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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ADU's will be single people or a newlywed type couple. Most zoning, at least in DC, limits the number of unrelated people who can live on the same property, so you may want to get clarification on this before you freak out.

That is a joke!

If you actually lived in MoCO, you would know that there is a big issue of investors purchasing SFHs and renting them out to 4 different families, and getting paid in cash so there is no record of it. We have these homes on our street. So, where there was once a home with 4 or 5 people in it, there are now 14. And 7 cars parked in the street that were not there before. And 6 kids now attending the local school.

MoCO already has laws saying how many people can live in a SFH, but there is ZERO enforcement of those laws. How can you prove how many people live in a home, when those people are undocumented??

This is going to lead to even worse problems of overcrowding for schools that are already over capacity and greets that are already overwhelmed.

That's because there's a housing shortage. The solution to a housing shortage is: increasing the supply of housing. Which ADUs will do - not much, but some. Certainly more than nothing.

Also, there seems to be a general belief on DCUM that "undocumented" means "no documents of any sort whatsoever." But it doesn't. It means "no documents showing status of authorized presence in the country."

In our neighborhood, it means that you're living in an illegal apartment in the basement of a SFH, that is not up to code, and paying cash rent so the owner doesn't have to pay taxes. It means that you can show up at our ES the week before school starts, without the 'required' documents and the school will let you admit your child.

[Anonymous]

Do trailer houses qualify as an ADU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do trailer houses qualify as an ADU?

No. Just like trailers don't qualify as garages or guest houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cities are considering this. In Minneapolis, they’ve been disappointed by how little impact the zoning change has had. Minneapolis homeowners have built some 140 ADU’s since their zoning change, which accounts for 0.2 percent of single-family lots. And while Montgomery County is obviously denser, the lesson seems like it will hold—not that many people actually want to build extra dwellings on their own lots. I think it’s neat that cities/counties are considering zoning changes to reflect denser, modern life.

https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/05/how-much-will-minneapolis-2040-plan-actually-help-with-housing-affordability-in-the-city/

Yeah, in rhe short term most people living in a house do not have the cash or motivation to build another house. This seems like an adjustment that would not drastically change the character of a neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cities are considering this. In Minneapolis, they’ve been disappointed by how little impact the zoning change has had. Minneapolis homeowners have built some 140 ADU’s since their zoning change, which accounts for 0.2 percent of single-family lots. And while Montgomery County is obviously denser, the lesson seems like it will hold—not that many people actually want to build extra dwellings on their own lots. I think it’s neat that cities/counties are considering zoning changes to reflect denser, modern life.

https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/05/how-much-will-minneapolis-2040-plan-actually-help-with-housing-affordability-in-the-city/

Yeah, in rhe short term most people living in a house do not have the cash or motivation to build another house. This seems like an adjustment that would not drastically change the character of a neighborhood.

ADUs don't have to be separate buildings. You can also turn your walk-out basement into an ADU, for example. The City of Takoma Park is full of same-house ADUs - which is why Marc Elrich's opposition to ADUs is so surprising.

https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/agendas/2019/council-20190313-7.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cities are considering this. In Minneapolis, they’ve been disappointed by how little impact the zoning change has had. Minneapolis homeowners have built some 140 ADU’s since their zoning change, which accounts for 0.2 percent of single-family lots. And while Montgomery County is obviously denser, the lesson seems like it will hold—not that many people actually want to build extra dwellings on their own lots. I think it’s neat that cities/counties are considering zoning changes to reflect denser, modern life.

https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/05/how-much-will-minneapolis-2040-plan-actually-help-with-housing-affordability-in-the-city/

Yeah, in rhe short term most people living in a house do not have the cash or motivation to build another house. This seems like an adjustment that would not drastically change the character of a neighborhood.

Until investors come in with cash and go crazy. It’s already an issue in MoCO and this will make it worse. Investors come in and build either up or out to turn the SFH into a boarding house for multiple families. They recognize the potential to make a ton of money. Currently it’s illegal, but still happens.
It’s already changed the character of some of them previously middle class neighborhoods in MoCO. This amplifies the problem.

[Anonymous]

This is being pushed by the president of Purple Line Now who owns an architecture firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cities are considering this. In Minneapolis, they’ve been disappointed by how little impact the zoning change has had. Minneapolis homeowners have built some 140 ADU’s since their zoning change, which accounts for 0.2 percent of single-family lots. And while Montgomery County is obviously denser, the lesson seems like it will hold—not that many people actually want to build extra dwellings on their own lots. I think it’s neat that cities/counties are considering zoning changes to reflect denser, modern life.

https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/05/how-much-will-minneapolis-2040-plan-actually-help-with-housing-affordability-in-the-city/

Yeah, in rhe short term most people living in a house do not have the cash or motivation to build another house. This seems like an adjustment that would not drastically change the character of a neighborhood.

Until investors come in with cash and go crazy. It’s already an issue in MoCO and this will make it worse. Investors come in and build either up or out to turn the SFH into a boarding house for multiple families. They recognize the potential to make a ton of money. Currently it’s illegal, but still happens.
It’s already changed the character of some of them previously middle class neighborhoods in MoCO. This amplifies the problem.

It really does. Some of this has happened in my neighborhood and it means you get multiple families living in a house and sometimes having disputes with one another and trashing the house. Thankfully, with the right real estate market, some.ofntge slum landlords are selling and one family is buying.
What is MoCo thinking????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, you can build another house in your backyard, or, when you go to sell your house, a developer will pay you more because they can build another house in the back yard.

