on site to have shared parking on there then, too. Is there a way to do that or a way to do seasonal parking as which is in the town code, which might not be an asphalted parking, it might be a grass designated area. Uh that's something that I know we're looking we were looking at the Hamlet studies how to share parking, uh but I want to make sure that that could be even

088designed or discussed on there. Lastly, um is all units be sub- subject to inspection uh by the by it's by building code, fire marshal, building department, and community housing and development, also. Um as I think enforcement's going to be a main thing on here. I know that you mentioned in here the the lease has if there's a lease renewal of 90 days, that lease has to be brought back every single time to to the housing uh housing office on there. Think that's appropriate and of course that's more work to the housing department, but it comes back to the enforcement of this to make sure it's regulated fairly across board, not just through site plan, but post site plan moving ahead into actual use. Overall, I'm very happy to see this. Uh I think there's ways

089we can continue to move on this. It's very similar to what we were when we allowed more housing in LBOs or other zonings in the basement or other sort of locations, but uh it's a it's a it's a great start and I thank you, Ed, for putting this forward. It's just some minor touches in the details. Maybe I got too much into the details initially, but at least I give you my direction. No, no, no, thank you. I mean, we struggled with some of those issues in our group as well, so So, with couple questions. Was this brought to the community housing advisory board? Have they looked at this local law? They have Weighed in or no? They have not, but it's not anticipated that this would be funded by them because there's no income

090restrictions, so it's not Um I mean, look, I've got a great deal of respect for that community and we talk about all sorts of things, but this particular legislation has not gone before them. I would I would be comfortable with them looking at it. >> Oh, 100%. So, get their input before it comes back to us. >> Sure. And um that would be helpful. Um so, this is really thoughtfully done. Ed, thank you. I'm grateful we you joined our team, quite frankly. Um in your research, have you did you find any other communities across the country that have this type of legislation on the books? Uh across the country, yes. Um and and there's a lot of variations on it. California has state regulations that allow for this. Um uh other states do. I I

091I couldn't find anything that specifically does this in a in a more in a such a specific way on Long Island. Southampton has does permit some uh housing on property, but no one is sort of dug into a very specific set of rules for that. Um no, we I didn't I didn't find anything particular. Okay. All right, great. Can I Can I just ask one more question I apologize I didn't. If if the need or the use of this accessory aspect ceases to be used, are we uh giving the property owner a certain time frame to conform with the structure or remove the structure? Meaning you're violating and allowing the property owner to potentially add on a 2,000 square foot structure on the property for housing, but they're not meeting the so certain standards anymore

092on there. What happens with that structure? Well, under the rule as it is, the the they would lose their special permit and site plan approval. They could could conceivably convert it to something else that would require a new site plan. Um uh in the case of abandonment, that's a good question and maybe we should address that in the law. Just wide as wide open as we go. Yeah. Can I Can I Do you mind if I I'll start with that. Please go ahead. Go ahead. No, I'm I'm just want to address some of the things that were talked about, so I'll go last. >> One one question on the the lease term of 90 days. I mean, look, I I think a lot of employers out here are very seasonal in their employee needs. Is

093the 90 days kind of in reference to that or is there a pathway for those kind of large seasonal employers to to access this type of housing? Well, we were presuming that the seasonal employees would work at least 90 days. >> Okay. Uh I mean, you know, it would it would be agriculture or or or the uh hospitality industry. You you would expect them to be here from May April May to September October possibly. Yeah, our seasonal May 15th to September 15th is when we hire seasonal full-time employees. >> The main the main thrust of trying to have a lease is for tenant protection. >> Right. Yeah. And then I I just see um that in the legislation it calls for the total number of special permits would not exceed 25. That would be across

094the town. Uh that's a suggestion. Um part part of that had to do with the environmental impact of passing a rule like this. If we didn't put a some limit on it, the planning department would have to assess every single uh business that could qualify this for this uh within their assessment and would be pretty hard to uh to figure out. So, we we put a limit on it for purposes of this first draft of the law. I think that's important, too, as we look at the staffing required to uh regulate. Um and I see that the um the um I I think that's important to do and we can always up it um as we see it come in, but it also gives the staff time and the building department and every department time

095to evaluate, go to the next step, and then come back with recommendations uh so that we can change it in a way that works better. Yeah, Eric, are you in the meeting, by the way? I am here. How is everyone? Good. I I don't know I I I was going to address address some of the things that came up, um, but I don't know if you have anything to add before I do. Um, I don't. Um, I guess one thing that came up, um, when the question was being asked about other municipalities, which, um, you know, Ed gave the the correct answer there, which is we didn't find anything completely analogous. Um, I was going to say, and this also isn't a a perfect analogy, but, you know, the town code right now does permit,

096certainly in a much more limited sense, um, but does in a number of avenues permit what is essentially accessory staff housing. Um, there's a provision I know for a marina, where a marina is allowed to have a home on the property as an accessory to the main marina use for the marina manager. Um, you know, a lot of our apartments within commercial structures are used as staff housing for the on-site business. Um, that's one thought I had just to to add to this. Um, but yeah, I don't I don't know if there's a specific, uh, item that was discussed that you want me to weigh in on. I I think the, uh, the other thing about this is that it's clear to the person renting, to the employee, that this is housing based on their

097employment. Um, they're on the property. Uh, I think it it's there's no presumption of, uh, you know, maybe this is longer-term housing. Um, and I think that's important, and I think that's why this is a a also a good to have it on location. It's clear right from the beginning this is totally tied to your employment. Um, and, uh, the the season I I agree with the seasonality of it as well, because we do want to encourage employment for the entire season, rather than, you know, a month and picking up somebody else, or I I think it's for stability, as well. I I wanted to add that. Thank you. Yeah, I I just want to say want to thank um, everybody for their very thoughtful comments. And and David, there's never too detailed. I think

098it's important to get details out because we want to make this better and there's always room for improvement. And I again want to want to really profusely thank Eric Schantz and Ed Reale for for how much work you put into this. Um it it was a lot. I just want to address a few things that came up, many of which came up in our in our conversations as as this code was was drafted. Uh the limit of 25 as was already said was really just to put some guardrails up so that the the perceived impact, you know, even though it's unlikely that these that this is going to proliferate based on other restrictions, uh just to be very very clear and to make sure the environmental impact was not you know, through this one action

099too great. Uh we talked about the comp plan and and how it called for seasonal housing. Um and and I think that this is important. I know that there's been some resistance to seasonal housing or skepticism of seasonal housing taking over other affordable housing. I think that's a valid concern. Um what this does is sort of recognize it as a category in and of itself that it's not going to compete with other year-round affordable housing. And I think that that's important. Similarly, the rooming house idea, you know, we drew that from Suffolk County uh because and that could be thought of also as a dormitory. Um you know, we we don't want to be cramming everything into single-family homes when that's not the actual makeup of the use. You know, currently I think employers will

100buy single-family homes, but it's not used as a family unit. And this just recognizes that and perhaps allows for developments more consistent with the um the actual use. Um we did meet with the health department, too, and I I again thank Eric for setting that up to make sure that, you know, our what we were doing here was be fitting with what they what they their their code calls for and and it was. That was a very productive meeting. In terms of an income restriction, that's something we also talked about and frankly I could go either way on that. But um I don't anticipate these to be luxury units based on the fact that they're in on a business's property and another consideration there is do we want the you know office of housing having

101to vet everybody's income if it's a non-issue. So, this you know, remains an open topic, but the thought of it what was in my opinion if we don't charge too much rent, there's not a lot of room for abuse here and it didn't make sense to add that workload or that extra layer of of sort of enforcement for an issue that might not be important. Um I think the lease term is really important. We've talked about that a bit. 90 days I think recognizes what's reasonably seasonal as opposed to transient. Um and then we put the cap of a year which sounds odd, but what we didn't want to have happen is remember this is an accessory use. We don't want a business to sell and then the housing to stay, you know. It this

102is all use based. If if the the business leaves, the accessory staff housing has to leave and so, you know, whether somebody who owns it, leases it, it's all tied to the use and and nothing about it is grandfathered in. The only thing that would grandfather in the persistence of the housing would be somebody's lease. Mhm. Um also importantly, uh I know there's going to be concerns about, you know, stability and all of that, but as Ed pointed out, but I think is worth emphasis, all of the tenants' rights that New York State has are intact here. Um and and for for that aspect of this as well well as many others, I didn't we didn't want to have additional layers here that were redundant for something was already protected either through, you know, tenants'

103rights and with state law or even state building code. And I think when it comes to, you know, the number of bedroom bathrooms per bedroom, bedroom size, number of kitchen facilities, we drew on these numbers from existing stuff. You know, the the the bedroom size actually was reduced based on guidance that we had for rooming houses. I think that came from um some federal language, but we we really did look at what is the standard for these things. And if there's protection someplace else, we didn't want to, you know, build into the code something that would maybe become inconsistent with that over time, as long as we referred um back to them. The 16-person cap, uh realistically, most projects are not going to approach that. Uh we wanted to put something there so people weren't

104worried about the the absolute worst-case scenario. That's fairly arbitrary number, to be honest with you, but it just felt reasonable for, you know, a an upper limit, but nobody is guaranteed 16, you know, spaces. You have to meet, you know, there's a lot of other restrictions, the health department, lot coverage, setbacks. All of that stuff is still in place. So, if you're at, you know, the maximum flow that the health department allows, you're not going to be able to do this, you know, just like any other development, people are going to have to make choices about how they want to sort of put that puzzle together and still be in line with all of the various restrictions. Um the size of the property, David, you brought that up. I'll be honest with everybody. I'm pretty

105aggressive on this, you know, I'm pretty aggressive in that I want I I think that we need affordable housing of all types. I want to encourage these types of developments, but I also want to make sure it's palatable for the board and the public. And so, we talked about, you know, smaller acreage, uh but I think there were some very good points brought up that in commercial areas like Montauk, you're already allowed accessory commercial apartments. And so, perhaps in those areas, there's already a a way to achieve that, but I remain very, very open to broadening this, but that was something that that came up quite a bit. And again, in the number of properties that would be allowed to to do this would would increase greatly if you reduce that size. So, I'm open

106to it, but one of the the primary thoughts there was that you can already do this through accessory commercial apartments. Um I also want to talk about the industrial use. It was addressed, but importantly, the difference between the zoning, you're totally right, Dave, cuz service commercial in an industrial zone might be a very appropriate, you know, use. This would be an appropriate use for a service commercial place that stores materials, but isn't not not dangerous stuff. Um and so I was an advocate for that, but when we looked at the actual industrial uses, I think the planning department brought up some good points that often is not desirable. But this the zone we wanted to allow for this theoretically in a lot of different places as long as that particular site, you know, was not

