Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

If deeded individually, yes.

But an owner could also build as one legally deeded property and live in one unit + rent out the other units. In that case, its still just one property.

"Duplex" usually refers to one structure with first unit on ground floor and second unit on the upper floor. I've never considered two townhouses to be a "duplex," but I guess there's probably regional differences in how that term is used colloquially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

If deeded individually, yes.

But an owner could also build as one legally deeded property and live in one unit + rent out the other units. In that case, its still just one property.

"Duplex" usually refers to one structure with first unit on ground floor and second unit on the upper floor. I've never considered two townhouses to be a "duplex," but I guess there's probably regional differences in how that term is used colloquially.

Yeah, I think of a duplex as two houses with shared interior wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

Not unless the lot is subdivided and each TH has its own deeded lot. Otherwise these duplexes are treated as condos. And many developers build condo duplexes on land where they cannot subdivide the lot and build separate SFH. A duplex is NOT a SFH. You can think of it that way, but that doesn't make it true in the industry, legally or in practice. The TH must have its own separate tax lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't this put to a resident referendum?

Because zoning laws are one of the duties of your local elected officials. The voters elect the elected officials; the elected officials make the zoning laws.

That's stupid. None of the current council have any urban planning professional bona fides.

And the voters do? LOL

Do you have to be an expert to object to something you don't want? I don't know anything about processing human waste but I know I don't want it 50 feet from where I sleep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't this put to a resident referendum?

Because zoning laws are one of the duties of your local elected officials. The voters elect the elected officials; the elected officials make the zoning laws.

That's stupid. None of the current council have any urban planning professional bona fides.

But the city staff does.

And what exactly are you arguing? That elected officials must be subject matter experts in all of the issues they decide? Or that the residents overall have these bona fides?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't this put to a resident referendum?

Because zoning laws are one of the duties of your local elected officials. The voters elect the elected officials; the elected officials make the zoning laws.

That's stupid. None of the current council have any urban planning professional bona fides.

But the city staff does.

And what exactly are you arguing? That elected officials must be subject matter experts in all of the issues they decide? Or that the residents overall have these bona fides?

(I think the PP meant credentials, not bona fides.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't this put to a resident referendum?

Because zoning laws are one of the duties of your local elected officials. The voters elect the elected officials; the elected officials make the zoning laws.

That's stupid. None of the current council have any urban planning professional bona fides.

And the voters do? LOL

Do you have to be an expert to object to something you don't want? I don't know anything about processing human waste but I know I don't want it 50 feet from where I sleep.

You can object to whatever you want, and you can also make your opinions known to your elected officials, who were elected by the voters to make decisions about such issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

Not unless the lot is subdivided and each TH has its own deeded lot. Otherwise these duplexes are treated as condos. And many developers build condo duplexes on land where they cannot subdivide the lot and build separate SFH. A duplex is NOT a SFH. You can think of it that way, but that doesn't make it true in the industry, legally or in practice. The TH must have its own separate tax lot.

A duplex is a single-family house attached to another single-family house. Townhouses are a series of single-family houses attached to each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

If deeded individually, yes.

But an owner could also build as one legally deeded property and live in one unit + rent out the other units. In that case, its still just one property.

"Duplex" usually refers to one structure with first unit on ground floor and second unit on the upper floor. I've never considered two townhouses to be a "duplex," but I guess there's probably regional differences in how that term is used colloquially.

The duplex I grew up next door to had two units next to each other. One building, divided down the middle. Two ground-level front doors, two front walkways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't this put to a resident referendum?

Because zoning laws are one of the duties of your local elected officials. The voters elect the elected officials; the elected officials make the zoning laws.

That's stupid. None of the current council have any urban planning professional bona fides.

But the city staff does.

And what exactly are you arguing? That elected officials must be subject matter experts in all of the issues they decide? Or that the residents overall have these bona fides?

(I think the PP meant credentials, not bona fides.)

