Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates new 'employer‑sponsored' housing proposal and definition changes for affordable units
Summary
Staff presented two related zoning proposals: a clarification to the 'affordable housing unit' definition and a new rent‑restricted employer‑sponsored housing use that would allow developer-built units sold to employers with rent caps and tenant protections. Board members discussed income caps, site size minimums and competition with traditional affordable housing.
The East Hampton Planning Board on March 25 reviewed proposed zoning changes that would (1) clarify the town’s definition of an "affordable housing unit" so that, where a unit is both initially sold and later rented, both the maximum initial sales price and the rent cap apply; and (2) add a new use — "rent‑restricted employer‑sponsored housing" — allowing special‑permit, multiunit developments that sell units (often condominiumized) to employers while imposing rent caps and tenant protections.
Planning staff described the employer‑sponsored model as a tool to bring private capital into housing that serves workers. The draft code would require these developments to meet dimensional standards similar to existing affordable‑housing developments, to cap tenant income and rent to meet moderate‑income levels, and to include third‑party management and legal instruments ensuring ongoing affordability. Staff proposed limiting where the new use can be sited — properties in both the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) and Limited Business Overlay (LBO) districts — to avoid direct competition with traditional, subsidy‑backed affordable developments.
Board members expressed support for testing the model while raising a set of questions and concerns. Some members said the proposed income cap (130% of area median income in the draft) may be too low to retain certain year‑round professionals and suggested the town consider a higher threshold (for example 150–160% AMI) or carve‑outs for key occupations. Others worried that allowing private developers to sell units at market rates to employers (even if rents are then restricted) could give employer‑sponsored projects a market advantage over traditional affordable housing and thereby divert sites that would otherwise be used for permanently affordable, below‑market developments.
Several members recommended reconsidering the minimum lot size (the draft used the affordable‑housing minimum, roughly three acres) and asked whether smaller parcels closer to downtown employment centers should be eligible. Staff noted the draft provides tools — third‑party management, tenant protections, and the town’s office of housing rulemaking authority — intended to address governance and long‑term affordability concerns.
The board directed staff to draft formal comments to the town board reflecting these points and to return the draft language for further review.