107dangerous and and was appropriate. Um parking, the number of parking spaces I This was also something we kicked back and forth. And remember, this will go before site plan. And so they're going to have to demonstrate that they have what they need. What we didn't want to do is create all this extra parking if it wasn't in fact needed. And so to your point, if the business already has a lot of parking spaces or, you know, in some cases people don't have their own vehicles. So we wanted to leave that open, but have something in there. Um I think that particular number is is up for debate, but again, we didn't want to We didn't want to put too many rules in place that led for development that didn't make sense in an empty parking

108lot when, you know, there were very few cars associated. So just want to again thank uh Ed, Eric, Tina, and Mark for for all of your work on this and for the board. And again, reiterate that uh anybody who thinks that this might be useful to them or anybody else who has thoughts about this use, please uh give comments. We want to make this better, and it's something I want to move forward with um with as much information as we can get. Great. Thank you. What's your timing and next steps? I think the next steps are to to uh hopefully receive, you know, public comment, to take all the comments that you guys have have come up with today. Um get back with Tina, Mark, Eric, and Ed, and then bring it back hopefully, you

109know, April. Mhm. You know, that's the soonest. >> Yeah, yeah, I was going to say, May. You know, Uh second meeting mid-March. A month from now. Like the the third the third meeting in in April? Sure, which might then allow for a public hearing in May. Yeah. No, I would love that. And again and again what makes me able to say that is is how hard that the town team has worked on this. Um that's, you know, these things take time, but Yeah, well this is this is a change to the zoning code. So this has got to go to the planning board, correct? >> Yep. Okay. Thank you, Ed. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, you're going to be back. All right. Next up, Eric, stay on cuz you're going to be leading

110the discussion. You forwarded a memo on the ADU hearing that we had on March 5th. Mhm. Yeah, and I'll pretty much just go through the memo that I sent to the board. And it's basically just a summary of the public hearing and the public comments. Um so the town board held a public hearing for this proposed local law on Thursday, March 5th. Two members of the public spoke at that hearing. One member of the public was in support of the proposed code changes and noted a specific example where the prohibition on second homeowners being eligible to build an ADU was prohibitive, while the other expressed numerous concerns and was generally in opposition. Uh to summarize, concerns were expressed over the effectiveness of the ADU program, potential negative impacts to neighbors, and of most emphasis that

111removing the restriction to owner-occupied units will result in LLCs and investment corporations creating ADUs. Um basically what we did was organize these um condense them uh condense the issues for the board. So two public comments were that the town board should focus more on promoting affordable housing developments as opposed to ADUs, which would result in more housing units quicker, uh and that most ADUs are in only two school districts, East Hampton and Springs. Uh we We those two comments together as we have not identified any needed substantive changes to the proposed code resulting from those comments, although those comments should be considered by the town board. We note that the proposed code changes would not impact where ADUs are located and does not affect the cap of 40 per school district or 200 town-wide. We

112also note that the town is pursuing multiple strategies for affordable housing by providing a wide variety variety of options to address the affordable housing challenges within the town. It is the goal that this will facilitate greater participation in the available programs. The next public comment was that the ADU program has not been successful enough primarily as there are too many legal hoops to jump through. We would note that part of the purpose of the local law is to reduce obstacles and code prohibitions that limit the number of specific properties and types of residents, specifically second homeowners, that would otherwise be eligible. As such, this represents an effort at least in part to address some of the existing barriers to building ADUs. The next public comment was that 15,000 square foot lots are non-conforming in any

113residential zoning district and therefore too small to permit ADUs. We would say it's the intent of the proposed code change to widen the applicability of the ADU program and therefore allowing smaller lots to apply for the program is in this context an appropriate strategy. 15,000 square feet, which is only 5,000 square feet less than what is currently the minimum lot area requirement, should still be adequate land area for situating an ADU in a single-family residence. These lots, just like any other, would need to comply with the applicable property setbacks and building and total lot coverage maximums, which help facilitate maintenance of existing or of aesthetic character within the neighborhood. Also, although ADUs are permitted on residential property with existing single-family residences and are permitted in all residential zoning districts. They're also currently allowed through a

114special permit in all of the commercial zoning districts. Most of all the except for CS, which is a uncommon zoning district. And it's noted that CB and NB have minimum lot area requirements of 3,000 and 10,000 square feet respectively. In the instance of a CB zone lot of 15,000 square feet, such a lot would not be non-conforming to minimum lot area. Although single-family residence use would be deemed non-conforming on such a property, the addition of an ADU is otherwise allowed with a special permit. Similar to an apartment within a commercial structure. The next public comment was that the presence of ADUs in a neighborhood decreases the value of neighboring properties. No information has been provided to the record in support of this. Anecdotally, the planning department observes that the property values in East Hampton as

115a whole have not decreased since the inception of the ADU program. Regardless, this is already a use within the town code and there's no reason to believe that any of the subject code changes would result in development that significantly impacts or detracts from the value of adjacent properties. The last public comment, which includes a number of topics, was really the most emphasized one. And that was that removing the requirement that an ADU be an owner's primary legal residence and that they actively occupy it should not be done. Requiring owner-occupied makes the owner a landlord more likely to be able to address potential issues and it doesn't prohibit someone from just taking a vacation for a few months out of the year. This also opens up the door to ADUs becoming just investment properties and limitations

116should be put on LLC zoning lots with ADUs by distinguishing between owner-occupied and income-producing commercial properties, which can be discerned from tax filings. Also, non-owner-occupied properties with ADUs may not be eligible for funding opportunities. So, that's a number of topics there, but all on sort of the same topic and that was public comment. And again, with these public comments, this is me summarizing them, so I apologize that I'm not expressing the points that the public expressed verbatim. But but I think we got the the spirit of the comments. So, basically so all of those points, the planning department would note that homes rented through the existing rental registry program are inherently rented without the property owner being physically present and this program permits non-residents to reside on a residential property. The planning department notes that

117this proposed change allows homeowners with ADUs the same ability to rent their home as the homeowners who do not have ADUs. We find this an appropriate way to remove a potential obstacle for a homeowner considering building and renting an ADU when they do not plan to use their East Hampton home. The planning department notes that the principal concern of permitting ADUs on properties that are not owner-occupied is the potential for inadequate oversight and or maintenance. However, this could be remedied by requiring that a property manager be identified when the office of housing and community development issues a permit. So, in other words, identifying someone who is within town or within short distance of the site that can respond any issues just as a an on-site landlord would. It is stated that for-profit enterprises such as

118an investment property that is owned by an LLC should not be permitted to have an ADU. The planning department notes that such properties are common in East Hampton and that these code changes as currently drafted would indeed permit this situation. However, as one of the key purposes of these code changes is to facilitate the construction of more ADUs throughout the town, it would seem that this would be a good way based on existing market trends to achieve this goal. Provided adequate safeguards such as requiring a property manager are put in place, The planning department does not see this owner ownership arrangement as inherently problematic. Um and then really just the last point addressing the public comments, the board may wish to get additional information from the town attorney's office or office of the housing and

119community development or both as to whether or not owner-occupied properties or those which are owned by an LLC are eligible for the community housing fund um grants or loans um or the CD12 grants or loans. Uh however, the planning department finds that to be a separate issue. There's nothing in the proposed code change uh inherently involves use of the CHF. In other words, you could have the code be more relaxed um and then have programs that offer financial assistance that have additional restrictions um but this code doesn't preclude those additional restrictions from being imposed. Um so basically in conclusion, the board should discuss the public comments and determine if any changes need to be made to the draft legislation. At this time, the planning department is not recommending changes such as removing the provisions to

120permit second homeowners to be eligible or the provision to reduce the minimum lot area requirement to 15,000 square feet um which we see as the main elements of these proposed code changes. Uh the planning department defers to the town attorney's office with regard to whether or not any possible changes the board may require would be substantial enough to require the holding of a third public hearing. Remember, we did hold one public hearing and amended the uh draft changes. Uh once the board has formed a consensus on the content of the proposed code provisions and provided no further changes or public hearings are required, then the town board should both declare lead agency status. Um the town board's the only involved agency on this under SEQRA and make a SEQRA declaration. Um once these steps have

121been completed, the necessary referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission will be sent and their comments will be sent to the town board at which time it would be time for the town board to to vote on the proposed local law. Uh Um I will say really the conversation today um is to have a discussion about the public's comments, see if there's any changes that you need, and then the next step would be that the planning department at a uh upcoming work session would bring in an EAF, an environmental assessment form, um an environmental assessment of the project to the town board um for the town board to make a secret declaration. All right. Thank you, Eric. Tom, did you want to lead this off before we get into the legislation? >> I just say

122um yes. So, look, I I think the most important thing um that you you stated in many ways in there, Eric, is that this does not change the cap. The town had a has a 40 uh school district cap across the town. So, this is not saying we're going to have more ADUs. This is saying In some sense, it's to some of the public feedback we got, "Hey, look, ADUs haven't, you know, necessarily been adopted the way the town hoped they would." So, we've done that deeper dive into this. You know, the two of the key pieces we've come back with to kind of increasing engagement here is one, reduce the lot size because so many lots in many of these school districts are under the existing limits. Um and two, the primary home ownership

123piece. Um you know, look, it is much discussion we have on housing when we have it is emphasizes that significant second home ownership and enabling those properties to have year-round residents on them who can can help the town and, you know, provide different services is a critical piece. Um I do want to mention one other thing cuz we did bring this back to the ADU committee to discuss. Um one kind of inherent um discussion that came up there and so, you know, relates to comments the impacts on the school district financially. So, we did have the housing department review our existing ADU um occupancy and I think it's 10% of our existing houses or ADUs, sorry, have a child living. So, this is not something that we're seeing has a significant impact on the school

124populations. Um you know, with that said, like look, I'd say some of our school districts are incredibly small classes and I think the children in those schools could potentially benefit from having more kids in their classes, but that's a decision for the school districts to take, but you know, in terms of what this would do, I don't see this kind of implementing that change based on the statistics we have. Um you know, Eric, you did speak to it, too, so I'm just going to kind of mention my opinion on it because I think there has been some discussion on this is to like look, the the ADU grant or whatever format that takes exactly being given to people um who have second homes. We need housing, people. And you know, we should not be stopping

