Montgomery County zoning: Council wants to change zoning throughout the county to multi-family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there’s no restrictions on the number of kids who can live in an ADU. Typical MoCo-the schools nearest to Metro and jobs, most of which are already way over capacity with no solution in sight, will suffer the increased enrollment from this plan which of course MoCo doesn’t bother to factor in.

I don't know about other areas, but most of the lots around Rockville metro aren't large enough to build ADUs in their backyard. And even if they were, a lot of the yards are slopey so it' s not that easy to build on, nor is it cheap. How many people around here would actually build an ADU? I might consider it for retirement, while I rent out the main house, but my backyard is about 5000sqft, narrow and long, and if I do build an ADU, most of the yard would be gone. I can't imagine building an ADU in my yard that would be big enough to be comfortable with the setback rules, and I wouldn't want the ADU to be too close to the main house. It would pretty tiny for two people, let alone for an adult with kids.

I live in a MoCO neighborhood with less that 1/4 acre lots for the most part and we already have some of these illegal apartments in our neighborhoods. People either build up or out and then rent out to too many people. You’ll be surprised at how many people will fit in a teeny area. Personally, I’m not a fan.

Like where? And if they are illegal, why don't you call the county/city on them?

I am not surprised by how many people can fit in a tiny area because when my family first immigrated here, all six of us lived in a tiny 1 br apartment for a few months, then moved onto a tiny 2 br apt, then a tiny 3 br SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100 years ago, many things were permitted that wouldn't be permitted today. I wouldn't even have the right to vote 100 years ago. Yet due to grandfathering, i have a structure on my neighbor's property line that would never be permitted today under today's setback requirements. And now I can convert it to an ADU and rent it to a family with 6 kids.

Seriously, how big is this "shed" of yours anyway?

It's plenty big--and questions like yours are an indication that MoCo isn't planning carefully.

Plenty big for what? For a kitchen, a bathroom, and 350-400 square feet of sleeping space?

Yup.

That's great. And you live within a mile of Metro, too. There absolutely should be an ADU there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't DC. This is a poorly thought out proposal-we'll just have more traffic, more overcrowding in the popular schools that are already overcrowded, and pissed off neighbors selling because there's an ADU right on their property line because the Council hasn't given sufficient thought to all the old houses in this area with limited grandfathered setbacks.

That's ok with me.

In the big picture: The area population is growing. And people need a place to live. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

Keep in mind that you can't stop the area population from growing by not building housing.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bumping this up for those who would like to learn the details of this proposal.

No, if you want to learn the details of the proposal, read this:

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/zta/2019/ZTA%2019-01.pdf

Plus this:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/council-finalizes-details-of-accessory-apartments-proposal/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I live in a MoCO neighborhood with less that 1/4 acre lots for the most part and we already have some of these illegal apartments in our neighborhoods. People either build up or out and then rent out to too many people. You’ll be surprised at how many people will fit in a teeny area. Personally, I’m not a fan.

OK, then you don't have to live with lots of people in a teeny area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't DC. This is a poorly thought out proposal-we'll just have more traffic, more overcrowding in the popular schools that are already overcrowded, and pissed off neighbors selling because there's an ADU right on their property line because the Council hasn't given sufficient thought to all the old houses in this area with limited grandfathered setbacks.

That's ok with me.

In the big picture: The area population is growing. And people need a place to live. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

Keep in mind that you can't stop the area population from growing by not building housing.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't DC. This is a poorly thought out proposal-we'll just have more traffic, more overcrowding in the popular schools that are already overcrowded, and pissed off neighbors selling because there's an ADU right on their property line because the Council hasn't given sufficient thought to all the old houses in this area with limited grandfathered setbacks.

That's ok with me.

In the big picture: The area population is growing. And people need a place to live. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

Keep in mind that you can't stop the area population from growing by not building housing.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy!)

Sure I did. Montgomery County should be adding housing because the population is growing, and people need a place to live.

If you're worried about traffic with additional housing in Montgomery County, just think about how much traffic there will be if the additional housing goes in Frederick County instead, and everybody drives through Montgomery County.

Also it's been said, but it's worth repeating: housing is infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the note I received from our neighborhood association, which I thought was extremely useful.

