Residents Cry Out Against Proposed New Rental Permit

SOUTHOLD, NY — A group of residents turned out Tuesday night to voice strong opposition to a proposed new rental permit in the Town of Southold.

A public hearing was held at Town Hall on the proposed legislation to create a rental permit; the intent of the code would be to "preserve the aesthetic integrity of our residential neighborhoods, prevent neighborhood blight, protect residential property values, encourage residential property maintenance and enhance the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods," the legislation reads.

In addition, the proposed legislation states that there "exists in the Town of Southold serious conditions arising from non-owner occupied dwelling units in one, two and three family and multiple dwellings that are substandard or in violation of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Plumbing code," as well as other codes and ordinances of the town.

The goal, said Southold Town Councilwoman Jill Doherty, is to be proactive rather than reactive in addressing safety issues.

According to the proposed legislation, many of the units are substandard in size, overcrowded and dangerous, posing "hazards to life, limb and property of residents of the town and others."

In addition, the legislations states that the dwellings create blight, parking issues, and overburden municipal services.

The code lists requirements that would need to be adhered to, including keeping properties in good repair, free of vermin and infestation, with adequate sanitary facilities.

In addition, one point that had residents seeing red was the section of the code which said that no bedroom or sleeping quarters should have interior key locks or dead bolts, and no bedroom shall constitute the only means of access to other bedrooms or habitable spaces. In addition, carbon monoxide alarms and smoke detectors would be required.

Rental permit fees would be set by town board resolution, and although, if the board voted to green light the legislation, it would go into effect immediately, violations would not be issued until Aug. 1, 2019.

Anne Murray of the East Marion Civic Association was the lone speaker to speak positively about the proposed new permit. "I want to thank the town board for finally putting this forward. It's been a long time," she said.

Murray also referred to a crackdown in East Hampton this week that uncovered 32 people living in a single family home, paying $100 to $150 week each, with 18 found sleeping on a basement floor near a gasoline generator and storage tank.

"I think we all know we have the same problem in this town," Murray said.

Nicholas Deegan of Mattituck disagreed. "As a homeowner in Mattituck for 30 years, I see no need for this intrusion of government," he said.

Attorney Pat Moore pointed out that East Hampton Town has a rental permit law, and, based on the crackdown this week, that law "does not prevent overcrowding or non-compliance."

Moore referred to a meeting held by Southold Voice on Saturday where many spoke out against the proposed rental permit. "I don't believe that it's necessary. It's intrusive and it is, in my opinion, going to impact affordable housing," Moore said. With very few affordable housing options for renters currently, those who are not charging high rents, "won't want to go through this procedure. They are not getting a lot of money."

Moore added that there is already code in place to address overcrowding and other quality of life issues. "If you just enforce the code you have, it will do the trick," she said.

As for parking requirements, which would allow one registered motor vehicle for each legally designated bedroom as well as one additional registered motor vehicle, Moore pointed out that people have kids and other family members with cars.

"We don't allow boarding houses in this town, so enforce the zoning code," she said. She added that the legislation requires residences to meet all local, county and state laws.

"If you are dead set on adopting this then at least put in a graph that says if you have a certificate of occupancy you have the presumption that you've met all codes," she said. Moore also said telling residents they cannot have interior key or deadbolt locks is unrealistic since some property owners might lock a room for personal storage.

And, as for the section that said there can be no interior bedroom access through another room, Moore pointed out that many older homes are designed with nurseries and no corridors.

"Overall, I don't think we need this. It's just burdensome," she said.

Paul Loeb, a real estate salesperson from Greenport, said he was speaking as the homeowner of a Victorian that had been converted into four units in the 1950s. Of the legislation, he said he believes getting "into the minutiae" and discussing issues such as peeling paint can become problematic. Not everyone, he said, can afford thousands to get a house painted. "It can be a burden," he said, one that would be borne only by those with rental properties.

He also said allowing one vehicle per bedroom is problematic. "Who's supposed to go without a car and walk everywhere?" he asked. "What am I supposed to say, 'If you drive, you can't live here?' It's not fair."

And, Loeb said, if he does rent to someone, who then gets a girlfriend, he can be fined $500 per week until the car issue is addressed. "Tenants don't always follow rules and regulations," he said. "We have a problem with affordable housing and this is not helping it."

Loeb also asked the board to move the date when violations would be issued until Jan. 2020 so that the violations were not coming at the height of the busy summer rental season. He also suggested making the permit voluntary for the first two to three years.

John Lademann of Cutchogue said he's not in favor of the permit; surveys, he said, are expensive. "I've been paying taxes on my property since 1945. It's ridiculous."

Salem Katsh of Orient said issues such as peeling paint are self-policed by neighbors. "A lot of us are good Republicans and look for private remedies rather than over-regulation," he said.

