Some clarity is coming to the process behind the review of building permits in East Hampton Town, with legislation on the table that would give the Building Department 90 days to issue a building permit after receipt of a complete application that includes approvals by any outside agencies.
The current limit is 15 days, a time frame that had been unworkable for years. In fact, building permit wait times have stretched to nine months in some instances. Under proposed changes that will be the subject of a public hearing on Oct. 1, “If within 90 days of the submission of an application no permit is issued, the application shall be deemed denied and the applicant may apply to the zoning board of appeals for review or to the Supreme Court of the State of New York to compel such review,” reads the new legislation. “In no event will the application be deemed approved if not issued within 90 days of complete application.”
“I have taken everybody’s comments here, concerns in the field, and tried to thread a needle, and I hope I have done so,” Jake Turner, the town attorney, told the town board.
“For a long time I don’t think people thought about this section of the code,” said Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte. “They just want the process to run.”
“I felt very strongly that we need a time limit,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said. “So, at some point somebody can move on and even though this is not an automatic issuance of the permit, which I understand the risk of that, at least they have their denial and they say, ‘Okay, we can take the next step and keep the process moving.’ “
“But I hope it never comes to that,” he continued. “I trust that the Building Department wants to have the timeline shorter.”
The proposed change comes after the town was sued in June for not issuing a building permit to Joseph Macari and Kim Staller six months after their application was received. Other lawsuits followed, and the town was compelled to issue permits. The town appealed the Macari lawsuit but there has been no resolution to that appeal.
The board was largely supportive. If there was a critical voice, it came from Councilman Tom Flight, who wondered if 90 days was excessive, given the Building Department’s goal of issuing permits within six to eight weeks.
“There were concerns about going beyond the 15, let alone going to the six to eight weeks. This just seems much longer. If there’s a complicated application in place with all the relevant approvals from other authorities, why the need for the 90-day window? Why not keep it to that six-to-eight-week guideline we’ve given?”
“Because people are human,” said Mr. Turner.
“For myself on the 90 days, I think it’s a reasonable time frame because six to eight weeks is the ultimate goal, but who knows if there’s changes in staffing,” said Councilman David Lys. “Six to eight is the goal, but we have to keep things reasonable. I think 90 days is reasonable; 15 days was not reasonable.”
“The real goal behind all of this is just to make sure that everything’s working efficiently and that the time is as little as possible, while still protecting health and safety,” said Mr. Calder-Piedmonte.
Mr. Turner also discussed updates to how the town will issue certificates of occupancy going forward.
“We’re no longer calling it an updated certificate of occupancy,” he said. “It is better to issue what is called a certificate of compliance. The certificate of compliance will merely indicate that any and all structures on the subject property have all necessary certificates of occupancy. Meaning we are not creating a new C.O., instead we’re recognizing everything on the property is properly legal and does not need any further permits or C.O.s.”
Third-party inspections will still be allowed if a homeowner is in a rush.
Mr. Flight wondered if third-party inspections would be adequate in the eyes of a bank, for a closing.
“As a real estate attorney, I would be psyched to have this if I were representing a purchaser, because then I would know my client is safe and everything on the property is good to go,” said Mr. Turner. “I can’t speak for a title company though,” he admitted.
Councilwoman Cate Rogers pointed out that a certificate of compliance would never be issued by the town if violations were found.
If the proposed changes are passed following the Oct. 1 hearing, they would go into effect on Jan. 1.