Our land use is crazy with all the space taken for car storage and for french style lawns of grass. No other developed country has the lunacy we have here, and it will take generations to catch up to something that makes more sense.

Any democrat who supports the green new deal and affordable housing initiatives should support this.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until investors come in with cash and go crazy. It’s already an issue in MoCO and this will make it worse. Investors come in and build either up or out to turn the SFH into a boarding house for multiple families. They recognize the potential to make a ton of money. Currently it’s illegal, but still happens.
It’s already changed the character of some of them previously middle class neighborhoods in MoCO. This amplifies the problem.

It really does. Some of this has happened in my neighborhood and it means you get multiple families living in a house and sometimes having disputes with one another and trashing the house. Thankfully, with the right real estate market, some.ofntge slum landlords are selling and one family is buying.
What is MoCo thinking????

This is irrelevant to the ADU proposal, which

1. only permits 2 units, total
2. requires the owner to occupy one of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until investors come in with cash and go crazy. It’s already an issue in MoCO and this will make it worse. Investors come in and build either up or out to turn the SFH into a boarding house for multiple families. They recognize the potential to make a ton of money. Currently it’s illegal, but still happens.
It’s already changed the character of some of them previously middle class neighborhoods in MoCO. This amplifies the problem.

It really does. Some of this has happened in my neighborhood and it means you get multiple families living in a house and sometimes having disputes with one another and trashing the house. Thankfully, with the right real estate market, some.ofntge slum landlords are selling and one family is buying.
What is MoCo thinking????

This is irrelevant to the ADU proposal, which

1. only permits 2 units, total
2. requires the owner to occupy one of them

It is definitely relevant.

This is the rule now, that the homes have to be owner occupied, but landlords have been breaking that law for years in our neighborhood. If MoVo can’t effectively enforce the laws that are currently in place, it is highly unlikely that it will be able to enforce these new laws.

Get the current problem of slum landlords under control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until investors come in with cash and go crazy. It’s already an issue in MoCO and this will make it worse. Investors come in and build either up or out to turn the SFH into a boarding house for multiple families. They recognize the potential to make a ton of money. Currently it’s illegal, but still happens.
It’s already changed the character of some of them previously middle class neighborhoods in MoCO. This amplifies the problem.

It really does. Some of this has happened in my neighborhood and it means you get multiple families living in a house and sometimes having disputes with one another and trashing the house. Thankfully, with the right real estate market, some.ofntge slum landlords are selling and one family is buying.
What is MoCo thinking????

This is irrelevant to the ADU proposal, which

1. only permits 2 units, total
2. requires the owner to occupy one of them

It is definitely relevant.

This is the rule now, that the homes have to be owner occupied, but landlords have been breaking that law for years in our neighborhood. If MoVo can’t effectively enforce the laws that are currently in place, it is highly unlikely that it will be able to enforce these new laws.

Get the current problem of slum landlords under control.

No, you're saying that the county shouldn't do A because it isn't currently doing B right. That doesn't make sense.

What's more, the ADU proposal includes hiring more housing enforcement officers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until investors come in with cash and go crazy. It’s already an issue in MoCO and this will make it worse. Investors come in and build either up or out to turn the SFH into a boarding house for multiple families. They recognize the potential to make a ton of money. Currently it’s illegal, but still happens.
It’s already changed the character of some of them previously middle class neighborhoods in MoCO. This amplifies the problem.

It really does. Some of this has happened in my neighborhood and it means you get multiple families living in a house and sometimes having disputes with one another and trashing the house. Thankfully, with the right real estate market, some.ofntge slum landlords are selling and one family is buying.
What is MoCo thinking????

This is irrelevant to the ADU proposal, which

1. only permits 2 units, total
2. requires the owner to occupy one of them

It is definitely relevant.

This is the rule now, that the homes have to be owner occupied, but landlords have been breaking that law for years in our neighborhood. If MoVo can’t effectively enforce the laws that are currently in place, it is highly unlikely that it will be able to enforce these new laws.

Get the current problem of slum landlords under control.

No, you're saying that the county shouldn't do A because it isn't currently doing B right. That doesn't make sense.

What's more, the ADU proposal includes hiring more housing enforcement officers.

Makes sense to me.

It’s not the lack of housing code enforcement officers that is the current issues. It’s that the County doesn’t want to crack down on any potentially undocumented families and so it looks the other way. The slum landlords are well aware of this and take complete advantage. This will just lead to the slum landlords being able to do even more damage to neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Makes sense to me.

It’s not the lack of housing code enforcement officers that is the current issues. It’s that the County doesn’t want to crack down on any potentially undocumented families and so it looks the other way. The slum landlords are well aware of this and take complete advantage. This will just lead to the slum landlords being able to do even more damage to neighborhoods.

Not sure how changes to ADU requirements will encourage people who are apparently already ignoring all housing requirements anyway.

Changes to ADU requirements will allow people who want legal ADUs to have legal ADUs. And will slightly increase the supply of housing. Two good things.

[Anonymous]

What’s crazy is deciding that some property owners have more rights than other property owners. I should have a right to enjoy the single family house I purchased. Some of the illegal apartments in my neighborhood are okay, others are terrible. Behind me is an illegal apartment and the ceiling is very low. There’s no parking to start with but now they’ve added multiple vehicles.