Residents press town board on transparency, traffic and tenant protections in proposed employer‑sponsored housing code change

The East Hampton Town Board heard an extended public hearing July 16 on a proposed change to the town zoning code that would create a new definition and special permit standards for rent‑restricted, employer‑sponsored housing.

Members of the public repeatedly urged the board to demand greater transparency and stronger tenant protections before adopting the change. "The developers have refused to disclose the names of their investors," public commenter Lorraine Bonaventura told the board, saying that lack of disclosure is a "significant red flag" when the proposal would change town code to benefit a for‑profit entity. She also warned the proposal could permit higher occupancies and said local traffic and parking near 350 Pantago Road are already hazardous and would be exacerbated by 47 new units.

Samuel (Sam) Kramer, who said he watched the May 19 work session and reviewed the proposed legislation, called for clearer limits on employer control of housing management and suggested an ombudsman or similar tenant advocate: "The issue is whether an employee might be afraid to complain to OSHA about a dangerous work environment or might not file a complaint with the EEOC or the attorney general about a discriminatory work practice." Kramer said even a third‑party property manager may not be enough if the employer ultimately owns the housing.

Several other speakers echoed concerns about investor secrecy and developer experience. Mark Shylen, a retired New York City firefighter, said the proposal "is an attempt to make money" and urged the board to follow the money. Property manager Alon Rosenthal told the board that regulated affordable housing typically operates as rental housing, and warned that selling units as condominiums to private owners would undermine rent‑restricted practice.

Kirby Marcantonio, who identified himself as the project's lead proponent, defended the approach and said the board was being asked only to approve a zoning framework, not to approve a project tonight. Marcantonio said he assembled a single local investor who prefers privacy for health reasons and described planned protections through state condominium offering plans and the town's planning review and traffic study process. "Nothing is being decided tonight about this project except for the fact that the town of East Hampton needs a new niche for affordable housing in which employers can buy units to house employees," Marcantonio said, adding that the project would still be subject to the planning process and a formal traffic study.

Speakers pressed multiple technical and legal questions: Bonaventura questioned a letter that cited Education Law Section 17092 and reported the East Hampton School District concluded it could not legally use taxpayer funds to purchase such units; Kramer flagged a provision in the draft (paragraph 7.c.vi) that uses vague language about "persons or class of persons" and recommended substituting precise terms such as "employee tenants." Several speakers warned of incremental density increases over time and potential pressure on the planning department to manage compliance.

After the scheduled commenters concluded, the board closed the public hearing. The board did not take final legislative action on the local law at the July 16 meeting; Marcantonio and multiple public speakers said the code change will proceed through planning review, traffic study and other procedural steps if the board advances the local law.

The hearing underscores two persistent tensions in local housing policy: how to expand housing for essential workers while limiting potential conflicts of interest when employers or developers retain ownership, and how to ensure transparency around investors and projected impacts on traffic and local services. The town board scheduled no immediate vote on project approvals — any permit or subdivision approvals will occur later in the planning process.