Greenburgh hearing draws residents on both sides of proposed ADU law

Supervisor Feiner opened a packed June 25 public hearing in Greenburgh on a proposed local law to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and asked Garrett Duquesne, the town’s commissioner of community development and conservation, to summarize the draft.

Duquesne told the board the law would permit ADUs under a special‑permit process and include a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for ADUs within or attached to a principal house and 20,000 square feet for detached ADUs. Proposed size limits range from roughly 400 to 800 square feet, with an allowance in some cases up to about 30 percent of the principal dwelling’s gross floor area. The draft requires owner occupancy, bars short‑term rentals by requiring at least a one‑year lease, and allows the town board to set an annual cap on permits; the draft also includes a one‑year sunset clause so the board can review outcomes after an initial pilot period. Duquesne said a recreation impact fee of $4,320 is proposed for ADUs approved by special permit and that applications approved during the pilot would be grandfathered.

Why it matters: ADUs are commonly used by towns to add housing options for seniors and young families. The proposed minimum lot sizes and other safeguards in Greenburgh’s draft set the terms under which that housing would be expanded — and those terms were the focus of most public comment.

Residents split along predictable lines. Marcia Keyes, a longtime Hartsdale resident, urged the board to remove the 10,000‑square‑foot threshold, saying it would exclude many seniors who want to “age in place” and middle‑income homeowners who cannot afford large conversions. “Give us the choice,” Keyes said, arguing the lot‑size floor was “regressive” and unfair. Leslie Davis pressed officials to clarify whether proposed recreation or open‑space fees would apply to small in‑home ADUs and asked that the planning board be able to consider fee waivers where the unit is used by family members.

Several speakers from the town’s housing committee and planning community urged more permissive rules. Former planning‑board chair Walter Simon said the 10,000‑sq‑ft limit would block homeowners on 5,000‑sq‑ft lots who could safely add ADUs and noted prior research estimating only six to eight actual applications per year in comparable communities. Others, including representatives of civic associations, raised concerns that conversions are costly, may increase property taxes and school enrollments, and could alter neighborhood character if not tightly managed.

Opponents highlighted parking and public‑safety risks on narrow streets and asked for clearer enforcement language. Paul Fiore, a resident of Whitewood Road, warned that on two‑lane streets additional curb parking could impede emergency vehicles and trash collection. Several speakers urged numeric caps or geographic limits — for example, limiting how many ADUs could be approved on a single street — during the pilot year.

Board response and next steps: Members acknowledged the many points raised and debated the balance between an accommodating ADU policy and safeguards for neighborhood character. Several board members said they favored a less restrictive approach than the current draft; others defended the pilot’s safeguards, arguing parking, impervious‑surface rules and a sunset clause provide needed protections. The board voted to adjourn the hearing and continue it on July 9 so staff can provide additional clarifications and revised draft language.

What was not decided: There was no vote on the local law. Key unresolved issues for the next hearing include whether the minimum lot size should be lowered (several board members suggested considering 7,500 or 5,000 sq ft in some contexts), how the recreation fee would be applied on in‑home versus detached ADUs, and the mechanics of grandfathering and enforcement during and after the pilot period.

The hearing will reconvene on July 9; town staff said they will circulate written clarifications about fee application, the family‑friendly exemption, the definition of ADU size limits, and grandfathering rules ahead of the next session.