They are synonyms, fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

Not unless the lot is subdivided and each TH has its own deeded lot. Otherwise these duplexes are treated as condos. And many developers build condo duplexes on land where they cannot subdivide the lot and build separate SFH. A duplex is NOT a SFH. You can think of it that way, but that doesn't make it true in the industry, legally or in practice. The TH must have its own separate tax lot.

A duplex is a single-family house attached to another single-family house. Townhouses are a series of single-family houses attached to each other.

please take real property law class. Die mad that you don't understand the differences I guess.

BTW, all that will be built are super expensive THs (whether in subdivided lots or as duplex condos on one lot), for example link the ones at Commonwealth and E Alexandria done precovid, the ones being currently built on Commonwealth across from the library mentioned upthread, the ones built off of Mt Vernon near the car dealership. That's where the $$$$ is. Too many people with too much money want to live in Alexandria and will pay for these types of TH. Developers do NOT want to be landlords, especially to low and middle income tenants. Sure there are some 501(c)(3) entities that will use tax exempt public financing assistance to build low and middle income housing, but there aren't many, the process is super complicated and arduous, and then you have to be a landlord on an ongoing basis. Aa for TH and condo projects for home ownership (like Henson Ridge) those are even more complicated. That's not going to happen. Developers want the most bang for their buck in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of responsibility.

Yes, I do have urban planning, public/affordable housing and public finance experience (20 years of it). This is exactly what will happen. Everyone has been punked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 unit is all treated the same by Fannie/Freddie for purposes of underwriting the property, extensions of credit, downpayment requirement, PMI, etc. It's technically not "multifamily" until its 5+ housing units.

My prediction is that the zoning change will enable construction of townhouses on SFH plots. That will be the vast majority of the permits.

Townhouses are single-family housing.

Also, generally, a row of two townhouses is referred to as a duplex.

Not unless the lot is subdivided and each TH has its own deeded lot. Otherwise these duplexes are treated as condos. And many developers build condo duplexes on land where they cannot subdivide the lot and build separate SFH. A duplex is NOT a SFH. You can think of it that way, but that doesn't make it true in the industry, legally or in practice. The TH must have its own separate tax lot.

A duplex is a single-family house attached to another single-family house. Townhouses are a series of single-family houses attached to each other.

please take real property law class. Die mad that you don't understand the differences I guess.

BTW, all that will be built are super expensive THs (whether in subdivided lots or as duplex condos on one lot), for example link the ones at Commonwealth and E Alexandria done precovid, the ones being currently built on Commonwealth across from the library mentioned upthread, the ones built off of Mt Vernon near the car dealership. That's where the $$$$ is. Too many people with too much money want to live in Alexandria and will pay for these types of TH. Developers do NOT want to be landlords, especially to low and middle income tenants. Sure there are some 501(c)(3) entities that will use tax exempt public financing assistance to build low and middle income housing, but there aren't many, the process is super complicated and arduous, and then you have to be a landlord on an ongoing basis. Aa for TH and condo projects for home ownership (like Henson Ridge) those are even more complicated. That's not going to happen. Developers want the most bang for their buck in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of responsibility.

Yes, I do have urban planning, public/affordable housing and public finance experience (20 years of it). This is exactly what will happen. Everyone has been punked.

Bravo to the developers for convincing everyone that if they just let them do whatever they want zoning-wise, all our problems will be solved.

People are going to learn the hard way that zoning laws mean jack shit to housing prices/affordability/availability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

Me either! Because it actually means allowing Four unit apartment and condo buildings that take up no more space than a SFH otherwise would have.

Well done Alexandria. Proud of us.

Now try finding a place to park on the street, because that 4 unit building won't come with any.

And as has been noted here multiple times, they will still be $1M plus units. So any talk of "now we'll have affordable housing in Alexandria" is pure crap.

[Anonymous]

The amount of spinning and dissembling by the laissez faire, deregulate development advocates is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/