New London ― The City Council this week, in a 5-2 vote, chose not to adopt state legislation on accessory apartments as time was running out to make a decision.

Accessory apartments, or accessory dwellings, are small residential units — such as garage apartments or "mother-in-law suites" — attached to or detached from a home. Public Act. 21-29, went into effect Jan. 1 and permits accessory apartments anywhere residential uses are permitted without a special permit or public hearing.

Municipalities can choose whether to "opt out" of the law up until Jan. 1, 2023.

Opting out would allow planning and zoning commissions in towns and cities to keep or change current regulations.

Before the decision was made, multiple people spoke on the matter during public comment.

Barry Levine, the chairman of the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, reminded the council that the zoning board chose to opt out and hoped the council would too. He referred the councilors to materials he drafted that compared local and state regulations and listed possible changes to the city’s current regulations.

Among the differences is that the city’s regulations require that the owner of the residence with an accessory unit must reside in one of the dwellings, and the state does not. The state regulations also do not require that the unit have an exterior door, is attached to the property’s primary structure and has more than one parking space while the city does.

Local Attorney Matt Greene spoke and said he has seen a lot of confusion from the public about the state legislation. He said it is not about affordable housing.

“To make it affordable, you’d have to put a deed-restriction on the property for 10 years at below market rate ... No one is going to do that,” Greene said, adding that the city had to opt out to promote home ownership.

In his report, Mayor Michael Passero said the city’s regulations are close to the state’s, referencing Levine’s document. He said if the city did not opt out, it would be stuck with the state legislation.

Passero said not opting out would take away owner occupancy in the city and attract investors and Airbnbs.

“If we work towards changing regulations, we can still remain in control,” Passero said, adding that the requirement for owner occupancy should not change.

The general consensus among councilors to opting out was maintaining local control and home ownership, but many also spoke of seeing changes to the current regulations.

Councilor Alma Nartatez said she would have liked to have seen some proposed changes ahead of the decision but Levine’s chart was clear and concise. She said there should be more leeway with parking requirements.

Councilor John Satti said he planned to vote yes to opting out because he believes in local control.

“I hope the Planning and Zoning Commission does not think the current language fits the city,” Satti said. “We have a lot of low-income housing to accommodate and the elderly. If we modify, we can do that.”

Councilors Akil Peck and James Burke voted not to opt out.

Peck on Monday said he understood the fear of Airbnbs but at some point the city will have to deal with it as a shoreline destination.

Burke last month spoke in favor of the public act and said he is very proud of the delegation the city has in the General Assembly and representatives Christine Conley, Joe de la Cruz and Anthony Nolan all voted in favor of the legislation.

Nolan on Tuesday said he believes in home ownership and he also believes people should have a say in their homes “without all the hoops.” He said this is not giving people that opportunity but he is looking forward to see how Planning and Zoning makes changes.

Nolan said he didn’t hear any push back from constituents when the matter was in Hartford.

“The mayor and I disagreed on this one,” he said.

Resident Frida Berrigan, who spoke during public comment, said she was attracted to the state regulation because it made accessory apartments easier to realize, saving residents the process and extra fees of going through the zoning board.

Berrigan said she is OK with the city opting out if its regulations change to make accessory dwellings more accessible.

“My concern is regulations such as this are in the book but no one is using them,” she said.

j.vazquez@theday.com