Proposed new rules in Riverhead would restrict rentals to a ‘family’ or equivalent, limit commercial vehicles in driveways

Riverhead Town is considering new regulations on rental properties that would make it illegal to rent to people that are not a “family or the functional equivalent thereof” and limit the number of commercial vehicles renters can park in their driveways.

The proposed amendment to Chapter 263 “Rental Dwelling Units” would require that rentals only be “leased, occupied or used by one Family or the functional equivalent thereof,” effectively banning rentals to people who don’t fit the definition of “family” previously established by the town code. 

The rental of bedroom units in basements would be banned in the town for every type of dwelling besides single-family homes. The rental of bedroom units in third story or attic spaces would also be prohibited.

The code would also institute new requirements for the driveways of rental properties, including minimum and maximum size requirements. Dirt or compacted soil driveways would be banned — and the owner of a current rental property would have one year to comply with that requirement. 

The code would also make it a violation to have more than two “commercial automobiles or motor vehicles” on the driveway of any rental property. The commercial vehicle restriction applies to both vehicles with commercial license plates and “any vehicle which bears any form of commercial insignia related to any business use.”

Violations of the new regulations would be subject to the penalties in the current code, which include a fine and/or imprisonment.

“More frequently now than ever before, our code inspectors are recognizing some serious over occupancy and blighted exterior parking conditions that are arising from our rental properties,” Senior Code Enforcement Investigator Richard Downs told the Town Board at its Aug. 15 work session. “We’re also more commonly seeing situations on rental properties where landlords are attempting to add as many bedrooms as possible into their prospective rental agreements. More bedrooms equals higher rents.”

The town has roughly 1,900 rental properties, Downs said. Roughly 20% of Riverhead Town’s population do not live in a home they own, according to the most recent census estimates from 2018-2022 data. 

The legislation won’t affect “good landlords,” only landlords who are operating rentals in “substandard conditions,” Downs said.

“Substandard rental properties tend to promote and encourage deterioration of housing stock within our town, create blight and also institute excessive vehicle, traffic and parking problems, — not to mention, in some cases, overburden our municipal services,” Downs said. “It was our goal in drafting this revision to curb the proliferation of certain conditions that encompass those rental properties which may be operating in such a manner to cause over occupancy, blight and substandard parking conditions.”

A public hearing on the code amendment is scheduled for Tuesday’s meeting at 6 p.m.

Downs reviewed the code with Riverhead Town Board members on Aug. 15, but there was no discussion about the reason for restricting rentals to the code’s definition of family, or specifics about much of the code’s other subsections. Questions sent to Downs by email about the legislation were not returned with answers before this article was published. Supervisor Tim Hubbard did not return a message requesting an interview.

A previous attempt to add similar regulations to the town’s rental code faced extreme blowback from fair housing and immigrant advocate groups, who said during a public hearing in August 2021 that the regulations would likely violate laws protecting against housing discrimination. 

The definition of a “family” within the code goes back to the adoption of the current Rental Dwelling Unit code in 2006, when the Town Board repealed and replaced the previous rental law. But the code does not regulate who might occupy a dwelling. 

MORE COVERAGE: Opponents blast Riverhead’s proposed housing code changes as discriminatory against immigrants

Town officials said in 2021 that the regulations were not intended to be discriminatory, but rather a tool the town could use to protect renters from predatory landlords. They said at the outset of the hearing that the proposal would not be adopted as presented. 

Representatives for some of the organizations that opposed the code three years ago have similar concerns with the new code proposal, they said in interviews this week. 

“There are many different reasons why having any sort of legislation involved in what is or is not an accepted family structure is the wrong way to go,” said Minerva Perez, executive director of OLA of Eastern Long Island, a nonprofit Latino advocacy group. “So our concern remains the same. It’s as heightened as it was three years ago. This is not a time to do that. And if this is a way to deal with some other concerns the town might have, it’s the wrong approach.”

Perez said she understands the dangers against overcrowded housing and understands occupancy requirements, “but how are we now getting into the definition of what is or is not family? How is that germane to safety issues related to structures that may or may not be built for a certain amount of people?” 

The code is “anti-renter,” Perez said, and would further restrict the ability for people to find housing in an area that is experiencing a housing crisis. 

“OLA wants to see safety and regulations around safety, fire safety and things like that, but this is not the way to do it,” Perez said. “The way to do it is to enforce what you already have. If you can’t manage that, how [are you] enforcing someone’s family structure?”

Perez said the driveway regulations would effectively condemn entrepreneurs who are starting businesses and living in Riverhead. “If you look around and say, where are the commercial vehicles? Who owns those? Who are running those [businesses]? They are Latino. They are [the] workforce,” Perez said.

Ian Wilder, an attorney and the executive director of Long Island Housing Services, expressed similar concerns. 

“Is a homeowner allowed to turn a basement into habitable space? Is a homeowner allowed to have more than two commercial vehicles on a property?” Wilder said. “I live in Riverhead…Is Riverhead going to come inquire about who lives in my house?”

“The whole thing about family, or functional equivalent of a family, as an American, I find objectionable,” Wilder said. “It goes against both our history and what I believe the clear line is of what government interference in personal relationships is in terms of history.”

“We have always had the ability, especially for immigrants coming over here, to share living space in order to get themselves started,” Wilder said. “They may not be people who are related by blood. They may come from the same village and they may live separate lives.”

Wilder said that if the law results in discriminating against people of a protected class — such as race, sexual orientation or national origin — then it runs the risk of violating fair housing laws. But determining that would be a long and complicated process, if a lawsuit challenging the law is ever filed. 

“I don’t have the clear yes or no answer,” Wilder said on the legislation’s legality. “But it’s something as a taxpayer in the town, I would want the town to look at before litigation starts, because the last thing I want is to be paying an attorney for litigation… that shouldn’t have had to start.”

Other than the code’s requirements restricting the number of occupants per bedroom — which conform to state safety codes — the code does not add any other protections for renters, Wilder said. He also sees making the law apply differently to renters and homeowners as government overreach.

“If the town believes that these changes protect the health and safety of its residents, then all these changes should apply regardless of whether somebody is a renter or homeowner,” Wilder said.