Accessory dwelling units, or A.D.U.s, have been regarded as a relatively unobtrusive way to provide affordable housing in East Hampton Town and encouraged, through legislative incentives, by the town board. Looking to make constructing such a unit even easier, the town’s A.D.U. committee made five recommendations to the board at Tuesday’s meeting, suggesting removing some zoning restrictions and changing eligibility requirements.
“This is one of the quickest ways we can increase the footprint of housing in the town,” Councilman Tom Flight said.
Joanne Pilgrim, a community development program analyst in the town’s Housing Department, told the board that at present 43 properties in the town have A.D.U.s, and 20 more are in the permitting process. The board had previously set a cap of 40 per school district; no district is close to that limit.
Three of the recommendations were supported Tuesday, while two others needed more work.
It was clear early on that the committee’s recommendation to change the minimum lot area requirement for attached A.D.U.s from 20,000 to 10,000 square feet would prove problematic.
David Buda, a Springs resident, called it “totally outrageous” and “poorly thought out.”
“You certainly cannot give A.D.U.s the exclusion from ordinary and regular zoning laws that establish a maximum amount of gross floor area within a zoning area based on the size of a lot,” he said.
“It’s confounding that our A.D.U. program hasn’t gotten more uptake,” Jaine Mehring of Amagansett said, but she agreed with Mr. Buda.
“Not counting attached A.D.U. square feet to G.F.A. potentially creates a serious problem when A.D.U.s are ultimately relinquished, such as on change of ownership,” she said. “It’s one thing to take a kitchen and plumbing out of a 600-foot detached A.D.U. and reverting it back to a conforming accessory structure. It’s quite another thing to start demolishing parts of a house or allowing nonconforming G.F.A. to continue.”
Mr. Flight seemed put off. “In our last G.F.A. discussion, with references we made to A.D.U.s during the work session stating how A.D.U.s will not count towards G.F.A., I think having passed that legislation with that in mind, were we to go back on that, would have very different implications for that legislation.”
Ms. Pilgrim explained the thinking behind the recommendation: The majority of lots in the town are currently ineligible for the program, and owners of smaller lots would benefit most from rent collected from an A.D.U.
Councilwoman Cate Rogers asked Ms. Pilgrim how many of the existing A.D.U.s were in each hamlet, and each school district. When she asked for the breakdown by lot size, Councilman Flight protested.
“I think when you’re talking about being capped at 40 units per hamlet, perhaps we’re going into a level of detail that we’re delaying delivering this housing,” he said.
“So, I shouldn’t have questions?” Councilwoman Rogers countered. “I don’t understand the justification for a 50-percent reduction in required lot size. It’s not that I’m against it, I just don’t understand the basis for it.”
“It’s good information to have but I think we run, especially with the housing crisis, the issue of analysis paralysis here,” Mr. Flight answered.
“I don’t think I have a reputation for analysis paralysis, but we have to make our decisions based on some type of analysis,” said Councilwoman Rogers. “I was asked to produce a lot of information when we were changing zoning codes.” (Councilman Flight abstained from the March 20 vote to decrease the maximum G.F.A. of a house to 7 percent plus 1,500 square feet of its lot area, legislation strongly supported by Councilwoman Rogers.)
Ms. Pilgrim offered that many of the recent A.D.U. grants “are just squeaking by to meet the minimum lot size. They’re very close to half-acre.” That information created a chance for compromise.
“That’s really important to know,” Councilwoman Rogers said, adding that perhaps a reduction to 15,000 would be enough change “to capture” those applications.
Another recommendation, to increase the number of cars allowed on a lot with an A.D.U. from four to six, was questioned. The board seemed comfortable with six cars on a 20,000-square-foot lot. If the lot size were reduced, however, board members thought introducing a sliding scale for the number of cars made more sense than allowing six across the board.
“You put six cars on a 10,000-square-foot property, I mean that changes the complexion of the neighborhood,” Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said. “I mean I just think that that’s too intense from my perspective.”
“I would say that’s what low-income households out here look like,” said Councilman Flight. “We might not want to see it, but we need it.”
It was also not clear what sort of tax implication a homeowner could expect from receiving a town grant from the community housing fund to build an A.D.U.
The board was unanimously in favor of allowing second-home owners to build A.D.U.s and of new tenancy rules that would require an A.D.U. to be the “sole legal residence,” as well as for the A.D.U. occupant to either be a family member of the owner of the principal residence or someone who lives or works in the town.
While the A.D.U. committee hoped the amendments could get to a public hearing by June, it seemed the pie would need more time to bake.
“We just need to have you folks come back with a little bit more data,” Supervisor Burke-Gonzalez said. “We need to fine-tune where the line is drawn, as far as the size of the lot area, and then wherever that line is drawn will determine how a sliding scale might work for small lots and the number of allowable cars.”
