Overriding local zoning to allow multi-family units in suburban neighborhoods in VA

[Anonymous]

The devil is always in the details. All this legislation would do if force localities to allow duplexes on any lot zone for a SFH. What it doesn’t address is any other related zoning requirements a locality may impose re setbacks, parking, etc. Localities that are concerned about increased street parking could require that any structure built in SFH zoning with more than one kitchen must have a parking in the lot (garage or driveway) for at least four vehicles. If they want to maintain the appearance of SFH neighborhoods, they could change the code to require that duplex units built in those zones have only a single front entrance with entrances to the individual units on the inside. For stormwater management concerns, have a graduated system where for every drain (sink, shower, toilet, etc.) in the entire structure above a certain number, you pay a lot more in permit fees and/or have to have a increased% of pervious lot surface and tree canopy. Double the permit fee schedule and direct a % to capital funding for schools to increase capacity.

There are lot s of ways localities can address the negative impacts of this kind of increased density. Of course, the more they do this, the more expensive it becomes to turn SFH lots into duplex lots, which frustrates the purpose of the legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The devil is always in the details. All this legislation would do if force localities to allow duplexes on any lot zone for a SFH. What it doesn’t address is any other related zoning requirements a locality may impose re setbacks, parking, etc. Localities that are concerned about increased street parking could require that any structure built in SFH zoning with more than one kitchen must have a parking in the lot (garage or driveway) for at least four vehicles. If they want to maintain the appearance of SFH neighborhoods, they could change the code to require that duplex units built in those zones have only a single front entrance with entrances to the individual units on the inside. For stormwater management concerns, have a graduated system where for every drain (sink, shower, toilet, etc.) in the entire structure above a certain number, you pay a lot more in permit fees and/or have to have a increased% of pervious lot surface and tree canopy. Double the permit fee schedule and direct a % to capital funding for schools to increase capacity.

There are lot s of ways localities can address the negative impacts of this kind of increased density. Of course, the more they do this, the more expensive it becomes to turn SFH lots into duplex lots, which frustrates the purpose of the legislation.

That would have a big effect on McMansions. Note, though this bill is not written that way, the Minneapolis code change leaves the physical restrictions the same - same height, setback, etc - just that you can't ban multiple units for a building identical to a large SFH.

It is possible this bill will end up amended to be closer to the Minneapolis code than as currently written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

It depends on what this bill says, in detail. A duplex could just be a ranch style home converted to a two unit, three story townhouse. That's not going to create affordable, low income housing. The bill could mean you can add an apartment over your garage. That potentially creates low income housing since it is smaller and less desirable.

I'm guessing you haven't ever seen a duplex.

And neither a three-story duplex, nor an apartment over a garage, makes a neighborhood "urban."

Have you made a point yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats in the VA legislature voted for a bill to override local zoning, they probably won’t be in the assembly much longer. This is just some urbanist wet dream, which will never happen in the Commonwealth. Now go make some hot chocolate, urbanist Pajama Boy.

Even if this does not pass the GA, it certainly gets the conversation started in a big way.

Another option would be to use Commonwealth housing $ to incent localities to change zoning in this direction.

All of this will also move forward conversations at the local level.

Also, if the GA kills this on the grounds of local control, will be harder for them to oppose local control on issues like Confederate monuments, traffic cameras, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

It depends on what this bill says, in detail. A duplex could just be a ranch style home converted to a two unit, three story townhouse. That's not going to create affordable, low income housing. The bill could mean you can add an apartment over your garage. That potentially creates low income housing since it is smaller and less desirable.

I'm guessing you haven't ever seen a duplex.

And neither a three-story duplex, nor an apartment over a garage, makes a neighborhood "urban."

Have you made a point yet?

Dp, but I think you made his point. If "urban" here meant the physical form of the neighborhood, the questions of size and shape, would be uppermost, and the limited size would show this does not make urban neighborhoods.

Clearly this is about something else. You can distinguish class from race in your mind if you think that makes it less ugly.

[Anonymous]

Wonder if the sponsor of this legislation has ever really lived in a suburb like the one he currently claims. I'm still trying to figure out how Herndon/Loudoun came to be his district. He is a Chicago native who moved to Jordan. Then he attended American University and Boston University. When did he become a Virginian? He only won the first primary barely and because there was little interest. Any Dem would win that district. Then, since he was the incumbent, he was a shoo-in.
For someone who represents suburbia, he certainly supports some different policies. Don't think he approves of suburbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The devil is always in the details. All this legislation would do if force localities to allow duplexes on any lot zone for a SFH. What it doesn’t address is any other related zoning requirements a locality may impose re setbacks, parking, etc. Localities that are concerned about increased street parking could require that any structure built in SFH zoning with more than one kitchen must have a parking in the lot (garage or driveway) for at least four vehicles. If they want to maintain the appearance of SFH neighborhoods, they could change the code to require that duplex units built in those zones have only a single front entrance with entrances to the individual units on the inside. For stormwater management concerns, have a graduated system where for every drain (sink, shower, toilet, etc.) in the entire structure above a certain number, you pay a lot more in permit fees and/or have to have a increased% of pervious lot surface and tree canopy. Double the permit fee schedule and direct a % to capital funding for schools to increase capacity.