125affordable housing being built because we're concerned about giving the money to someone who we think might be too rich to get it. It's like, let's get the housing here because that's the primary need. Thanks. Anyone else want to comment? >> Um I'll jump. Um so, I support all of the the code in general. Um I I do think that you know, coming down to 15,000 square foot is justified based on the comments that Tom made. So, I'll jump to where I'm having the most difficulty and that's obviously with LLCs and with the second homeowner rule. Um I don't think that a property manager is an answer. I don't think it's a guardrail because it's my understanding, Jake, please let me know if this is true, that if you have an LLC, if just a fractional

126corporation ownership in New York State, and you have a violation, the property manager doesn't get that violation. The violation has to go to the Secretary of State and then it's sent to the corporation. So, I'm trying to figure out how designating a person as a a property manager has any impact on that whatsoever. And I am greatly concerned because of the potential of investment profit in this town that exists including going to recent event where we were discussing in fact ADUs. We were discussing you know the opportunities to have an ADU on your property which I think is essential. All their aspects of the law I think are essential another tool but I do you know after we discussed what you can do in a commercial zone which is a zone that we have in

127town and after we discuss what you can do in a residential zone person raised their hand said well what about what's your code for investment properties. And as this becomes considering how East Hampton is such an attractive place for investment and that's one of the driving determinators in the lack of a for affordability. As I said before nobody's building smaller houses anymore. The houses are are maxed out to GFA to max out what you could potentially have and with the as we know and are just beginning to going to begin to collect data on the short-term rental industry that's come into this town as it has in other areas makes me very concerned about abuses for a separate structure on on properties in owned by these types of of companies and releasing it from being

128a second home owner. Even I could see a second home owner whose house is in their name having a value although there is still the problem of of of maintenance and and oversight on that ADU although I really don't feel like that's really a very big issue but I do I am concerned that right now we don't have enough guardrails in place to allow that. Even looking at in the future looking at how what who we allow as as renters, who we allow to participate in rental registry. There's been questions and other municipalities have dealt with it that at least one of the properties that that person owns has to be a primary residence within the town. So that we're ensuring that outside investment companies that are looking to come here solely for the purpose

129of profits do not take any loophole that we leave in the code and and exploit that. So that's those are the the area only area in this code that I have very deep concerns about. Thank you, Kate. Yeah, I'm I'm supportive of this. Tom, thank you for for your work on this and the ADU committee. I I think that these are I think ADUs are going to be a a piece to the to the puzzle that we're trying to solve with affordable housing. Like the last discussion, that's not going to be the the entire answer, but and like the last discussion, I think it's appealing because this is we're going to talk separately about potentially funding this, but otherwise this is private investment, private people helping us to address you know, town-wide need. I do

130think the point about second homeowners and and LLC ownership is an important one. I think there are I think there there are practical guardrails in place and that I don't think somebody who wants to do like a luxury rental would necessarily pair that with an ADU. But I think it's a valid concern and I and I think we should talk about it. You know, second homeowner, somebody who has a place out here, they spend significant amount of time, but also might live someplace else is very different than a purely investment, you know, somebody who owns LLC and otherwise has no ties to the community at all. I'm okay with allowing it because I just don't think I don't see a proliferation of this as a problem and I think that the main point here is

131to provide affordable units and and any any tenant would need to be income and rent restricted. And so to me, it's getting more units that are rent and income restricted so that we have affordable housing stock is the important goal and the main structure then becomes less important. However, I I do acknowledge that the the concerns that you don't want to have you know, a slumlord type of situation where people are just trying to build as much as they possibly can and rent it out. I don't think that's likely, but it's a valid concern. If we do address it any in any more detail, I would hope that we would make a distinction between LLCs and and second homeowners who who might have real ties to the community. I do I I think one really

132important thing um to mention about that, and I think David you brought this up previously, is that more and more homeowners are moving to LLC ownership of their own properties because it's got many many benefits. And so I think that it it's how you differentiate between an LLC and you know, who and what I think is is very complex. So I I think what what that is accentuates for me, Tom, is that it's if it's an LLC and it's your primary residence, no problem, right? Who cares what what you decide for estate purposes to do with your home. That type of use it is your residence, so we know that that's not being just rented out for for investments and that's it. So that's with an LLC even tying it to those in a primary

133residence is a better guardrail for me than than uh fractional ownership. >> that. I think I think more what you're saying but I'm hearing is actually it's not the LLC that's the issue for you. It's the second homeowner. No, it's the opposite. It's the it's the structure of LLCs because that is the model. There's no variation from that for investment companies. So to put it again on the town. So whenever we create these laws now, we're putting it on oh, it has to be registered with this department, it has to do this department. So, we're now putting more public funding into the need to regulate. So, I just am very with what we see happening in short-term rentals, etc., investing rentals versus a dissociation with with the community, it's my second home. That's great. I

134think second home ownership is fantastic actually for our town. I don't think it's an impediment, but I think strictly My biggest concern is that we're opening up a loophole for investors to come into the town and to increase their investment opportunities. When you look through all of the data for what's now becoming an investment industry or short-term rental industries, all these industries, it is how to maximize your profits over being part of a community and I just don't want to open that door. Um Yeah, I mean I I I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. Yeah, no, I think that second home ownership comes under that bracket, too, because look, you don't own a second home because you live there. You own it because it's a typically good investment. I mean, people's real estate portfolio

135is is the primary old portion of their wealth. And so, the second home ownership piece is is no different than the LLC. I think if if a resident in the town chooses to own their home under an LLC and wants to build an ADU, like there's probably a net win for you. That's that's an okay situation, but it's, you know, I I think the concept of look, someone's coming in, they're just speculating on property and they're going to build an ADU and will that ADU be properly used the way ADUs are meant to be used? That that's the concern. I I get that. I think as we deliver affordable housing, the more we deliver, the more we do have to regulate. And that's the case with our existing properties, be that windmill, wherever, like that's

136just something we we have to accept as we build affordable housing. Yeah, I just would like to have a guardrail in place before we're opening the loopholes and I just feel that if you have an L if your property is in an LLC ownership, if it's your primary residence, if you can prove that your primary residence is Town of East Hampton, build an ADU. I I I think the the concern of the what I'm looking to limit before it happens, which is always easier than if once we have it happening here to try to pull back things. Um in my experience is just to be very careful and I do have concerns about exploitation on that level and I I don't think we're properly addressing them yet. And again, just to ensure that it doesn't

137happen is more important than trying to fix it after it does happen. You know, then now we're back in court. But that's just my feelings and my concern. Can Can I ask So cuz I don't recall the numbers. When when you did the short-term rental presentation, um and there were two markets here in East Hampton, right? Montauk was one market and the rest of East Hampton. I mean, is it fair to say that there's more short-term rental opportunities in say Montauk and Amagansett at peak than there are in other Did the Did it Did Could you break it down that far? Um I don't think they broke it down that far. It's one submarket is East Hampton, but the numbers I mean, the East Hampton submarket, you know, you're looking about 1,800 rentals, short-term rentals.

138Um the Montauk market, less. Um so I don't know I hopefully, you know, this is uh getting ahead of my liaison report, but going out for RFP on software that will be able to monitor um rental registry uh for us. Uh that RFP is closed. We're just we have the reviewing committee formed and we're going to be looking to recommend a vendor for that for us, which is how other municipalities really successfully regulate their rental programs. That will tell it will inform us by Hamlet and by ownership. You know, if somebody owns 17 houses in a neighborhood, one LLC or one person will know that. So, these are data that's yet to come to us. Okay. David, did you have comments you wanted to make? >> I do. Tom, thank you. I I do support

139the decreasing in lot area for the ADUs on there then, too. I know we initially did that 8 years ago when it was detached ADUs and it didn't really lead to a drive overwhelmingness to our departments. I do agree that a lot of this is going to come down to the office of community housing development. It's going to be a lot of making sure that these lists and all of our safeguards are are guarded and reviewed every year and that's going to be policy and I I have faith in that department. Um so, overall, I'm very comfortable moving this forward to a vote. When it comes to LLCs on there, I completely get where you are at and where the where some LLC ownerships can be abused. Um I also see where it is estate

140planning. That's my family. My my parents' house here, where they consider this is their home, is actually an LLC, but they're a primary residence someplace else. So, there's ways in at which LLCs are done for family estate planning for betterment and safeguards of taxes, but at the same time are not being abused. I might be a very a minority now to it, but again, I'm going to try to be optimistic that I'm the majority. So, overall, when we start looking at that, that there are some individuals in some situations in which LLCs are used for the benefit of family without a detriment to the community, but I completely understand I'm not I'm not naive to it That there's individuals and situations that are taken advantage of our community. I look forward to the next steps

141on that with you on that. But there are situations like that. Overall, Tom, thank you for bringing this forward. I look forward to the vote. Yeah. So, I, you know, I'm comfortable with reducing to 15,000 square feet and I'm also supportive of allowing second home owners to build ADUs. I because for me, we do have that cap in place of 40 per school district and that is for me the guardrail. But also to the point Ian brought up, I was thinking the same thing. If I have, you know, invested in a $5 million house because I'm going to be operating it unfortunately as a short-term rental, I don't know if I'm going to put a folks are going to be putting ADUs on that property because it's high, you know, um it was it was

142a costly investment and it's there's a certain look and feel and vibe that they're going for when they're when they're marketing these short-term rentals that I'm not sure that they want someone would be a teacher living on the property that they're spending $1,500 a night renting a room. Um so, that's I'm less concerned with that. We also have the ability if we see this being taken advantage of that we can amend the law and um and make that change. So, I'm comfortable moving forward in asking, um you know, to you know, at the next board meeting if we're have a resolution on it to declare lead to declare lead agency and then ask the planning department to um conduct a secret analysis. Yeah, just to put a finer point on it. I agree I'm supportive

143of the the law as drafted. I just wanted to to highlight, you know, second home ownership versus LLC. I agree with what Tom and Dave have said that it's not so cut and dry. Um I also think, Kate, you're doing work on the short-term rentals, which is great because I think realistically some of the short-term rental properties we're concerned about are not abiding by the two short-term rentals per year as it is. And so Two per six months. So, it's two per six months, I'm sorry. Um so, if we I think if we have if those properties are acting within the the the you know, the confines of the code, that it becomes less of a concern. Um you know, again, I acknowledge the problems. I also just want to say that if if people

144are investing and the way they're investing in our town leads to more affordable housing, I welcome that. I think we have to balance that with quality of life, for sure. Um but you know, I I I I just any investment in affordable housing that leads to more affordable housing units in East Hampton, I think is is largely positive as long as we can balance the quality of life. And I also think that as it's been pointed out, enforcement and you know, town staff may have to increase if we have more affordable housing units, but that's money very well spent by our municipality because this is such a major issue that we want to we want to address. As long as we build more affordable housing for them. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, we're going to wrap

