Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board considers ADU code changes, debate over owner‑occupancy and $1M ADU construction loan program
Summary
Planning staff summarized public hearing feedback on ADU code changes (removing owner‑occupancy requirement and reducing minimum lot size to 15,000 sq ft). The board also reviewed a proposed $1M town ADU construction loan program (10 interest‑free $100,000 loans) and discussed income caps, residency requirements and 10‑year affordability controls.
The town board reviewed two related ADU topics: a set of proposed code amendments to broaden ADU eligibility and a recommendation to create a town ADU construction assistance program.
Planning Director Eric Chance summarized public hearing comments on March 5: two members of the public spoke (one supportive, one opposed). Public concerns centered on removing an owner‑occupancy requirement (risk of investor/LLC ownership and maintenance problems), reducing the minimum lot area to 15,000 sq ft, caps per school district/townwide (unchanged in the draft), and the need to require local property managers where the owner does not reside locally. Planning staff recommended retaining the proposed changes (owner‑occupancy removal; 15,000 ft² minimum) while building program safeguards (property manager, permit and reporting) and leaving funding sources to program rules.
Separately, Housing Director Mark Morgan Perez proposed an ADU construction assistance program: interest‑free, secured loans of $100,000 each, with a proposed initial allocation from the Community Housing Fund of $1,000,000 (10 loans). Key conditions presented: tenant income and rent limits, year‑round leases, a minimum 10‑year requirement that the ADU remain rented under program rules, annual reporting to the Office of Housing and Community Development, and a lien securing the loan. Board members discussed whether to limit program eligibility to full‑time residents, whether to include an applicant household income cap, and how best to prevent abuse by investors. Several members urged that the Office of Housing prioritize full‑time residents and consider an income cap or preference; staff agreed to refine eligibility and contract language before a final program launch.
The board took no final vote on the ADU code amendments or the CHF loan proposal at the work session; staff will return with clarified income/residency rules and legal checks about whether CHF funds can require longer affordability terms.
