Subscribe to our newsletter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Huntington Sets Hearing on Regulating Non-Owner Occupied Residential Rentals

Residential rental properties that are not owner-occupied will be required to obtain annual permits before they can be shown to prospective tenants and certify that the units meet all Town codes under a measure that took the first step toward approval at the September 16 Huntington Town Board meeting.

The board scheduled an October 21 public hearing on the proposal, sponsored by Councilwoman Tracey Edwards, which would amend Town Code to hold owners of all residential rental properties to standards aimed at protecting tenants from living in buildings that are substandard, hazardous or dangerous.

“This amendment ensures that all residential rental property owners in the Town of Huntington are complying with building and fire codes, protects the tenants, makes it safer for emergency personnel who might have to respond to a location and assists in neighborhood preservation,” said Councilwoman Edwards.

Councilwoman Edwards’ resolution applies to non-owner-occupied residential buildings and does not change the current procedures concerning accessory apartments. The resolution:

  • Requires rental permits for any rental property or dwelling unit, including hotel and motel rooms, and makes it unlawful for tenants to occupy rental units that do not have permits.
  • Prohibits real estate agents from listing or showing rental properties that do not have permits.
  • Establishes procedures, and fees, for applying for the permits, which must be renewed annually.

Requires that the application include a certification from a licensed professional engineer or architect, or a Town code enforcement officer, that the property complies with Town code and Town, Suffolk County, state and federal codes, laws and regulations. If the property is not in compliance, no permit will be granted and violations will be issued, if applicable.

Property owners with accessory apartments already have had to meet the requirements.  “This raises the standards so that if you are running a business by renting properties in Huntington, you are doing so responsibly,” Councilwoman Edwards said.

“If persons renting out parts of their homes to make ends meet are required to meet basic standards, shouldn’t the same standards apply to people who are renting units for profit?” Supervisor Frank P. Petrone said. “These changes offer protections to renters and help preserve neighborhoods by requiring that residential rental properties meet Town codes.’

The hearing will be held at 6 p.m. on October 21.   

 

 

Read our Comment Tips & Rules

19 comments to Huntington Sets Hearing on Regulating Non-Owner Occupied Residential Rentals

  • rosy gallica

    Seems reasonable but maybe a 2 year permit?

  • marita

    In my area, no one knows who owns the house or rents its, how are they going to crack down on the owners? Some people will abide the rules and others will get away with it until they get caught. I hope they put a rule that the property owner must maintain the outside property as well. Provide garbage cans, cut the grass, if they have grass to cut (normally just dirt) and maintain the property. Unlike Pius who does not maintain his properties as a rental managing company. Look at 51 East 2nd Street as an example of what we have to deal with and he makes on at least 7 rentals and see what he is paying in taxes for this property, a single family home. The town can start there for their first study and see if he complies with their “Non-owner occupied residential rental”. We have been dealing with this for decades, now lets see if the town is big enough to take on PIUS.

  • There's a method....

    Exactly. I was going to inquire whether the “Pius Exemption” would still apply to all the illegal multi-family rentals with multiple electric meters and other obvious signs of code violations and worse that the Town has been ignoring for well over 30 years. When, pray tell, will the chronic slumlord property owners, both individual and corporate, be subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else? I dare you to answer that one, Frank.

  • Sam

    Look at 181 Burrs Lane in Dix Hills.

  • anonymous

    What about apartment buildings newly built, Avalon, etc.
    How about low income housing apartments, how about if you rent your condo out, how about Nathan Hale. Sound like rents will go up to cover the
    yearly fee.

  • Gail

    I find it outrageous that annual fees and inspections that have applied to accessory apartments for years have not applied to non-owner occupied residences. Non-owner occupied homes are probably more susceptible to problems in regard to safety and code infractions than owner-occupied rental units simply because they are NOT owner occupied. Non-owner occupied properties often look neglected and can bring down property values. Dix Hills has a number of these properties and as a resident of Dix Hills it’s maddening to see. Short of disallowing non-owner occupied homes in the town, annual permits and inspections of these homes must be made mandatory. The issue of whether these “single family” homes can or cannot be occupied by multiple “families” should also be addressed. Finally, General upkeep of these properties should also held to strong regulatory requirements.

  • concerned citizen

    Comparing requirements for Accessory apartments to homes that are already Legal to be occupied (as one or two family or as small apartment building etc..) makes no sense at all as they are two completely different things.

    Accessory apartments are ILLEGAL apartments in One family houses that the Town allows. It is a permit to change the home from what it was originally built and intended for – it has a Certificate of Occupancy for a One Family and the Town is allowing it to have an Apartment. Of course it has to be subject to regulation and approval, as it is a change from the original intended use.

    On the other hand, Homes that were built as a Legal Two family homes for example.., are Already Certified for occupancy as a Two Family Home by the Town, who granted it a Certificate of occupancy as a Legal Two Family Home. These are Homeowners who pay taxes, insurance, a mortgage and have overhead just like everybody else. To single out Home owners to pay more, be subject to different rules and punishment just because they do not live in the home is an agenda the drives a stake thru the heart of the American Dream.