He also asked why the town wasn't enforcing the code it already had. And, he asked, if the town has specific findings, where were the reports or studies to substantiate those findings. "We've had enough anecdotal evidence," he said. "We have no report, no findings, no determinations of serious conditions. You guys work for us, right? Where are the facts? Everyone can come up with an anecdote."

Doherty responded: "There doesn't have to be a study for everything we pass up here. My concern is the safety of our community. We don't have to wait for something serious to happen before we try to keep our residents safe. We've had a couple of fires," she said. "I don't want to see our firefighters hurt because someone is trying to make a living space," with walls where they shouldn't be. "This is not a reactionary code. This is a preventative code," Doherty said.

Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell said reports from volunteer firefighters, those closest to the issues, are compelling. "Anecdotal works just fine in a small town," he said. "You don't need a report. . . that is specious."

"You guys are over-regulating," Katsh said.

Russell said while he has concerns over the law, Katsh had disparaged firefighters who have firsthand knowledge in the field. "They are dealing with real challenges in the field and we have to be responsible and represent all," he said.

Katsh said while he is in favor of permits, "minute regulations" such as the requirement that doors have no bolts, are what "Republicans like us don't want. There are less restrictive alternatives. That's an important concept in law."

Real estate agent Tom McCarthy said he agreed "wholeheartedly. We are winding up with a donkey," he said. McCarthy questioned the parking and occupancy requirement and said, while he realized the intent was to preserve life and safety, "You are taking our rights away with every paragraph in this code and I am wholeheartedly against it."

He asked if friends could use a rental home; Doherty said the owner would be able to let a friend use the house. The permit is just for rentals.

"The language is really poor," McCarthy said. "I think the whole thing should be thrown out and you should start again. This is a solution looking for a problem."

In an email after the meeting, McCarthy added: "It is my firm belief that in a good faith effort by the town board to promote the safety of our residents, the presently proposed legislation has gone entirely too far. I commend the board for its open process, listening to the numerous concerned constituents, who independently brought forth many shortcomings of the law. The board subsequently made changes in an attempt to address those concerns. Unfortunately, we are left with an unworkable, disjointed proposal that creates more problems than it solves. We need to get back to basics by defining the problem and creating the simplest tool possible — if any is necessary at all — to enforce the existing laws already on the books. This is clearly a case of 'less is more.'"

And, he said, "Let's not give birth to yet another layer of bureaucracy that incrementally steals our private property rights and penalizes law abiding members of our community in the process."

Russell asked if McCarthy would support a rental code if it were drafted differently; McCarthy said one that was "watered down and not punitive."

Jack Reardon, who owns a rental in Laurel, said the proposed legislation was "tremendously overbearing. No one wants government to regulate their bedroom."

Marie Beninati, a real estate agent in Southold, said she did not support the permit. "It's overbearing. It's intrusive. It's not what you want — and it's certainly not what we want." She added that the code could mean that people living in rentals could lose their homes. "There will be major upheaval if we don't do this the right way."

And, Beninati said, fires would not have been prevented with rental permits.

Another man added, "I urge the town board not to kill a gnat with a hammer."

Russell said challenges exist, such as homes that may have had a certificate of occupancy but undergone changes over the years and been split up into different units, a problem for firefighters in an emergency.

Also, he said, absentee landlords are an issue. "I recognize it's difficult to regulate every blade of grass but what about people offering houses for rent, collecting a check, and not putting a penny into the site?" Russell asked.

The supervisor said there is currently no way to determine how many people are living in a home. "You can't just knock on doors and let yourself in." Parking, he said, is an issue.

And, he added, he's also concerned about displacement of tenants in the event of a crisis, which is what happened after a devastating fire in Peconic where 27 were found living in a overcrowded house.

The town board closed the hearing and said it would take action, up or down, at its next board meeting in Southold on Aug. 14.

After the meeting, Councilman Jim Dinizio said the hearing had gone as he'd expected. "The law is overbearing," he said. "An existing C of O and perhaps some kind of long term lease agreement, perhaps more than two weeks, should be enough to get a permit. The proposed law does nothing to stop the bad actors which should be dealt with strongly when caught."

Doherty said the goal was to set up a code that protects the citizens of the town. "In today’s world, you have to be proactive. I try to make things simple. But there always has to be the legal part. We will continue to listen and work towards something that makes sense for all," she said.

Russell weighed in after the hearing: "The input we receive at public hearings, in general, helps us create better code. The message I received was that the concept of a rental permit wasn't as big a concern as an overly prescribed one that is too onerous and too invasive. We will take everything that was said into consideration. Ultimately, one thing became crystal clear — the code, as drafted, needs to be stripped back considerably."

Patch photos by Lisa Finn.