On Monday, the County Council will hold a second work session on a change to the zoning code that would significantly alter the rules and requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as accessory apartments and granny flats. This is a complicated zoning change but here is a summary of what’s involved, as the Council has been working on it in terms of what it would mean to our neighborhood:

Where can detached ADUs (structures separate from the main house) be and how large can they be?
Currently a detached ADU cannot be built on a property of less than an acre, which effectively prohibits them from our neighborhood as none of our lots are that large. This zoning change would allow them everywhere, regardless of lot size. Proposed limits are the least of the following - 10% of lot size, 50% of the gross floor area of the principal residence, or 1200 square feet. Two amendments have so far been proposed - one that would change 50% of gross floor area to 50% of the footprint of the principal dwelling (example: if your house has a footprint of 1000 square feet but 3 floors, 50% of the footprint would be 500 square feet, but 50% of the gross floor area would be 1500 square feet); and one that would limit the maximum size of a detached ADU to 800 square feet rather than 1200 square feet.

How far away must they be from the property lot line?
This is a little complicated. New detached ADUs must have the same setbacks (distance from lot line) as the principal residence. In our neighborhood, that is usually 12’ in the rear and 8’ on each side or combined side of 18’.. Height is limited to 20 feet in our R-60 zone. An amendment will be offered requiring a 6’ fence for any newly constructed detached ADU in this zone and the next larger zone, R-90.

However, if you have an accessory structure - a shed or garage - that was legally constructed before May 31, 2012 (that is, it met the accessory structure setbacks required at the time it was built) it may be converted even if those setbacks would not be legal today, as long as the structure is not expanded up or out. Generally such setbacks are 5’ each rear and side, but sometimes they are less. I think we have a few of these. This may raise issues around privacy, sound, and light.

Another related concern is the setback standard for prefab detached ADUs. These can be as long as 32’. Current law is that any building longer than 24’ must have one additional foot of setback for each foot of length beyond 24’. The PHED committee recommends exempting ADUs up to 32’ from this requirement. For the normative rectangular R-60 lot, with frontage of 60’ and a depth of 100’, this would meet the current setback requirements for an accessory ADU - but in older neighborhoods like ours, there are many lots that have less than 60’ street frontage and at least a few that are smaller than 6000 square feet, grandfathered when the code was first adopted. This may be a problem for some properties and neighbors. In addition, as I understand it the larger prefabs need to be put in place by crane, which may be problematic for neighbors.

What about parking requirements? Right now all ADUs, internal or detached, are required to have one on-site parking space beyond those required for the principal residence, or adequate street parking within a radius of 300’. If the licensing agency, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, determines that this cannot be met either way, the license for the ADU may be denied. The applicant has the right to apply for a waiver. Similarly, if a license is granted but neighbor(s) believe the on-street parking within that radius is not adequate, the neighbor(s) can appeal and object to the license. In either case, the dispute is heard by a hearing examiner and opinion usually rendered within three weeks. The loser can then pursue this through the courts, although to date there have not been many waiver requests and to my knowledge none moving to the judicial system.

The proposed change would eliminate both the parking and distance requirements in all neighborhoods within 1 mile of metro and purple line stations. That covers all of our neighborhood. There will be an amendment offered to reduce this to 1/2 mile, consistent with other situations involving “transit proximity.”

For most of our streets, the 1-mile walkshed would very likely cause problems. At one point there was consideration of an objective standard for eliminating the parking requirement and waiver process, using 36’ curb to curb as the standard. Most of our streets are 24’ wide or less, with parking on only one side and effectively 1.5 travel lanes. Available parking area is further reduced by driveways, fire hydrants, and intersections, and the mandated distance a vehicle must park from them. The half-mile proposal will reduce this somewhat, but we may still have affected streets.

What environmental issues are involved?
This can get somewhat complicated so I’ll keep it as simple as possible. ADUs will add to impervious surface, loss of tree canopy, and storm water management/sedimentation issues, especially if the changes in precipitation that we’ve experienced recently continue.. Some argue that this is true when additions are placed on existing houses, or when a house is torn down and a new larger house built. This is true, but additions and new houses are subject to more requirements around stormwater/sedimentation than ADUs, in particular detached ADUs, are. An ADU may be only 400 square feet, but a 1200 square foot ADU could easily be a 3-bedroom house. Many people following this believe this aspect needs a lot more attention.