    Most of these rental homes are long term investments by primarily middle class folk as a way to put their Kids thru College or build their Retirement nest egg. Many are One family homes that are rented for now – to pass on to their Children later or sell to retire on. Some are just investors who use Real Estate as an income. They screen their Tenants and keep up the homes to maximize their worth and keep the neighbors happy. Many Real Estate Investors employ local trades men and local home maintenance businesses. Many fix up a run down home and flip it later. Many of the renters spend their money in Huntington. All of these aspects of renting are a big part of the local economy. All in all Real Estate is a smart safe way to invest and a win win for everyone.

    The Town already has building, safety and fire codes in place to regulate all properties and get at the small percentage of slum lords. There is no need for this Rental Property change in the Town code aimed at Real Estate Investing. It is over reaching regulation that damages a struggling middle class, damages the local economy and causes unnecessary hardship on its law abiding citizens.

  • anonymous

    There is a large percent of homes in Huntington Township that were built before CO’s were in vogue. They have letters in lieu. If an owner wants
    to rent their home out, what codes to the home have to pass? Older homes even built after 1930 will probably not pass 2014 codes. I guess they
    can never be rented!

  • concerned citizen

    Comparing requirements for Accessory apartments to homes that are already Legal to be occupied (as one or two family or as small apartment building etc..) makes no sense at all as they are two completely different things. Accessory apartments are ILLEGAL apartments in One family houses that the Town allows. It is a permit to change the home from what it was originally built and intended for – it has a Certificate of Occupancy for a One Family and the Town is allowing it to have an Apartment. Of course it has to be subject to regulation and approval, as it is a change from the original intended use. On the other hand, Homes that were built as a Legal Two family homes for example.., are Already Certified for occupancy as a Two Family Home by the Town, who granted it a Certificate of occupancy as a Legal Two Family Home. These are Homeowners who pay taxes, insurance, a mortgage and have overhead just like everybody else. To single out Home owners to pay more, be subject to different rules and punishment just because they do not live in the home is an agenda the drives a stake thru the heart of the American Dream.

  • concerned citizen

    Most of these rental homes are long term investments by primarily middle class folk as a way to put their Kids thru College or build their Retirement nest egg. Many are One family homes that are rented for now – to pass on to their Children later or sell to retire on. Some are just investors who use Real Estate as an income. They screen their Tenants and keep up the homes to maximize their worth and keep the neighbors happy. Many Real Estate Investors employ local trades men and local home maintenance businesses. Many fix up a run down home and flip it later. Many of the renters spend their money in Huntington. All of these aspects of renting are a big part of the local economy. All in all Real Estate is a smart safe way to invest and a win win for everyone. The Town already has building, safety and fire codes in place to regulate all properties and get at the small percentage of slum lords. There is no need for this Rental Property change in the Town code aimed at Real Estate Investing. It is over reaching regulation that damages a struggling middle class, damages the local economy and causes unnecessary hardship on its law abiding citizens.

  • anonymous

    the town will do want they want….We are running in the RED! They need
    to bring in more revenue. That is really what is going on. They can not
    control the gangs, the drugs coming into our town so they think this
    is the answer. They don’t know how or want to deal with real problems, so
    this is their smoke screen! Wake up.

  • anonymous

    So Tracy Edwards this is your solution to crime, the problems we have.
    The school taxes, okay let’s see if we can shake down investors and the
    real estate profession. Shame on you.

  • concerned citizen

    The Town Board has postponed this for 4 months. They will be voting on this now during a 2 pm meeting Wednesday January 14, 2015. Interesting time of day, many cannot attend without taking a day off from work.

    They want to pass Mandatory inspections and very High fees ($400 – $700 per year) + all presently Legal homes will become illegal, until all homes go thru this new legalization process every year. It will be unlawful for you to rent your home without the Town”s permission.

    If you are a Citizen who wants to maintain your rights given to them under the Constitution – this law is a violation of our rights-UNLAWFUL SEARCH.

    This new law is a slippery slope- once we as Citizens allow unlawful searches of our homes – just so the town can collect fees from law abiding Landlords, EVERY HOMEOWNER in Huntington Township will be next! as Town inspector’s search thru your home every year so they can collect more fees and raise your taxes.

    20 years ago Landlords that had illegal apartments in their homes got FIVE YEARS of Amnesty to come forward and get accessory permits to legalize their illegal apartments – with NO penalty!!.

    The town is not proposing any transition time for law abiding citizens with LEGAL RENTALS – just immediate fines , punishment and unlawful searches of legal 1 and 2 family homes etc…

    All Concerned Citizens must attend the meeting. If you can not- send someone! Show the Town Board We are a Government by the People For the People.

    • anonymous

      Well the resolution was passed. it is the beginning of a slippery slope.

    • anonymous

      Well not many concerned citizens at the meeting tonight. Most people
      are not aware of what the Town Board was trying to pass. At the meeting
      in December they decided to table it until further investigation. So here
      we are right after the holidays, the New Year, people just getting back to
      their schedules and they vote on a Wednesday afternoon at 2 PM.

  • anonymous

    There were no answers tonight to any questions that were asked
    regarding the resolution for single family homes and legal two families.
    It was a scene from Congress, remember when Nancy Pelosi stated, “just sign it,
    then you can read it”! Well there you go! The Huntington Town Board
    had no answers to simple questions, but they just signed it in!

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>