The East Hampton Town Board’s Nov. 20 public hearing on proposed amendments to the town code pertaining to accessory dwelling units, or A.D.U.s, that are aimed at spurring their construction was the subject of an after-hearing discussion on Tuesday to consider some of the public comment offered at the hearing and address a few scrivener’s errors in the draft legislation.
The town board has moved to allow construction of up to 40 A.D.U.s per school district as one avenue to alleviating a critical shortage of affordable housing, though to date construction of such dwellings is far short of that limit. The board has sought to modify the requirements under which A.D.U.s can be built in order to broaden the pool of eligible properties and encourage property owners to build them.
One proposed amendment would reduce the size of a lot on which an A.D.U. may be constructed from the present 20,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. Another would eliminate the requirement that someone constructing an A.D.U. be the property’s primary resident.
The latter proposal drew pushback at the Nov. 20 hearing, with one resident, David Buda of Springs, telling the board that the plan would force two-family housing into single-family residential zones, thereby changing the character of the town. Owners of properties with A.D.U.s should be town residents, he said, with their primary residences on site, rather than allowing the town’s rental registry program to be used by any owner of a property that may also participate in the A.D.U. program.
Prior to Tuesday’s discussion, Mr. Buda reiterated that criticism, telling the board that “to allow an owner of a property who builds an A.D.U., whether it be attached or detached, if you allow them to also rent and participate in the rental registry, that property . . . can then be rented for 365 days of the year, and that is a tremendously different concept” than the property owner’s maintaining it as principal residence.
Also at the Nov. 20 hearing, Jaine Mehring of Amagansett suggested that both attached and detached A.D.U.s be permitted on lots of 15,000 square feet or greater, rather than requiring a minimum of 20,000 square feet for a detached A.D.U. On Tuesday, Councilman Tom Flight said that “the one key piece” of feedback from the public was “the allowance of detached A.D.U.s in that 15,000 square foot cap,” which he said he supports.
Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte and Councilwoman Cate Rogers agreed. “It makes it easier to regulate and to ensure compliance if you don’t have two different standards that may get confusing for people, whether it’s inside or outside,” Ms. Rogers said. “I don’t think that makes a substantive difference.”
Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez suggested that the cap of 40 A.D.U.s per school district might instead be “based on population or number of residential lots in that community,” to which Mr. Flight agreed.
Brittany Toledano, a deputy town attorney, told the board that the proposed legislation reflects corrections to the scrivener’s errors, which were minor numerical errors unrelated to the intent of the legislation.
Because the proposed legislation has been modified, it will be subject to another public hearing, which is to be noticed this month.
With Reporting by