145up this and move on to our next topic, which is the ADU construction loan recommendation, and we welcome uh Mark Morgan Perez. Hi, Mark. Hello. Uh thanks for giving me the opportunity to present this program. I think you're all uh pretty familiar with what the proposal is. Um Could you just pull the mic down so that we're >> Sure. Is that better? Yes, thank you. >> So, I You know, the town already has the state plus one ADU construction assistance program in place. Um This is meant to complement that as that program round has wound up. So, this could be an ongoing initiative to help increase ADU production. The proposal is um is interest-free uh repayable loans of $100,000 each. The idea is that the community housing fund would have an initial allocation for this

146year of $1 million, so that would be 10. They're available to residential property owners whose properties meet town code. Um they're secured by a lien in favor of the town of Easthampton Community Housing Fund. Tenants have to live or work or lived in the town of Easthampton for the past 5 years. There are income limits on the tenants. There are also rent limits in place. Leases have to be year-round. An ADU must be rented in compliance with the town's rental program for a minimum of 10 years. Uh and again, an annual rental permit has to be handled each year by the office of housing and community development. So, those are the basics of the program. It's pretty straightforward, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Ian, you want to Yeah, I just thank you, Mark,

147for this. This is something we've discussed a couple of times, and thank you, Chad. I saw you and Doug Garvie here earlier. I think he had to leave, but um Community Housing Advisory Board has weighed in and is supportive of this. Um we we intentionally waited on this because we wanted to see if there were changes to ADU laws generally, that we timed the release of of funding. Tom, that was a point you made when we talked about this a while back. I think it was very good. We want to make sure that, you know, people who might take advantage of this on smaller lots who need the funding um have it available as well. I just want to make I So, I'm not going to go into too many details. I'm supportive of this

148as it's written. The only clarification I want to make it in public comment, we spoke about the 10-year um rule. Just to be clear, nobody's going to be allowed to use an ADU um you know, and rent it as a luxury apartment after those 10 years. Um we might want to clarify this a little bit. And and anybody who gets funding is going to have a lengthy contract that tells them what they're allowed to do. These are just sort of guidelines, but I understand where that confusion comes from. The point is we want people to know that they're investing if they're taking town money, we expect that to be an ADU with affordable standards for a period of time, but it could never fall out of the general ADU guidelines. Just like I was saying

149before, this is a use related thing. So, if you I think the one caveat there is our town code doesn't currently require income restrictions on ADUs generally and so perhaps that would actually drive after the 10 years, but the rent restriction would stay in place because all of our ADUs are rent restricted. I would we probably do have to get an attorney's opinion to make sure that community housing funds allow for that if the affordability, the income restrictions okay to go away after a period of time. But in any case, it was never intended for a property to then just have two units they can do whatever they want with after those 10 years. So, I think we probably want to clarify that. Who wants to go next? Well, that that was that was one

150of my main things also on there then too. It's the same thing we talked about. It's within the ADU code right now. If it's not used for ADU and you actually put in here, I believe 6 months on there, the structure's got to revert back to necessary structure, be abandoned was the word that earlier used or removed on there. And so that's something just in the clar- clarity of the policy on here. I think we just need to make sure again saying eyes wide open to this on there that you can the structure can't be habitable. It has to work within what current zoning is for you if you're not using it anymore. Yeah. >> Yeah, I think clarify a little bit. If someone's doing a conversion of an existing structure internally and using some

151of this funding to put in something like they would have to do is take out what they've put in. If it's a detached ADU, you know, and this has been reviewed with the committee and you've used this for if you're not going to have an ADU, it's going to have to go away. Or if it's an attachment on an extension of an existing property, same thing. Like, look, you know, that that law is very clear. Like, the purpose behind the loan and the code change is for these to be affordable accessory dwelling units. Correct. If not, they become accessory dwelling units. Sorry. Accessory uh structures, and they have to go to all to the zoning underlying. Sure. But, overall, yes. Thank you. I I support it. Uh $100,000 $100,000 I don't If it covers it

152all, it really depends on which ones, but at least it's a really big help, and I think it actually would be a real big a lot of it assistance to individuals out there that would like to do this type of program, join the program on that end, too. So, it's another way that the administration is moving that way in our all-hands-on-housing initiatives. I I I agree. I'm very As noted earlier, very supportive of this. I I think, look, if we can start to incentivize this and get these units built, then this pushes towards it. I know I I know that there's demand out there, too, Mark. I mean, we had a lot of people take up loans from the CD plus one organization as that rolled out. I I we we we met our quota,

153right? We got everything we could from that program. Um, so, we know the need is there. Um, so, yeah, I'm I'm supportive of this moving forward. Um, I'm supportive except for the um the idea that there's no cap on your income. You're you're eligible for this loan no matter what what you make a year. Um, we have people in this town that make quite a bit of money a year, and it's hard for me to justify in my head they would be receiving the funds versus somebody that doesn't make anywhere near $10 million a year being denied funding because there isn't enough in there to cover them. I think I think there has to be some kind of cap, or at least a preference for people who, you know, make a certain amount of money

154and are trying to help out or need the ADU for themselves, right? So that I could live in the ADU and my son's family could live in the house where these are all the other associated uses with the accessory dwelling units or vice versa and that funding not being available to me cuz somebody that makes an ending amount of money decided to use that public funding when it's it would be easy for them to do it. So the idea of no income cap is a problem for me or at least a preference for people you know up to a certain income to to have these loans. Is the CD1 program has no income No it does have an income cap. So the state program has a 130% AMI cap on the on the applicant income.

155I don't think it should be that low here but I do think just no cap is an issue for me. Yeah. So I agree with Kate and I was on the board when we when the water quality CPF water quality referendum passed and when we were doing initially the septic incentive first we started as rebates and then we moved to grants. We had a cap so beginning when that program started in 20 through December 2019 we had income based restrictions um and they we used the eligibility for the basic New York State tax relief the STAR program and so you had to make less than half a million dollars a year household annual income and and I think that that's where I'm comfortable. I I don't think somebody who's you know a corporate attorney that's

156making you know two and a half million dollars should be able to if we've only going to have 10 available, I think that there has to be a a household income restriction on the money. I also listening to Mr. Buddha earlier in public comment, I also would be supportive of having it only go to full-time residence. Like this is a program that I I've had heard from a number of people that had been waiting for us to announce this program to build an ADU because they need assistance um on the on the the cost associated with it. Um they love their kids, but they're really happy to see them move into the ADU in the in the backyard. Um so I think for me, I would want to see the very minimum a income restriction,

157but I would like to see it only be available to full-time residents and give it a year to see if Now if we're finding that, you know, we've only given out two because of the way we've constructed it, then we can let, you know, loosen the valve and change the requirements. That makes sense. I think the idea of having an income cap aligns with best practices in affordable housing policy to make sure that we're serving the community that needs help and not assisting people who don't need it. The assistance is for those who need it. So just rolling through that. So yes, the water quality technical money was a 500,000. In that situation, one of the justifications for us removing the income cap is cuz where the priority water areas are are areas more in

158the waterfront. Or the travel time. And those houses that are in the travel time areas are typical A lot of them are owned by individuals of high net worth or and it just we wanted to get to those those locations. Still was an incentive vacation program such as this also. So I could see I think I think we're I could see the a cap in income I can you know I even love the the year round. I don't I think a half million dollars is is a light cap. I think there is in the families out here that are still working hard that they're they're they're two two two sources of income might be even over 500,000. So I think we I would if I was going to go forward I would like that that

159number to be increased potentially. And again we're discussing this. For year year round to have priority on that I could see something to that also as long as legally allowed. Thank you for bringing that forward. These are just discussions here. Yeah that the half million is is tight now in today's world. Um I don't I don't know if if that would eliminate too many people that need it. Um but I just can't leave it open to anyone's income whatsoever knowing you know the types of incomes that are out here. And this is really basically public funding. Um so um I could also go along with the you know since there's a limited amount for offering it to year round folks. Um I think I should just I mean to address why I'm okay with it

160is that look for me the goal here is not whether someone rich or poor is getting the the benefit of the grant because they're all taxpayers at the end. It's are we delivering affordable housing and I think look yes the person with the higher income you know we might feel is less worthy of getting that grant but they also potentially have the resources to actually build the ADU quickly and efficiently and and have land and you'll have ADUs in relatively nice locations cuz they're built on bigger lots where incomes you know are potentially larger. So I think it's um I just think there's a danger there of trying to um use the ADU grant itself for something that we're not really intending. We're you know saying it's like one group might be richer than the

161other. The the goal here is really let's build the ADUs. How many came out of the the plus one ADU program? Do you know? >> 15. 15 and for in that program um if you were had a household size of two people, you had to make the your maximum annual income was $124,960. So when you think about, you know, that I mean this was a tremendous program. I I would like to see our program to be for the next tier of income or you know, couple of tiers of income. >> Sure. Sure. And I don't know, I mean back in 2017 the the star um you know, eligibility cutoff was a half a million dollars. I don't know if that number has changed in 2026. >> I'm sorry, the eligibility star We used the star

162>> Oh, okay. >> um as the um for how we got to um what the household annual income should be. >> I mean I can look into different metrics and see what other municipalities do to see if we can arrive at something that works specifically for our needs. So it sounds like we're a little bit split on this in terms of the income restriction. I mean I I agree with Tom that the main point is the construction of an affordable unit and you know, however we get there, that is is sort of the victory. But I I understand what everybody else is saying um that you know, we don't want to give money to somebody who might construct it otherwise. We want more ADUs, right? And so we don't want very wealthy people who might

163be doing it one way or the other to take away from somebody who's really dependent on the funding. Um I don't think that's going to be the case. So I would be okay with leaving the income restriction out. But frankly, this was has been discussed by CHAB, but it was always at a a fairly low income restriction. And so this this idea of making it some income restriction, but much higher, is something I could I could get behind as long as we all agree that we would make a change quickly if it's not being used. You know, I cuz I would feel bad if 10 of these went out right away and then people who, you know, need the money don't get that. And and looking at how CDLI went, that that got filled fairly

164quickly. It it's a valid It's a valid concern. So I've softened on that. And we we have not talked about the full-time resident restriction. Um I I guess I I feel the same. I'm open to that as long as we are are committed to being nimble and flexible in changing that if this is not taken advantage of. Um again, the main point here is that ADUs are getting constructed one get constructed and so that they there's an affordable unit for people to take advantage of. One other thing I want to say though that I think would be a natural barrier to people using this funding who really didn't need it is if you use the funding, your ADU is then in rent restricted, which all of our ADUs always are, but also income restricted. And

