Town holds continued hearings on proposed ADU rules after residents raise affordability and eligibility concerns

The Town of Greenberg on Feb. 12 continued a public hearing on a proposed local law to allow accessory dwelling units, with town officials and residents debating who would qualify and whether ADUs would advance affordable housing goals.

Garrett Duquesne, commissioner of the Department of Community Development and Conservation, reviewed the draft zoning text amendment and a single clarifying edit posted on the town website that limits certain floor‑area‑ratio calculations. Duquesne said special permits for ADUs would be processed by the planning board and that the town could set an annual cap on applications by resolution if the board chose to do so. “The local law doesn’t specify the number of what that cap would be,” Duquesne said, explaining the cap is intended as a protective measure and suggesting a modest illustrative cap of 10 per year to avoid large neighborhood changes.

Residents at the hearing sought clarity on eligibility and on whether the units would help address affordable‑housing needs. Dr. Carol Allen of Beechwood Road asked what percentage of residential lots are 10,000 square feet or larger; Duquesne said that, by land‑area zoning, roughly 64% of town land is in R10 or higher districts but said he did not have a parcel‑by‑parcel count on hand. He also reported that, in a small outreach sample, about 10 of 16 respondents ("over 60%" of that group) would meet the 10,000‑square‑foot minimum the draft includes.

Former Town Clerk Judith Beville and other speakers pushed the board on affordability, asking whether the proposed law would require ADUs to be rented at affordable rates. Board members and the town attorney responded that the draft local law does not set rental rates and that rental terms are a private agreement between homeowner and tenant. Duquesne and others noted potential state incentive programs and local measures (waiving permit fees or partnering with nonprofit intermediaries) that could lower construction costs.

Hal Sammis objected to the idea of a numerical cap on applications, calling it “like a lottery” and arguing that property owners who meet requirements should be able to pursue ADUs. Board members said the cap option was included to give residents comfort about neighborhood scale, and some urged the board to pair any adoption with an annual review to report on impacts and recommend adjustments.

Supervisor Feiner moved to keep the hearing open for further input and to continue it to Feb. 26; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The board requested follow‑up on implementation, including a future report on administrative processing and options the board could take (such as an annual cap, permit fee waivers, or referral to state programs).