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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no guarantees any of these ADUs will be "affordable housing" and any number of kids can be housed in ADUs with no restrictions.

If you want to fuss about affordable housing, don't waste your time time fussing about the ADU proposal. Fuss about the fact that new developments with 25% MPDUs are exempt from school impact fees.

Some people are capable of focusing on more than one issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no guarantees any of these ADUs will be "affordable housing" and any number of kids can be housed in ADUs with no restrictions.

If you want to fuss about affordable housing, don't waste your time time fussing about the ADU proposal. Fuss about the fact that new developments with 25% MPDUs are exempt from school impact fees.

Some people are capable of focusing on more than one issue.

17 pages on ADUs, which are a very small issue, and 0 pages on exemptions from school impact fees for developments with 25% MPDUs, which are a larger one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP you're responding to. I read it that they both had to pay - the PP, and the neighbor who bought from the builder.

Actually, if I'd been the neighbor who bought from the builder, I might have consulted a lawyer about the builder's legal obligations to deal with the stormwater runoff.

Nope, that was my post. I had to pay for additional drainage and re-grading. So did my neighbor. The new build owners/builder paid nothing. MoCo stormwater management did nothing. We did consult a lawyer, but since MoCo approved the stormwater management plan as appropriate, we had no recourse and opted not to bring action and suffer legal fees for an uncertain outcome, when MoCo planning tends to be on the side of the new builder (witness what they did when Ourisman Honda built on public land, they just gifted the property to them, because they had made a mistake in approving the plans.)

My neighbor had a similar issue with a teardown turned McMansion--when you remove grass and trees and plunk a pre-fab ADU there, the stormwater has to go somewhere. So it goes to the neighbor's homes. Good luck with that.

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no guarantees any of these ADUs will be "affordable housing" and any number of kids can be housed in ADUs with no restrictions.

If you want to fuss about affordable housing, don't waste your time time fussing about the ADU proposal. Fuss about the fact that new developments with 25% MPDUs are exempt from school impact fees.

Some people are capable of focusing on more than one issue.

17 pages on ADUs, which are a very small issue, and 0 pages on exemptions from school impact fees for developments with 25% MPDUs, which are a larger one.

Start your own thread on that then. No one is stopping you, and it's good to stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

How is that relevant to numbers of ADU permits? Would the number of ADU permits be higher or lower without these requirements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

How is that relevant to numbers of ADU permits? Would the number of ADU permits be higher or lower without these requirements?

If the goal is to support affordable housing like Portland did, let MoCo follow Portland's example (which has been successful). But the MoCo proposal is just an end-run around zoning requirements that won't result in affordable housing, let's be clear about that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

How is that relevant to numbers of ADU permits? Would the number of ADU permits be higher or lower without these requirements?

It's relevant if you actually care about the outcomes of the ADU policy. If you don't put this restriction in, you run the risk of the proliferation of Air BnBs.

[Anonymous]

I doubt many ADU structures will even be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt many ADU structures will even be built.

So basically, you can't refute the criticisms and now your defense is that "it won't be much of a change anyway." Stay classy MoCo Public Affairs shiller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

How is that relevant to numbers of ADU permits? Would the number of ADU permits be higher or lower without these requirements?

It's relevant if you actually care about the outcomes of the ADU policy. If you don't put this restriction in, you run the risk of the proliferation of Air BnBs.

"Affordable" rent and AirBnBs are two separate issues. Montgomery County currently prohibits and will continue to prohibit AirBnBs.

How are the difference between Portland's ADU regulations and Montgomery County's proposed ADU regulations relevant to the NUMBERS of ADUs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt many ADU structures will even be built.

So basically, you can't refute the criticisms and now your defense is that "it won't be much of a change anyway." Stay classy MoCo Public Affairs shiller.

DP. There has been plenty of refuting, actually.

I also doubt that many ADU structures will be built, but if turns out that many are built, I don't have a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the goal is to support affordable housing like Portland did, let MoCo follow Portland's example (which has been successful). But the MoCo proposal is just an end-run around zoning requirements that won't result in affordable housing, let's be clear about that too.

The goal is to increase the housing supply, which helps make housing more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

How is that relevant to numbers of ADU permits? Would the number of ADU permits be higher or lower without these requirements?

It's relevant if you actually care about the outcomes of the ADU policy. If you don't put this restriction in, you run the risk of the proliferation of Air BnBs.

"Affordable" rent and AirBnBs are two separate issues. Montgomery County currently prohibits and will continue to prohibit AirBnBs.

How are the difference between Portland's ADU regulations and Montgomery County's proposed ADU regulations relevant to the NUMBERS of ADUs?

This is a thread on ADUs, not the number of ADUs. If the purpose of ADUs is to promote affordable housing and social justice, MoCo would do well to emulate Portland. But it's not.