165so there is this extra level that people, you know, they're they're not able then to to to give it to a very wealthy family member or or whatever. And so I think there's a natural um appeal if somebody has an endless amount of money that they would want to build it with their own money because there's it's less restrictive. Um however, I'm open to sort of putting extra got, you know, guardrails in place as long as we change quickly if it's not not used. Yeah, I I listen, I I I I one way I look at this is that relatively speaking, the cost to the town of providing one unit of affordable housing here is $100,000. There's no other housing out there that we can offer at that price point from a town's perspective. Like

166that's really the be-all and end-all of that to me. Like when we look at Town Well Court, you know, we're we're working exceptionally hard to price engineer the opportunities we're going to give on town-owned land down there for homeownership. Okay, admittedly, it's a home. Um even when we work with our excellent partners out there, the cost of the land itself is not insignificant. So, irrespective of the homeowner's income, the more units we deliver at $100,000 from CHF, the better we're doing with affordable housing relative to any other housing opportunity. I agree with that, but if you can spend a million dollars on landscaping, um I think that you can afford to build that ADU. And with the limited amount of loans available, I think in order to keep it affordable, you want to give that

167loan to people who need it to build affordable housing rather than just open it up to anybody to use it. The people who are need the loan, to me, increases the affordable affordability of it all rather than anyone who could literally use, you know, spend a million dollars landscaping. Um which we see. So, that that for me it's trying to make it the group that will receive it are also in need of help to build affordable housing. And that's the group I'd like to see the money the the funding go to primarily. So, Mark and Ian, what do you need to move this? >> Well, I think I think what we need is a I think we should take a poll of the board to see who who wants a full-time resident restriction. Sounds like

168Kathy and Kate do. I don't know. I'm fine with that, too. Okay. So, we'll we will add that. And then I think and then the income restriction. Tom, you're I'm going to oppose. Anybody else? Kathy and Kate, I know you're in favor. Yeah. What's the number? Well, that Mark's got to do some research. You're in favor of a higher number, David? Yes. >> Okay. So, I will work with Mark on adding those two things. And remember, these are guidelines. There's also going to be a contract with anybody who gets this money where we're going to have a lot more teeth and enforcement in there. Um but we will clarify those two things. Um and I also want to address the 10-year thing and what happens after those 10 years. Never is it going to be

169just a free-for-all, but is it still income restricted or, you know, how that works. I'll I'll also promise you, and I'm I'm extremely nimble. Good. You know, if we see 6 months or two a year to bring this back as we've done water quality, and honestly we've done this almost in every discussion we've done today, there's been a change that we've done for something in the last couple of years. And if we're not nimble, we're going to lose our community, and that's why we're having this complete discussion on affordable housing today. Agreed. All right, thank you, Mark. >> Thank you. Thanks, Mark. All right, we're up to uh real property tax exemption for ADUs. So, Ed Reale is going to lead that discussion. And Ian, you're the liaison to this, right? Cuz this is >>

170Yeah. Yeah, so I mean, I you know, Ed Ed Reale worked on this. This was another um we were presented by Genie Neilson a bunch of um additional uh tax exemptions that were passed by the state. This was, you know, the most important of those, I think, or the most obviously or one that we've been talking about for a while. Um Ed will describe the details there, but something I think we want to take advantage of. Great. Thanks. Um hello again. Uh so, the state legislature passed uh real property tax law 421-P, um which created or allowed for a limited property tax exemption uh for newly created accessory dwelling units. So, because the language in the statute says one or more residential units, uh it's my view that this will also apply to the recently

171passed affordable multiple residence in certain circumstances as well. So, it might apply to that as well, but clearly applies to any new ADUs. The exemption is limited in amount and it's limited in time. The exemption would apply to the increased assessed value of the property attributable to just the ADU up to $200,000 in increased assessed value. So, if someone has a home, they build an ADU, if the if it's if the assessment assessor determines that it's a $300,000 improvement, they will only get the benefit of the $200,000 exemption. But up to $200,000 exemption, it's it is part of this exemption. They have to spend at least $3,000 making it. So, if they created let's say converted a garage or did something or converted already habitable space to an ADU, they have to spend at least

172$3,000. That's not hard to do out here. Um So, as to the time limits, it's a little bit of a complex formula, but the exemption is for 10 years. The first 5 years, it's 100% of whatever the increase would be. So, you do not pay more tax on the ADU up to 200,000 for the first 5 years. For years 6, 7, and 8, there's a 25% decrease in that amount that's left. And then in the last years 9 and 10, it it goes down by 10%, and then year 11, you have no exemption left. So, it's a little bit of an odd formula. It's a lot of work for the assessor to keep track of this, but that's how the state proposes it be done. The state law allows the town board to vary that

173percentage. All those percentages, 100%, 25%, 10%. You can change those it doesn't have to be uh what the state law says. The state law allows the town board to vary that. So, that's a question for the board if you want to go with the the state's basic plan or if you want to vary that. Um the uh it this does not reduce tax revenue. It's important for the public to know. This does not reduce tax revenue. It just defers future increases. So, someone builds an ADU at some point they're going to have to pay tax on it. Uh starting in 5 years some tax and and going up from there. Um Uh unlike I I I know you talked about a whole bunch of tax deductions with Genie Nelson a couple weeks ago. Um the

174timing on this is important. It won't be considered the person won't get their deduction included uh because we've already missed the closing of the assessment rolls for this year. Uh so, it won't make it in until next year. But, there's also a timing factor aside from that in that this law provides that someone applying for this, someone building a new ADU cannot get the benefit of this unless the tax they they commence construction after the law is passed. So, on those other exemptions you had a lot of time to decide what to do. Um and if you wanted pass this law the sooner the better because someone who wants to do this now uh who wants to do this in the coming months um needs have this passed in order to get the advantage of

175the deduction. It says commences. I'm not sure how you want to interpret that. It could be issuance of a building permit or actual See you. >> shovel in the ground. Um but it said it it you can't get it unless it's uh commenced after this law is passed. So, even though it's not going to be on this year's tax rolls, someone who builds it this year would need this to be passed in order to take advantage of it in the future. Um I think that's just a key distinction to keep in mind. Um So, to qualify for the exemption, the homeowner would have to uh begin construction after the law is passed, spend at least 300 uh spend $3,000, um and create at least one additional dwelling unit or more if you have a a

176affordable multiple residence um construction. Um Again, like some of those other tax laws you talked about last week, the the state set this up so the town board can pass an exemption as to town taxes. The county would have to pass one as to county taxes. School district has to pass one as to school district taxes, and you have six or seven school districts to deal with. Um so, it's a it's again limited in that sense, and and you need to coordinate with the other entities as far as that goes or or not, but um it it's only limited to town taxes um that you have control over. Um So, to get the complete exemption, the county would have to pass it and the school district within which the property's located in order to get

177that 100% deduction. Um So, and the process for doing this is pass the local law file with New York State. So, that's simply it. Um so, the two questions for the board is A, whether you want to enact something like this, and B, if you do, at what percentage rates. And that's And is there also an option? I don't I'm not sure whether it's uh comes into effect after two or five years? Like the time the time which we can abate the taxes for? The period? >> No, it's only percentage. The law says only percentage. You can vary the percentage. So, the point at which the property be reassessed, we don't have any say over that time. So, I don't understand it can be like after 5 years, the improvements get in assessed reassessed. But

178does is that that window has no say from town board? Not sure what your question is exactly. So captain say say I build an ADU and I spend 100,000 doing it, you know, for the first 5 years I'm not assessed for those improvements on my property. The question I have is is that 5 years a fixed number from the state or does the town could the town say we're going to reassess you after 2 years? What the state law says is you can vary the percentage not the time frame. So And really if you're improving your property, you should be that once you got I believe you get your C of O that kicks in for the assessor to to reassess. Yeah, but this would this law would give us the opportunity to to wave

179that for a period of time. No, well, no, it gets reassessed. You're just not paying. >> Right, so okay, right. difference. >> Correct. The problem is the assessor does have to reassess it to determine whether it's 200 or 300 or whatever. And that happens at issuance of a CO. Generally, that's what triggers the assessor to to to go and look at it. One other thing on the timing that I neglected to mention, the state unlike some of those new laws that were just passed a couple weeks ago, the state has already issued and what's called an exemption code for the assessor so they can plug it in and the forms are already been produced by the state tax department. So this is kind of ready to roll from the state's perspective unlike again the ones

180that were passed in December. Got it. Yeah, I just if if you don't mind I'm very supportive of this. I think we've talked a lot about today about encouraging affordable housing generally and about encouraging ADUs and this is a question I've received from a number of people over the last couple of years is what about the tax implication is that a disincentive? So I'm certainly in favor of this and I would would want to wave the maximum amount of assessment for the period of time that we can just to encourage construction of ADUs. I think that that's a public benefit and to Ed's point that's not going to reduce the overall tax income. It's just it's just how it's distributed. I also think it's important to recognize the work that the assessors are going to

181have to do here. It would have been a real scramble to try to get this in place before this tax season and so people won't be able to take advantage of but as point I'm in favor of getting a law on the books soon that won't affect the assessors until before next tax roll but will allow people who are building an ADU to to benefit from the legislation that I that I would like them to. It also will allow us time. I think there's a way for us to pass this law to commit to doing it as a town but also coordinate with the county, with the school districts, the fire departments, the villages, all the other people so that we we get our ducks in a row or they have the opportunity to so

182the assessors can deal with it all at once. So, and it's a little bit complicated with the timing but I'm in favor of getting something on the books for us soon so people can use, you know, take advantage of it and at the same time simultaneously work I'll help coordinate with the other municipalities or organizations so that the assessors have an easier time and know who's opted in by the time they have or work on next year's tax rolls. Then we choose a percentage. Yeah, I would like to go to the maximum percentage possible. Which is 25. Yeah. Yeah. You know, in that typically at many times the school tax of our districts is largest tax of any of our tax bill. So, it's 70% of your tax bill is typically your school taxes. 30%

183is town. Yeah. And and and many of the districts and it the rest is um town, county, I believe fire districts. Uh library. Lighting district. But yes, okay. Still either way. I support it. So, I where I'm I'm well, I'm supportive. I'm going out of order. I usually go last, but I'm I'm confused about what you're saying about the 25% decrease. Are we you suggesting we not follow what the state has what how the state has broken it down? 1 to 5 years is 100% decrease, 6 7 and 8 is 45%, 9 10 years is 10%, and then from 11 on you get no you get no exemption. Yeah, so to clarify, you said we could change the percentages. Could we do 100% for the full 10 years or is that We can't go beyond