Will ADUs provide affordable housing?
This is an argument often used, and ADUs can do this, but not if this proposal goes through as envisioned. There are no rent controls, no incentives for property owners to offer affordable rents, and no prohibition on converting an ADU after as little as one year to a short-term rental. This last point is important because short-term rentals (like Airbnb) are more lucrative than ADUs and therefore remove potential affordable housing from the market. They also potentially have a different effect on the neighborhood where they’re located, especially if provisions to control the number of ADUs are eliminated - that 300’ distance for parking is also the currently required distance between ADUs.

As I noted above, a 1200 square foot ADU can easily be a 3-bedroom house. ADUs are limited to 2 adults but no limit on children, which means there is the possibility that a significant increase in ADUs could affect school capacity - already an issue at our local elementary school, and a looming issue at BCC. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that the county adopt a regime similar to Portland, OR, where various required fees for new residences are waived if the ADU owner signs a covenant agreeing to charge affordable rent for 10 years; if the covenant is broken, the owner is liable for 150% of the waived fees. This grew directly from ADU conversions to short-term rentals. Under this proposal new ADUs would be subject to school and transportation impact fees, and possibly others, that could be avoided by agreeing to terms similar to Portland’s.

Why are these changes needed?
Proponents argue the proposal will increase affordable housing, provide housing for relatives/caregivers/disabled individuals, provide income streams for seniors and others who otherwise could not stay in their homes, and allow people who otherwise could not afford to live in a desirable area to do so. However, since 2012 the requirements and processes to build an ADU have been loosened considerably, yet the number of legal accessory units has fallen by half. At the same time county enforcement efforts on both illegal ADUs and illegal short-term rentals have, in many neighborhoods (not ours), been unsatisfactory. The county’s department of health and human services has 200 licensed short-term rentals on its roster; it hired an outside consultant to scrape Airbnb and other listings and found 1600 - that would include 1400 illegal ones.

These is a very simple summary. As you probably can tell, I believe there are some significant problems with this proposal, largely because it is not well thought out or cohesive but also because some aspects are problematic for older neighborhoods (as an aside - there are several municipalities that would be exempt from this, and all housing developments built from about 1980 on are required to have homeowners association, whose covenants may not allow ADUS). If you have an opinion, you might want to share it with the council by writing to [e-mail]. You need to note that you are writing about ZTA 19-01 and get your email in ASAP. If you are interested, send me your email address and I can provide you with the two letter sent by about 30 active residents from around the county, which have considerably more detail.

Wow

Thank you for posting. I hope people read this and consider what can and will happen.

You’re already supposed to put up a notice in my neighborhood if you are planning to build an accessory apartment but that rarely (I’d ever ) happens. And the County certainly doesn’t fine the landlord when this is violated.

Yup, this is an awesome post. Thanks 22:51.

Bumping this up for those who would like to learn the details of this proposal.

Thank you--I hadn't thought of the stormwater issues. Our yard and our neighbor's yard began flooding regularly when a neighboring house was torn down and a new larger house was built in its place reducing the grass and tree cover to the bare minimum allowed. The builder didn't care. We appealed to MoCo but they said since we were infinitesimally downhill from our neighbor that it wasn't their problem, even though our yard never flooded in 10 years prior. We each had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade our property and install additional drainage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't DC. This is a poorly thought out proposal-we'll just have more traffic, more overcrowding in the popular schools that are already overcrowded, and pissed off neighbors selling because there's an ADU right on their property line because the Council hasn't given sufficient thought to all the old houses in this area with limited grandfathered setbacks.

That's ok with me.

In the big picture: The area population is growing. And people need a place to live. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

Keep in mind that you can't stop the area population from growing by not building housing.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy!)

Sure I did. Montgomery County should be adding housing because the population is growing, and people need a place to live.

If you're worried about traffic with additional housing in Montgomery County, just think about how much traffic there will be if the additional housing goes in Frederick County instead, and everybody drives through Montgomery County.

Also it's been said, but it's worth repeating: housing is infrastructure.

