Greenburgh planner presents ADU draft with rec fee, caps and monitoring plan

Town planner Garrett presented an updated draft local law on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) at the Greenburgh work session and invited board feedback on fees, caps and design standards intended to broaden housing choices while managing parking and neighborhood character. He said the draft incorporates planning‑board suggestions and includes a new recreation escrow fee.

Why it matters: ADU rules affect homeowners, housing supply and town services (parking, recreation and infrastructure). The board focused on balancing incentives for homeowners (including seniors who may need rental income) with protections for neighbors and town infrastructure.

Garrett (speaker 10) outlined the key changes in the circulated packet: a recreation escrow fee tied to the town’s existing rate for new single‑family homes ($8,640) with half that amount for rentals ($4,320); the proposal would match the rental fee for an ADU (Garrett described a one‑time rec fee of $4,320 for an ADU). He also said the town board could place an annual cap on applications by resolution and recommended a cap lower than the draft’s 25 units, suggesting 10 as a conservative starting point.

Board members probed affordability and enforceability. Several members said fees might discourage ADU creation and asked whether the town could require long‑term affordability; Garrett said the draft law does not include rent limits or income eligibility but the town could develop affordability options later and that other local code sections already allow fee waivers or expedited review when affordability commitments are made. "If you want that, I probably will come back to this table at a later date with some options on that," Garrett told the board.

Garrett also described rules for new subdivisions and planned unit developments: the planning board recommended allowing ADUs as part of new single‑family subdivisions, but Garrett proposed a 20% cap (for example, two ADUs in a 10‑lot subdivision) and an overall limit (no development shall have more than 20 ADUs) so ADU approvals would not overwhelm infrastructure or change neighborhood scale without review. He emphasized that developers would need to show adequate water, sewer and parking for proposed ADUs and that applications would be routed to building and traffic review for comment.

Members raised design, safety and parking concerns—egress requirements for basement conversions, off‑street parking expectations and whether garage conversions would remove parking capacity—and asked for clearer language on maximum ADU gross floor area and height. Garrett agreed to revise ambiguous text and said he would post the updated law and an FAQ for public comment next week, and to provide a one‑year report to the board after adoption so the town can assess impacts and consider repeal or amendments if necessary.

What’s next: Garrett will circulate a revised draft incorporating tonight’s clarifications (parking standards, floor‑area language and monitoring/report language), post materials online and return with a plan for public outreach and a recommended resolution language for caps and monitoring.