18410 years. Um, interesting question. Um, the state laws has reduced the percent of the exemption. Oh, reduced. So, okay. You can't make it 100. So, there what's listed is the maximum allowable. We can't go give a you know, greater discount, but >> Right. So, I'm in favor of what the what's laid out by the state. Okay. Now I'm clear. And let me just go back to the other side. In case of abandonment, third time we used it here, then they have to coordinate with the assessor's office. Is that correct? Yes. Or does it Or does it probably even get reappraised cuz then instead of going from a from an ADU, it just goes to an accessory structure. Mhm. Yeah, they would have they would presumably have to take some sort of building permit out to

185change the ADU to a conforming use. If they weren't using it as ADU anymore, um, but it's a good point that leads to coordination. Any ADUs in town have to have an ADU permit from the office of housing. We are going to need to make sure that we coordinate with the attorney's office, the assessors, off you know, so whenever anybody realizes of a change, that often might be the housing department, um, that everybody knows. Sure. Yeah. >> Yep. David and Tom. Uh, supportive. I am I am too. I It just It just Again, it's we're incentivizing >> Mhm. the need for affordable housing, and this is one of those levers that we have to do so. But, on the backside of it, the tax implications, which we've already seen in the past in other grant

186fundings, didn't work out as well. It's something I'm happy to be able to determine right up front I I think it's commensurate too with the amount of services that would be additional for a property for one or two people extra to live with there, three people live there. I don't I think that that you're already getting on the rest of your property, you're still going to have the 100%. I think that it it makes sense because the use of services does not increase 100% just because you're putting the small unit on your property. Right. And it's also, you know, you don't want to have somebody has gone through the trouble and has built an ADU, they're charging up to 130%, and then a portion of that would would you would think that that rent is

187paying down >> Mhm. you know, the expense of building the ADU, and then they're going to get socked with, you know, additional taxes. So, I I'm very comfortable with it. So, this is something we can get notice for public hearing. Thank you, Ed. Okay, thank you. >> Ed. All right. We're closing in on it. Um Brittany Coladonato, our deputy town attorney, is here to talk about rent restricted employer-sponsored housing. Welcome, Brittany. Thank you. Good afternoon. Um are we doing 255-120 first? >> We're going to No, we're going to do that last. We're going to Okay, so the rent restricted employer-sponsored housing is in recognition of a need for additional housing options. Like we've discussed, this is one possible option we can take. Brittany, can you just pull the microphone down a little bit? Thanks. Such

188housing would be accomplished by special permit and would contain many of the same provisions of uh the traditional affordable housing development as required by the town code. However, this rent-restricted employer-sponsored housing would only be permitted in parcels located within both an affordable housing overlay and a limited business overlay district. Um the units created would be used for the use of and available to moderate income families as defined by the chapter. All units would remain subject to rent limits and occupancy would be offered for employer employees of a sponsoring employer. So, I don't know if you want to me to go through each section, but I can sum it up. That'd be great. The first section um is a definition section, which would require rent-restricted employer-sponsored housing to have a maximum monthly rental that would not

189exceed the 130% of the FMR. Rents would be restricted further pursuant to recorded covenants. Units would be managed and monitored by third-party property management companies approved by the office the town's office of housing and community development. And the units would not constitute general multi-family residential housing or affordable housing units as otherwise defined in the code. Um Next, you'll see in 255-550 the special permit standards. You'll see the site considerations. Most of these were taken to be identical to the affordable housing considerations that we have in the code. So, the site size, the dimensional area and coverage requirements, density restrictions, the the option for increased density. Those are They're the same as they are as for affordable housing developments. The different a difference here is like I said before, the entire proposed site would need to

190be located in both an AHO and an LBO. And that could not be waived by the planning board. The only way that could be changed is by code amendment. And I I'll just say if the reason we're looking to limit it at this point is it's does what we're going to designate it to overlay districts that are reasonably related to ensuring that there's compatibility with the existing land use patterns and proximity to employment center services transportations. And uh be we want to roll it out kind of slowly so that made the most sense. Services and design, which are the next two sections, were are also the same as affordable housing developments. The legal requirements are the same. You'll see that we have inserted here affordability and tenant protections. This is number four. This is different

191from affordable housing traditional affordable housing. These units would remain subject to rent limits set forth in the definition. They would be memorialized in a recorded affordability covenant that will run with the land. All dwelling units and lots created shall be available to moderate income families. The occupancy would be offered to employees of sponsoring employers. There would be a grace period for tenants should they lose their employment. That grace period would would be the longer of um six months or until the end of the tenant's current term. There's the option that the sponsoring employer in consultation with the third-party management company could authorize continued tenancy beyond those points. And notwithstanding anything within this law, tenants would have all the same rights and protections consistent with New York State law. This local law would also give authority

192to the office of housing and community development promulgate additional rules and regulations to carry out this section and the intent of this section. A copy of those rules and regulations would be kept on file at the clerk's office and published on the town's website. And the way they could be amended or repealed is by resolution of the town board. For management, this was an important one. We would require third-party management companies. Um each management company would need to be approved by the office of housing and community development. That could be pursuant to a list that's maintained by the office of housing and community development or it could be proposed to the office of housing and community development. They could vet the entity and determine whether they are an appropriate third-party property management company. And then

193section seven is legal. This is the same the same requirements that are found in traditional affordable housing developments. The planning board would have the opportunity to impose conditions that would assure that these units remain affordable in perpetuity. This one a difference here from the affordable housing code is condos would be permitted, but that they would need to propose an operating plan. And the third-party management company would need to be a separate and distinct entity from the HOA or condo board, whatever is applicable. And everything else has been lifted pretty much from the affordable housing code. Who who to start us off? I will. I Thank you, Brittany, for this. I I'm I'm definitely supportive of this legislation. I think that again, today's meeting is all about, you know, the need for affordable housing. And I

194do think that this um legislation would result in affordable units and that they would be rent restricted. And so, the people living there are the are the people that we need um to have housing that we have a very a lack of housing. I think the difference is that this is employer-funded. So, um that's a different model from our traditional affordable housing developments and that it's worthy of a of a distinction there. Um the most important, I think, part of this legislation to me, um obviously the rent restriction so that the units are affordable to people living there, but then the management to make sure that it's a cohesive um you know, development that that doesn't have, you know, conflict within itself. So, um I I I support it, for sure. I think that um

195we do need traditional affordable housing developments, too. And so, that's another reason for us to to differentiate this from that because it's a I think a a very worthwhile endeavor. You know, the idea of constructing units that are going to be rent restricted with with no public money. Tom referred to the $100,000 for ADU assistance and what a value that is based on what things cost. Um this is potentially zero investment, but we need to make sure that the um the developments function and are compatible with surrounding areas. And I think to me, it's the third-party management that's so important there. Um So, I think this, you know, we probably need to refine this a little bit, but I'm very, very supportive of the concept. And Brittany, thanks for I know a lot of work

196went in. Not only Brittany, I know Ti- Tina Lagerran and Mark Morgen Perez, believe Eric Shanteau was involved. A lot of a lot of deliberation went into this. But, thank you. Yeah, um I'll jump next. Um I support this. I think it is a very important to distinguish this and to allow a concept that is not considered a affordable housing under our code uh to exist. I think that it's very important that the topics that Ian talked about and having third-party management. Again, this is putting the onus of compliance on the property owner and not on the town, which I think is very important. And I also think restricting it to the limited business overlay district also is crucial for this law as I think you well stated that's where employment opportunities are. The LBOs

197are usually at the shoulder of commercial districts. So I think that any you know, this mitigates traffic implications etc. So I support it as written. What are the next steps for this? When we're satisfied with a draft, it would have to go to public hearing. It would have to go to the planning board. It would have to go to Planning board first and public hearing? Yes. Yes, but if substantive changes were made after the public hearing, it would go back to the planning board. And it would have to go to the South County Planning Commission. Okay. Okay. Yeah, look, I'm supportive of this moving forward certainly to public hearing. I mean I think you called out one of my key things is you know the the zoning where where this can happen and you know,

198look we saw this last time you know, whenever 60 units is a possibility somewhere we have to be very clear with you know, understanding what impacts that implies to to neighborhood surrounding and you know, I think this zoning is very tight. In terms of where these kind of things can be done and it ties back to the long-term planning that the town has been involved with. So I think this is appropriate. I think you know, having that public hearing is critical and I look forward to seeing this move forward. Thank you, Tom. So, I'm supportive as well as my colleagues are to move forward with this. Ian, you made a comment though that you think it still needs tweaking. There's There's things in here that you want to see. Uh no no no, not necessarily.

199There's nothing in particular. Um so so no. I just I'm open to So, are we comfortable sending sending it to the planning board at this point for for their comment? >> I'm I'm supportive of that. >> Sure. Yeah. Okay. So, the next step would be to go to the planning board for comment. And we're closing in on it. The last topic today, code amendment to chapter 255-1-20. Okay, so you have before you 255-120, the definition for affordable housing unit. Um 255-120 of the town code sets forth the definition and provides that the following limit shall apply, including maximum rental and maximum initial sales price limits. You'll see in section A, there's the maximum um initial sales price and B is the maximum rental limits. Um In prior affordable housing developments sponsored and approved by the

200town, units were either created and conveyed at affordable right rates to income qualified purchasers or they were created and operated as regulated affordable rental units from the inception. The town has consistently applied the maximum initial sales price limitation when individually owned affordable units were created for sale. And I'll also add that where when there is a list of limits and it says the follow the following limit shall apply. When there's no conjunction in between the two in legal and technical writing, you have to assume that that's an end and not cumulative. Recent review of the town's affordable housing code provisions have determined that the current phrasing, which I just stated, um could be confusing to applicants because the lack of conjunction in between the two factors. So, this amendment is being is being proposed to

201clarify and confirm the original legislative intent of chapter 255, and that intent is that affordability protections attach at the point of creation of an affordable housing unit. Um So, it would essentially just be adding the end between A1 and A2, and then so that there is no confusion, a sentence after that which reads, "Where both an initial conveyance of title and the regulated rental of the same dwelling unit are components of the creation and operation of an affordable housing unit, compliance with both the maximum initial sales price limitation and the maximum rental limitations shall be required." That's just to clear up a any potential ambiguity in the code and to um memorialize the original intent of the code. I support. Um I think it's important to help folks with confusion anywhere that we can. So,