Wow that's a sad and ignorant attitude. MCPS planning theoretically requires that there be adequate school capacity and traffic before allowing new development. But they forget that when real estate developers come by pushing proposals like this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't DC. This is a poorly thought out proposal-we'll just have more traffic, more overcrowding in the popular schools that are already overcrowded, and pissed off neighbors selling because there's an ADU right on their property line because the Council hasn't given sufficient thought to all the old houses in this area with limited grandfathered setbacks.

That's ok with me.

In the big picture: The area population is growing. And people need a place to live. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

Keep in mind that you can't stop the area population from growing by not building housing.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy!)

Sure I did. Montgomery County should be adding housing because the population is growing, and people need a place to live.

If you're worried about traffic with additional housing in Montgomery County, just think about how much traffic there will be if the additional housing goes in Frederick County instead, and everybody drives through Montgomery County.

Also it's been said, but it's worth repeating: housing is infrastructure.

Wow that's a sad and ignorant attitude. MCPS planning theoretically requires that there be adequate school capacity and traffic before allowing new development. But they forget that when real estate developers come by pushing proposals like this one.

Oh, I just can't.

From Merriam-Webster:

infrastructure noun
in·?fra·?struc·?ture | \ ?in-fr?-?str?k-ch?r , -(?)frä-\
Definition of infrastructure
1 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region
also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity
2 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)
3 : the permanent installations required for military purposes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Chevy Chase and Bethesda aren't DC. This is a poorly thought out proposal-we'll just have more traffic, more overcrowding in the popular schools that are already overcrowded, and pissed off neighbors selling because there's an ADU right on their property line because the Council hasn't given sufficient thought to all the old houses in this area with limited grandfathered setbacks.

That's ok with me.

In the big picture: The area population is growing. And people need a place to live. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

Keep in mind that you can't stop the area population from growing by not building housing.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy!)

Sure I did. Montgomery County should be adding housing because the population is growing, and people need a place to live.

If you're worried about traffic with additional housing in Montgomery County, just think about how much traffic there will be if the additional housing goes in Frederick County instead, and everybody drives through Montgomery County.

Also it's been said, but it's worth repeating: housing is infrastructure.

Wow that's a sad and ignorant attitude. MCPS planning theoretically requires that there be adequate school capacity and traffic before allowing new development. But they forget that when real estate developers come by pushing proposals like this one.

Oh, I just can't.

From Merriam-Webster:

infrastructure noun
in·?fra·?struc·?ture | \ ?in-fr?-?str?k-ch?r , -(?)frä-\
Definition of infrastructure
1 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region
also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity
2 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)
3 : the permanent installations required for military purposes

Too bad Merriam-Webster can't teach you logic or reading comprehension. I could plop a house down on a deserted island, but there wouldn't be basic infrastructure (i.e. schools and necessary vehicular options) to get to my job. Adding housing in isolation without upgrading public transport and school capacity is truly bad planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you--I hadn't thought of the stormwater issues. Our yard and our neighbor's yard began flooding regularly when a neighboring house was torn down and a new larger house was built in its place reducing the grass and tree cover to the bare minimum allowed. The builder didn't care. We appealed to MoCo but they said since we were infinitesimally downhill from our neighbor that it wasn't their problem, even though our yard never flooded in 10 years prior. We each had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade our property and install additional drainage.

So your neighbor had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade their property so it wouldn't flood your yard?

That sounds like a good incentive for the homeowner to make sure that, if they build a free-standing ADU, it doesn't flood their neighbor's yard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the note I received from our neighborhood association, which I thought was extremely useful.

On Monday, the County Council will hold a second work session on a change to the zoning code that would significantly alter the rules and requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as accessory apartments and granny flats. This is a complicated zoning change but here is a summary of what’s involved, as the Council has been working on it in terms of what it would mean to our neighborhood:

Where can detached ADUs (structures separate from the main house) be and how large can they be?
Currently a detached ADU cannot be built on a property of less than an acre, which effectively prohibits them from our neighborhood as none of our lots are that large. This zoning change would allow them everywhere, regardless of lot size. Proposed limits are the least of the following - 10% of lot size, 50% of the gross floor area of the principal residence, or 1200 square feet. Two amendments have so far been proposed - one that would change 50% of gross floor area to 50% of the footprint of the principal dwelling (example: if your house has a footprint of 1000 square feet but 3 floors, 50% of the footprint would be 500 square feet, but 50% of the gross floor area would be 1500 square feet); and one that would limit the maximum size of a detached ADU to 800 square feet rather than 1200 square feet.

