Petition seeks more accessory Apartments

05/05/2011 7:02 AM |

Since Riverhead Town voted to allow accessory apartments in residential zones in early 2008, there haven’t been too many takers. (At least not on the books.)

But there are a lot of people who favor allowing apartments even in areas where they aren’t currently permitted, it seems.

About 78 residents have signed a petition in favor of allowing accessory apartments in the Industrial C zone, where residential uses are currently prohibited.

The Town Board held a public hearing two weeks ago on a proposal to allow accessory apartments in five commercial zoning categories where some residential use is currently permitted: Hamlet Residential, Riverfront Corridor, Commercial/Residential Campus, Rural Corridor and Hamlet Center.

But the only person who spoke at that hearing was an attorney representing an elderly Calverton couple who purchased a house with an upstairs apartment in the Industrial C zone on Edwards Avenue, which they said is permitted now because it existed before zoning. The petition only asks only that accessory apartments be allowed in similar residences, which are non-conforming uses in the Industrial C district that existed before zoning.

Town building department head Leroy Barnes said the town has granted only about 23 accessory apartments permits since the law was passed in 2008. At that time, the town hoped that allowing legal accessory apartments would increase the available stock of affordable housing, allow seniors to rent part of their homes and not have to move and encourage people with illegal apartments to legalize them.

Comments

comments

44 Comment

  • I love how comments are closed on the Sound Avenue unlicensed driver accident.

    Lets just keep burying our heads in the sand in the name of political correctness.

    Repeat after me: “There is no epidemic of unlicensed, uninsured, and often drunk drivers on the east end.”

  • “I feel that it is not fair to leave out the few good members that do not fall into one of your 3 categories listed above.”

    Keyword: FEW

  • The hater sounds to me like the realist.

    By the way, school boards DO treat $20,000 like it’s 20 cents, because it sees the taxpayer as a sugar daddy, and tax money as a magically replenishable MATTRESS, from which we can pull money.

  • You left out the fourth category….that of a board member who takes pride in his actions and focuses his time and energy on improving the district for those children who count on a quality education.

    Lets not forget that every school board trustee is a taxpayer of the district he/she represents. $20,000 is $20,000…and a board member feels it the same as everyone else in his share of the tax budren.

    Rich Pluschau

  • I’m away on vacation and won’t be receiving e-mails until Thursday morning, April 7.
    If you have an urgent concern please contact News-Review editor Michael White at mwhite@timesreview.com.
    Otherwise, I look forward to getting back to you when I return.

    Thanks,
    Grant Parpan
    Web Editor
    Times/Review newspapers

  • Rich and RP mom,

    I certainly don’t believe ALL members fit into these categories. I know plenty who do not.
    Unfortunately, there are still many who do, and I think there are many board members who do not fit into these categories that would agree with me on that.

    — Grant