Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses, then advances urban renewal change reducing scenic easement on parcel; at least one member calls it a bad precedent
Summary
The Town Board considered and advanced Res. 1488 to modify urban renewal Map E‑7, reducing a required scenic easement on parcel 65 from 25 ft to 11 ft; town engineers and the planning board recommended the change, while at least one board member and public commenters warned it sets a poor precedent.
East Hampton
During its Dec. 5 meeting the East Hampton Town Board considered a package of consent resolutions and debated a notable change to the town dministrative urban renewal plan. Resolution 1488 proposed modifying Urban Renewal Map E‑7 to reduce the required scenic easement along Middle Highway for parcel 65 from 25 feet to 11 feet.
According to the transcript, the town—onsulting engineer reviewed the proposal and recommended the reduction as more conforming with existing site conditions; the planning board signaled no objection. The board discussed environmental review (the action was characterized as an unlisted action and a negative declaration was adopted per the town—ode review referenced in the hearing notice).
At least one board member opposed the reduction during discussion, arguing it would set a troubling precedent. "I don't support reducing an already reduced Scenic easement on this property; I think it's a very bad precedent that the town board can be setting," the member said, warning the change could increase allowable gross floor area and invite similar requests elsewhere.
Caller David Buddha had earlier questioned broader agenda items, including the town ecision to retain a mediator at $400 per hour for urban renewal mediations and asked whether the town had solicited competing proposals. "A $400 per hour rate that is paid by the town ... is exorbitant and perhaps unnecessary," the caller said; the board noted the caller's concerns would be part of the record.
The transcript shows multiple resolutions were read, discussed and moved forward in the consent portion of the agenda (bids, contract extensions, donations, grant public‑hearing notices and appointments). The urban renewal amendment drew the most pointed on‑record opposition from a board member and public commenters who recommended alternatives to reducing the easement.
What happens next: The change to the urban renewal map and any related approvals will be recorded in the board's adopted resolutions and the public record; the transcript shows the board adopted a negative declaration and moved forward with the modification during the Resolutions section.