How far away must they be from the property lot line?
This is a little complicated. New detached ADUs must have the same setbacks (distance from lot line) as the principal residence. In our neighborhood, that is usually 12’ in the rear and 8’ on each side or combined side of 18’.. Height is limited to 20 feet in our R-60 zone. An amendment will be offered requiring a 6’ fence for any newly constructed detached ADU in this zone and the next larger zone, R-90.

However, if you have an accessory structure - a shed or garage - that was legally constructed before May 31, 2012 (that is, it met the accessory structure setbacks required at the time it was built) it may be converted even if those setbacks would not be legal today, as long as the structure is not expanded up or out. Generally such setbacks are 5’ each rear and side, but sometimes they are less. I think we have a few of these. This may raise issues around privacy, sound, and light.

Another related concern is the setback standard for prefab detached ADUs. These can be as long as 32’. Current law is that any building longer than 24’ must have one additional foot of setback for each foot of length beyond 24’. The PHED committee recommends exempting ADUs up to 32’ from this requirement. For the normative rectangular R-60 lot, with frontage of 60’ and a depth of 100’, this would meet the current setback requirements for an accessory ADU - but in older neighborhoods like ours, there are many lots that have less than 60’ street frontage and at least a few that are smaller than 6000 square feet, grandfathered when the code was first adopted. This may be a problem for some properties and neighbors. In addition, as I understand it the larger prefabs need to be put in place by crane, which may be problematic for neighbors.

What about parking requirements? Right now all ADUs, internal or detached, are required to have one on-site parking space beyond those required for the principal residence, or adequate street parking within a radius of 300’. If the licensing agency, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, determines that this cannot be met either way, the license for the ADU may be denied. The applicant has the right to apply for a waiver. Similarly, if a license is granted but neighbor(s) believe the on-street parking within that radius is not adequate, the neighbor(s) can appeal and object to the license. In either case, the dispute is heard by a hearing examiner and opinion usually rendered within three weeks. The loser can then pursue this through the courts, although to date there have not been many waiver requests and to my knowledge none moving to the judicial system.

The proposed change would eliminate both the parking and distance requirements in all neighborhoods within 1 mile of metro and purple line stations. That covers all of our neighborhood. There will be an amendment offered to reduce this to 1/2 mile, consistent with other situations involving “transit proximity.”

For most of our streets, the 1-mile walkshed would very likely cause problems. At one point there was consideration of an objective standard for eliminating the parking requirement and waiver process, using 36’ curb to curb as the standard. Most of our streets are 24’ wide or less, with parking on only one side and effectively 1.5 travel lanes. Available parking area is further reduced by driveways, fire hydrants, and intersections, and the mandated distance a vehicle must park from them. The half-mile proposal will reduce this somewhat, but we may still have affected streets.

What environmental issues are involved?
This can get somewhat complicated so I’ll keep it as simple as possible. ADUs will add to impervious surface, loss of tree canopy, and storm water management/sedimentation issues, especially if the changes in precipitation that we’ve experienced recently continue.. Some argue that this is true when additions are placed on existing houses, or when a house is torn down and a new larger house built. This is true, but additions and new houses are subject to more requirements around stormwater/sedimentation than ADUs, in particular detached ADUs, are. An ADU may be only 400 square feet, but a 1200 square foot ADU could easily be a 3-bedroom house. Many people following this believe this aspect needs a lot more attention.

Will ADUs provide affordable housing?
This is an argument often used, and ADUs can do this, but not if this proposal goes through as envisioned. There are no rent controls, no incentives for property owners to offer affordable rents, and no prohibition on converting an ADU after as little as one year to a short-term rental. This last point is important because short-term rentals (like Airbnb) are more lucrative than ADUs and therefore remove potential affordable housing from the market. They also potentially have a different effect on the neighborhood where they’re located, especially if provisions to control the number of ADUs are eliminated - that 300’ distance for parking is also the currently required distance between ADUs.