202and um that's why I support this. Same steps? Yes. Has to go to planning board? It has to go to Suffolk County Planning Commission as well. For I guess they could get some highway uh limited We would have to check where they are located. Are they located on a state highway? >> Tina Arch might have that information off hand. Hi, Tina. Hi, board members. I'm pretty sure it does as a change to the code, but since it's just a clarification, I'll double check, but I'm I'm pretty sure they typically I have to go. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, my my only comment and and I'm I'm generally supportive of this. My only My only concern is to make sure that um that in any scenario with sort of traditional affordable housing that we know of, that there

203the initial sales price, how that's interpreted. I I don't know that industry super well, but it's conceivable to me that a you know, that the town would hire a developer to come develop a project, you know, because that's a an involved process, but then would take ownership and and purchase that and just based on the cost of development, um I want to make sure that anything we do here would not get in the way of that as a possibility of of a developer building affordable housing, but selling it to the town or the the housing authority as a completed project. Yeah, I mean, well, to it doesn't matter what they do to the housing authority. They're they don't they don't fall under this code. This is only So, I don't think it would be >>

204think they would if if if and again, I don't know that this would happen. >> typically the the Well, the housing department, the new model is that they are the ones that are the developers, right? They're like they're the ones that are signing the contract with the developer or um and developing it and whether they're taking using community housing fund money and and borrowing from a bank or they're using, you know, tax credits because they're going for a lower income project. I did Mark's Is Mark still here? Has he left? Mark. Um I don't know if you want to weigh in on what what Ian is um addressing. I'm sorry, could you state the question again? Well, my my only concern is the possibility I think that the scenario you just laid out, Kathy, is

205the way that it's usually worked. The housing authority sort of develops their own project and then retains ownership, so there's not an initial sale. It's just development costs. I do think in other cases, there's there's scenarios in which a developer will develop a a you know, a project, do the tax credits, and then there is a transfer, you know, to a housing authority, to a municipality, to somebody else. Um, I also don't know, you know, down the line if it sells, you know, say somebody is involved for 20 years, uh, an independent affordable housing company, and then sells to somebody else. I just want to make sure that we're not getting in the way of, you know, I don't have any concerns about those models at all. I just want to make sure we're not

206preventing ourselves or precluding us from those scenarios. I mean, I can get back to you with details, but the market for investors who buy tax credit funded projects operates in a very different way than, uh, investors who would buy sort of a simply outright rent restricted development as this proposal sort of, uh, you know, creates a model. It's a it's a very different investor group, very different tax consequences, very different financial picture. So, I can get back to you on that, but when projects are funded with tax credits, the investor basically invests in them for the tax credits, and there's a residual cash flow. And then tax credits can be syndicated again later on for different investment benefits. This model is very different, so I'm not sure how to quite answer your question. >> Yeah,

207well, I think you you kind of just did. I I think that you what you just said was is exactly true that there's a world in affordable housing where there's tax credits. I just want to make sure that in that world, and and I think in some cases there is a transfer of a of a turnkey project to another, you know, management person that the that the that we're not creating law here that would make those deals impossible. Okay. So, you know, perhaps that nominally the cost per unit would be more than what we allow, even though there's no concerns about that that that type of development because of all of the, you know, protections that are already in place. Okay. So, just to make sure that in the scenario you just outlined, that the

208actual transfer cost, the sale cost, would comply with the code that we're creating. Okay. Okay, I understand the question. I'll look into that. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else have comments? All right. So, we wrapped up our topics. Brittany, thank you very much. Um and we are on to liaison reports. Tom? Yeah, give me 1 second. Pull this out. Okay. Um Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee, I do have a question in from them um regarding the crosswalk by the Amagansett Green. Um we we are aware it's been flashing for a week. That is in the process of getting fixed. The parts to repair that are in order, uh but I'll keep everybody updated on that. Thank you to my colleague David Lys, uh Steve O'Brien, and Steve Lynch in getting that addressed. Um Human Services,

209um Yeah, so can I just go on that Please apologize. Jump on it. Uh there was storm damage to it uh uh to it. The decision was to decide it to keep the uh the flashing light on instead of turning it off. Uh we'd rather have a light on instead of not being able to be operational. I thought that was better for We thought that was better for public safety. Thank you for that clarification. You're welcome. Excuse me. Um Human Services, um just rather a a sad kind of piece when we're talking about housing in different uh areas. Evictions, um we've obviously had a few in the last few months. Um and it's traumatic. It's um it's traumatic for the evictee. It's traumatic for the organizations having to do that. Um and it's not the

210most humane situation possible where we see people's possessions left out on the main street. Um you know, there there is a process in place to have them collected, which we operate in conjunction with the highway department. Um but, you know, it in the longer term, I I've reached out to Sheriff Errol Toulon um just to understand, you know, is Is any way to address, you know, how that system operates to, you know, perhaps ensure that the property is preserved in some way for a week or two to give the evictee an opportunity to kind of preserve some of their possessions. So, um I will um address that more as we hear back from the sheriff. Um Arts Council, I just want to announce that we are having a community networking event on April 17th. Uh

211we'll be in Town Hall um from uh 6:00 p.m. Uh we have presenters including Dolson Portella, uh Don Lenza, and Bettina Lenza, uh Sherry Pastorella, and Heidi Wright. Um so, looking forward to that. Last one was a great success. It was a fully packed house, and hoping for the same again this time. Uh Wildlife Management Advisory Committee will be meeting on the 26th at 2:00 p.m. We'll be following up from uh last Tuesday's discussion with regards to the deer population and ticks. Uh and then lastly, some great news Oh, sorry, one more thing about business um uh committee uh is working with the Montauk Chamber of Commerce. Obviously, coming up on the 29th, we have the Montauk uh St. Patrick's Day Parade. Um just working to get town cleaned up as much as possible. I

212put this out there to residents, too. It's, you know, one of the early parts of the season when our town is on show. As much as you can, please get out there, pick up the litter, clean the windows, you know, let's make our our town and our hamlets look special as we kick off this new season. Um and then lastly, some good news from the YMCA. Uh the village has approved uh the through the uh board's appeal for the uh pickleball courts to move forward. Um I have reached out to uh the uh town engineer to get an update on where we are with that. Uh it's going to go to the planning department next. Um and we will keep you updated. I I don't think there's realistic opportunity of getting these to uh the

213residents in time for the summer, but we will move on this as quickly as we can. That's it for me. Uh do you want to show the uh St. Paddy's Day thing? Oh, yeah. I'm so sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Our Human Services team really lovely news. Um, so obviously today is St. Patrick's Day. I don't know if you can tell, but these are some pictures from the senior center, um, of, uh, residents there taken by our public information officer, Becky Grant. Um, just, um, you know, the effort that our team there put in to make events like this special for our residents is incredible. So, thank you to all the team there doing that. And, uh, great to see everybody enjoying themselves so much and the incredible food's being put on. Thank you.

214Um, the water quality tech Thank you, Tom. The water quality technical advisory committee is starting the review of the RFA one for calendar year 2026. We'll be moving forward to that. I wouldn't be surprised, Madam Supervisor, we'll have to have, uh, meetings here, uh, in April. I'll get those dates to you so we can put it on there. Um, part of that as well actually have, uh, a, um, a resolution on for Thursday that discusses, uh, the Peconic Estuary Program's contribution to, uh, from the from our water quality funding, which is in the general obligation law of the CPF for water quality. That will be on for this Thursday. Um, going to aquaculture, the scallop program, the 2026 application cycle, the written comment period is due by May 10th, 2026. Please contact, uh, Thomas Rackel

215Ralecki at 631-853-4865 if you have any other questions about the comment cycle and about that program. Also going on to aquaculture, the season's off, uh, to a good start despite some weather-related de- delays. Uh, for the first time in, uh, our department head, John Dunn's, uh, tenure, uh, they had to use a chainsaw to go through the ice in order to get to the water pump, uh, into the new hatchery. Uh, goes back to what we were discussing a couple weeks ago that there was a uh, extreme, uh, gear loss and a lot a lot of the oyster growers up further west. Uh, there's a nice batch of oysters growing in the hatchery and, uh, they did a third of our uh, the third of our fourth oyster spawn last week, also. The clam spawns

216will continue next week. Oyster gardens will be refloated in the coming coming weeks, weather permitting. And aquaponic and the Napeague aquaponic gardens did uh did get disturbed by the ice, but they should be able to get them back to normal, which is good news. Oyster survival should be just fine. Uh they are tough creatures. Thank you, John. Okay. Uh also moving ahead on the town uh the town's CPF advisory committee met yesterday. I want to thank William Billy Babinski for joining that committee, also. Uh it's it was a great discussion there, also. So, thank you, Billy. Uh I want to let everyone know that Daniel Farnham Jr. has been appointed to the water to the Suffolk County Working Waterfront Committee as a representative for the town of East Hampton. Dan Farnham Jr. is a second

217generation commercial fisherman in Montauk, a graduate of East Hampton High School and Hamilton College, has worked with his business his entire adult life. Uh he's primarily an offshore fisherman long line for golden tile fish and trawling for silver hake. He's also an active member on the federal and local level when it comes to fisheries management, serving as a member of the East Hampton Town's Fishery Advisory Committee and the Dock and Slips Committee. And for the Mid-Atlantic Fish Fisheries Council, Dan is on the advisory panel for golden tile fish, mackerel, squid, and butterfish. And on the New England Fishery Management Council, he serves on the small mesh multi species advisory panel. Again, this committee for the Suffolk County Working Waterfront Committee this committee that was is joined that's also part of the obligation law for funding

218for protecting our shoreside infrastructure. That was led by Legislator Ann Welker. I thank Ann, and I also thank Dan for your participation and advocating for East Hampton Town. Let everyone know that there is a spring burn window at Mashomack Preserve that is now effective through now through April 30th. Prescribed fire and weather conditions are dependent. Any more Any questions on that, please contact the Mashomack Stewardship team at 631-749-1001. That leads me to is that to what New York State is doing currently and in our state parks on Napeague State Park. They are currently not burning, but they are grinding significant loads of infected pine material and trying to remove that part of the collaboration that the supervisor has worked with the governor's office for funding for that project. So, that is actively moving forward on