As I noted above, a 1200 square foot ADU can easily be a 3-bedroom house. ADUs are limited to 2 adults but no limit on children, which means there is the possibility that a significant increase in ADUs could affect school capacity - already an issue at our local elementary school, and a looming issue at BCC. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that the county adopt a regime similar to Portland, OR, where various required fees for new residences are waived if the ADU owner signs a covenant agreeing to charge affordable rent for 10 years; if the covenant is broken, the owner is liable for 150% of the waived fees. This grew directly from ADU conversions to short-term rentals. Under this proposal new ADUs would be subject to school and transportation impact fees, and possibly others, that could be avoided by agreeing to terms similar to Portland’s.

Why are these changes needed?
Proponents argue the proposal will increase affordable housing, provide housing for relatives/caregivers/disabled individuals, provide income streams for seniors and others who otherwise could not stay in their homes, and allow people who otherwise could not afford to live in a desirable area to do so. However, since 2012 the requirements and processes to build an ADU have been loosened considerably, yet the number of legal accessory units has fallen by half. At the same time county enforcement efforts on both illegal ADUs and illegal short-term rentals have, in many neighborhoods (not ours), been unsatisfactory. The county’s department of health and human services has 200 licensed short-term rentals on its roster; it hired an outside consultant to scrape Airbnb and other listings and found 1600 - that would include 1400 illegal ones.

These is a very simple summary. As you probably can tell, I believe there are some significant problems with this proposal, largely because it is not well thought out or cohesive but also because some aspects are problematic for older neighborhoods (as an aside - there are several municipalities that would be exempt from this, and all housing developments built from about 1980 on are required to have homeowners association, whose covenants may not allow ADUS). If you have an opinion, you might want to share it with the council by writing to [e-mail]. You need to note that you are writing about ZTA 19-01 and get your email in ASAP. If you are interested, send me your email address and I can provide you with the two letter sent by about 30 active residents from around the county, which have considerably more detail.

Wow

Thank you for posting. I hope people read this and consider what can and will happen.

You’re already supposed to put up a notice in my neighborhood if you are planning to build an accessory apartment but that rarely (I’d ever ) happens. And the County certainly doesn’t fine the landlord when this is violated.

Yup, this is an awesome post. Thanks 22:51.

Bumping this up for those who would like to learn the details of this proposal.

Thank you--I hadn't thought of the stormwater issues. Our yard and our neighbor's yard began flooding regularly when a neighboring house was torn down and a new larger house was built in its place reducing the grass and tree cover to the bare minimum allowed. The builder didn't care. We appealed to MoCo but they said since we were infinitesimally downhill from our neighbor that it wasn't their problem, even though our yard never flooded in 10 years prior. We each had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade our property and install additional drainage.

This is just going to get worse in this area. Look at Elicott City and the flooding they've suffered through.

Building and paving over every free inch of grass and cutting down trees is not good. And, the builders definitely do NOT care. In theory, MoCo has rules in place to require permits and approval for certain types of building, but most landlords and builders know they can get away with doing what they want. They rarely get reported and if they do, there is rarely a fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you--I hadn't thought of the stormwater issues. Our yard and our neighbor's yard began flooding regularly when a neighboring house was torn down and a new larger house was built in its place reducing the grass and tree cover to the bare minimum allowed. The builder didn't care. We appealed to MoCo but they said since we were infinitesimally downhill from our neighbor that it wasn't their problem, even though our yard never flooded in 10 years prior. We each had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade our property and install additional drainage.

So your neighbor had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade their property so it wouldn't flood your yard?

That sounds like a good incentive for the homeowner to make sure that, if they build a free-standing ADU, it doesn't flood their neighbor's yard.

DP

I read it that the PP had to pay so that her own property did not get flooded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Too bad Merriam-Webster can't teach you logic or reading comprehension. I could plop a house down on a deserted island, but there wouldn't be basic infrastructure (i.e. schools and necessary vehicular options) to get to my job. Adding housing in isolation without upgrading public transport and school capacity is truly bad planning.

Schools are infrastructure. Transportation systems are infrastructure. Communications systems are infrastructure. Utilities are infrastructure. Hospitals are infrastructure. And housing is infrastructure.