219there then, too. I want to let everyone know that there is some that there might be some discussions or inaccuracy in some of the actions that have been going forward with some of the dead geese. A couple Fridays ago, there was email that was directed to the the clerk of the trustees trying to confirm jurisdiction over locations where some of the dead bird kill was mostly confined to. That was confirmed by the by the by the clerk of the trustees. Trustees, the town never said that it would not help. We wanted just to do determine the jurisdiction of need and that we would be help if needed or requested. That request has not come in, but the town still has convened and discusses internally and also met with Ryan McGarry, the assistant New York State

220DEC assistant regional director, also then, too. So, we never declined anything. All we asked for is jurisdiction confirmation. Lastly, I have Friends of Erin. The 64th Grand Marshal of the Montauk Saint Patrick's Day Parade, which is kicking off at 12:00 on March 29th, is Thomas Grenci. In 1982, when Mr. Grenci was 19, he joined the East Hampton Town Police Department as a traffic control officer and over the next five or six years worked as a dispatcher, in the the pool, and in the summer months on the town's police boat. He became a full-time officer in 1988 and graduated that year from Suffolk County Police Academy. 10 years later, he was promoted to detective, then to uniform sergeant sergeant. He became the East Hampton police police commander in 2005 and 2010 was promoted to lieutenant assigned

221to the police headquarters in Wainscott. Following his dad's footsteps, who was a state park ranger, Tom Grenci Jr. served as served the East Hampton Town Police Department from 1982 until retirement as lieutenant in 19 sorry, in 2015. From 1985 until June of 1988 when he was appointed to the East Hampton Town permanent police officer, he worked as a part-time New York State police officer, East Hampton Town dispatcher, and again as a police mechanic. Uh Tommy Mr. Tom Tom I don't call him Tom I call him Tom. Routinely sought to better himself as an officer by attending numerous seminars, FBI Academy for 11 weeks also that happened at the Marine Corps base in Quantico. Tom joined the Montauk Fire Department in 1981 and continues to be an active member. 1983 became lieutenant at company number two,

22284 to 86 served as captain of the company number two, assistant chief in 93, second assistant chief in 93, and then as chief from 96 to 97. That wasn't busy enough, he's a member of the Montauk Lions Club, something American Legion Post, and the Montauk Friends of Erin Aaron becoming an honorary member of the Friends of Aaron in 2014. And now we wish Tom and his family a wonderful experience during the town board wish Tom and his family a wonderful experience during the St. Patrick's Day festivities. Anyone's interested, the Friends of Aaron will be having their lunch on a luncheon on March 27th and on the 28th their annual cocktail party which is a blast. And then again, the parade is March 29th for the 64th annual Montauk 8 Patrick's Day parade. I pretty much

223want to thank Tom for everything. It's great to know him. Served the town really well. I think it's a wonderful honor that the Friends of Erin has bestowed upon him and his family as the 64th annual Grand Marshal of the Montauk St. Patrick's Day parade. Hear, hear. >> have. Mhm. Thank you, David. Okay. Yes, I have a short liaison report today. The Sustainability Committee met and we they are going to focus on sustainable landscaping practices, best practices as we head into spring, particularly focusing on irrigation and education focusing on water use in town. As we know, we've seen numerous drought seasons. Suffolk County Water Authority has has declared droughts in our town and we'd like to educate people on best practices for any type of irrigation or even if it's necessary. We also are going

224to be doing educating the public on the use of pesticides and fertilizers and how they make their way into our drinking water and our surface waters and and impact our own health. So, I look forward to working with the several nonprofits in the town as well as the Sustainability Committee on this education campaign. And also on um uh March 28th, the there will the groups and folks are are exercising their First Amendment rights to have and there will be a No Kings rally here on Town Hall. The organizers have been in direct communication with our police department and again, I want to thank the police department for all the help that they give to our community in keeping us safe and helping people hold safe events. And please sign up for it this this event

225if you plan to attend. It's Saturday March 28th. It kicks off at 11:00 a.m. It's for 2 hours for this particular event. There is an opportunity to park offsite and have a bus take you to Town Hall. And if you do plan on attending, I'm going to ask you now to please respect our adjacent property owners, business owners in the town, and follow the parking directions, and stay on Please stay on Town Hall property. And look forward to good weather on the day. Thank you, Kate. Ian? Yeah, I've got a very brief report. First of all, happy thanks I'm sorry, happy St. Patrick's Day, everybody. Tom wins the spirit award, I think, by by a good margin if you look at his shoes and socks. I think everything's green. Good leprechaun. Good leprechaun. >> Good

226leprechaun award for you, Tom. There's a spring CAC meeting tonight at 6:30 Dash Wolk Hall. The main topic of conversation is going to be the Spring's Library parking lot. I continue to hear feedback on that, which has still been positive, but anybody who's interested in in that design or that project, tonight at 6:30 Dash Wolk Hall. There's some other items on the agenda as well, but I think that that's the main one. And lastly, I just want to say today was was a really important meeting for me. You know, it's one of the reasons I like this job is because I I want to make a difference, and I just want to thank everybody who helped with all of the many topics of affordable housing. Thank you, Kathy. Thanks to the board for for putting

227it on. And you know, thanks to the ADU committee, the community housing advisory board, and to you know, everybody in the public who has had you know, comments throughout. I think it was really special for me to see that all come together. We still have work to do to get things passed and get things done. But I think you know, today represents some very meaningful steps across a wide range of piece of legislation that that can help with that problem. I also just want to recognize again Tina, Mark, Eric, Ed, Brittany, and and town staff for the countless hours they've put. It's very hard to craft legislation that gets to this stage, and so, um, just want to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ian. Uh, I just have two things I want to

228bring up. I have, uh, two resolutions on for Thursday night. I just wanted to go through them with my colleagues. The first is to authorize a human services grant to the Choral Society of the Hamptons. Uh, they approached us uh, a month or two ago, uh, saying that they were going to be, uh, celebrating their 80th anniversary, and they're also going to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the the Declaration of Independence. They're having three performances, and they're expecting, between the three performances, an audience of over 1,300 South Fork residents. The total program cost is, uh, $131,000. So, they have requested a one-time grant in the amount of $5,500. I've talked to you all separately, and the board was supportive. So, that resolution is going to be on for Thursday. And then, the

229these second thing I wanted to bring up is that we had a town board work session back on February 3rd, where we talked about, um, ensuring that the East Hampton Town Airport was safe, but also self-sustaining. That we were looking to increase the airport landing fees and fuel flowage fees, um, because we anticipate issuing additional bonds to cover, uh, improvement projects. Believe I will have the engineering, um, on for that at the April 2nd meeting to to do bond resolutions to fund the engineering for two projects there. But, you know, we want to ensure that again, the airport's self-sustaining, and it's not a burden to the taxpayers. So, we're looking to increase landing fees by 15%, and fuel flowage fee by 2 cents, going from 30 cents per gallon to 32 cents per gallon. And

230this would go into effect May 1st, 2026. Since we And we wanted to allow plenty of time for airport users or community members to reach out if they had any questions, concerns about these uh you know, fee increases, and I haven't heard from a single person. I don't know if anybody else has heard from anyone outreaching. So, um the the schedule was always we'd bring it back to our work session on the 17th of March and adopt the the increases at the March 19th meeting. Again, not going into effect till May 1st um before the start of the season. So, those two resolutions will be on for Thursday. And so, now we have a couple of resolutions that we need to do today. >> like to make a motion to table resolution Sorry. Uh it's

231my my privilege, but I would also like to make a real uh motion to table resolution 2026-468. Second. All in favor. For the 19th, correct? I. I. Yeah, I'm sorry. Let's do this again. Sure. I just made a motion to table resolution 2026-468 till till the 19th of March. Second. Uh discussion. So, the reason we're tabling this is because we're doing the bond resolution and the resolution to authorize the acquisition on the same night. We don't usually split that. >> Um okay. Second. You had a second. All in favor. I. I like to make a motion Uh sorry. Hello. 2026-469. This is a secret determination for bond resolutions for office renovations. Second. All in favor. I. 470 is approve agreement for a Pipinski Farmscape for meadow meadow management of 66 Main Street. This is for

232uh, annually mowing for the meadow management of that area Uh for amount of $1,850 per year to Bibinski Farmscape. Second. All in favor. Aye. 471 is a bond resolution for $50,000 for office renovations at 300 Panigo Place. Uh, the PPU is 15 years. Second. Roll call, please. Council member Flight. Aye. Deputy Supervisor Leif. Aye. Council member Rogers. Aye. Council member Coller-Piemont. Aye. Supervisor Bergonzales. Aye. I have resolution 472, which is the acceptance of a local match contribution to the sustainable planning in coastal communities restoration, revitalization, and risk reduction. Whereas, the town of East Hampton is implementing sustainable planning initiatives under sustainable planning in coastal communities risk reduction, revitalization, and restoration. Whereas, a local match component of the project will be undertaken by the Nature Conservancy, who has completed a community part partnership and consensus building

233project around climate climate adaptation with business owners within the study area, and the cost of this project is being applied toward the local match requirement for said contract. Whereas, TNC will donate will also donate donate professional services. Whereas, the town has received a letter from TNC confirming its contribution toward this project dated March 10th with the total amount of $44,000 including $30,000 in contractual and $14,000 in donated professional services. Um, resolved that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton accepts the March 10th letter from the Nature Conservancy. Second. All in favor. Aye. Resolution 473. This is to amend resolution 2026-60, and this is just to uh, correct the account code. Second. All in favor. >> Aye. I have resolution 2026-474. That's to amend resolution 2026-390 to reflect the collect the correct years for

234the goals invoices. Second. All in favor. Aye. 475 is a budget modification for the police department. We're decreasing full-time salaries in the amount of $57,727 and increasing subcontractor costs in the same amount. >> Second. All in favor. Aye. 476 is to approve change order number one for the East Hampton Town Police Department dispatch room renovations. That was bid EH 25036. Uh the total cost for the project is now $881,808. Second. All in favor. Aye. I have 2026-477. This is a budget modification for the 2025 Sanitation Department. Uh be it resolved that the town increase the revenue budget line for insurance recoveries in the amount of $96,091 and increases the budget line for full-time salaries in the same amount. Second. >> All in favor. Aye. I have resolution 2026-478 is to accept a employee's resignation. Second.

235>> All in favor. Aye. 479 is to authorize remediation methods and/or commencement of a Supreme Court action within the town right-of-way at Lowenstein Court. Second. All in favor. Aye. 480 is the 2025 fiscal year fiscal year-end budget modification for a total of $2,673,317. Second. All in favor. Aye. Do I have a motion to go into exec session? >> Yes, I'd like to make a motion to go into executive session for CPF personnel and advice of counsel. Second. All in favor. Aye.