There are lot s of ways localities can address the negative impacts of this kind of increased density. Of course, the more they do this, the more expensive it becomes to turn SFH lots into duplex lots, which frustrates the purpose of the legislation.

That would have a big effect on McMansions. Note, though this bill is not written that way, the Minneapolis code change leaves the physical restrictions the same - same height, setback, etc - just that you can't ban multiple units for a building identical to a large SFH.

It is possible this bill will end up amended to be closer to the Minneapolis code than as currently written.

But that’s the point. Since it doesn’t dictate anything else, other aspects of the zoning code could be adjusted to discourage duplexes. Let’s say you had a code that said you could have up to 18 drains and pay X in permitting, and if you had more than 15, you’d pay an extra 60% surcharge on your permitting to help fund stormwater management improvements and would need an extra rain garden on the lot. For a SFH, 15 drains would be four full bathrooms (3 drains each - sink, toilet, shower), kitchen sink (with dishwasher draining via sink drain), washing machine, half bath (two drains - toilet and sink), utility sink in the basement, and one to spare for something I’m forgetting. But if a duplex is subject to the same restriction, than means only 8 drains per unit before the surcharge kicks in. That’s a kitchen sink, washing machine, one full bath, one half bath and a utility sink. With those drain numbers, you could build a McMansion that sells for $1.6 million, but will people pay $800-900k for a duplex unit with one full bath on the same lot? Not necessarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The devil is always in the details. All this legislation would do if force localities to allow duplexes on any lot zone for a SFH. What it doesn’t address is any other related zoning requirements a locality may impose re setbacks, parking, etc. Localities that are concerned about increased street parking could require that any structure built in SFH zoning with more than one kitchen must have a parking in the lot (garage or driveway) for at least four vehicles. If they want to maintain the appearance of SFH neighborhoods, they could change the code to require that duplex units built in those zones have only a single front entrance with entrances to the individual units on the inside. For stormwater management concerns, have a graduated system where for every drain (sink, shower, toilet, etc.) in the entire structure above a certain number, you pay a lot more in permit fees and/or have to have a increased% of pervious lot surface and tree canopy. Double the permit fee schedule and direct a % to capital funding for schools to increase capacity.

There are lot s of ways localities can address the negative impacts of this kind of increased density. Of course, the more they do this, the more expensive it becomes to turn SFH lots into duplex lots, which frustrates the purpose of the legislation.

That would have a big effect on McMansions. Note, though this bill is not written that way, the Minneapolis code change leaves the physical restrictions the same - same height, setback, etc - just that you can't ban multiple units for a building identical to a large SFH.

It is possible this bill will end up amended to be closer to the Minneapolis code than as currently written.

But that’s the point. Since it doesn’t dictate anything else, other aspects of the zoning code could be adjusted to discourage duplexes. Let’s say you had a code that said you could have up to 18 drains and pay X in permitting, and if you had more than 15, you’d pay an extra 60% surcharge on your permitting to help fund stormwater management improvements and would need an extra rain garden on the lot. For a SFH, 15 drains would be four full bathrooms (3 drains each - sink, toilet, shower), kitchen sink (with dishwasher draining via sink drain), washing machine, half bath (two drains - toilet and sink), utility sink in the basement, and one to spare for something I’m forgetting. But if a duplex is subject to the same restriction, than means only 8 drains per unit before the surcharge kicks in. That’s a kitchen sink, washing machine, one full bath, one half bath and a utility sink. With those drain numbers, you could build a McMansion that sells for $1.6 million, but will people pay $800-900k for a duplex unit with one full bath on the same lot? Not necessarily.

Okay pardon for not knowing the number of drains in a Mcmansion that well. I suspect revising local codes to A. Prevent duplexes in former SFH only zones B. Continue to allow McMansions in those zones 3. Avoid side impacts on other zones (for things where there is usually some consistency across zones) is not going to be that simple.

Also the local legislative dynamic will be different. Instead of pro housing types on local BOS's having to push a zoning change through, the NIMBYs will have to push some convoluted change through, and the others will just have to block it. IME that's a significant difference.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
For someone who represents suburbia, he certainly supports some different policies. Don't think he approves of suburbia.

Lots of people who live in suburbia are not afraid of duplexes, THs, etc. Or may even want the freedom to build one on the lot they own

I wonder if PP has been to Loudoun, if she thinks there are no TH's there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

It depends on what this bill says, in detail. A duplex could just be a ranch style home converted to a two unit, three story townhouse. That's not going to create affordable, low income housing. The bill could mean you can add an apartment over your garage. That potentially creates low income housing since it is smaller and less desirable.

I'm guessing you haven't ever seen a duplex.

And neither a three-story duplex, nor an apartment over a garage, makes a neighborhood "urban."

Have you made a point yet?

Dp, but I think you made his point. If "urban" here meant the physical form of the neighborhood, the questions of size and shape, would be uppermost, and the limited size would show this does not make urban neighborhoods.

Clearly this is about something else. You can distinguish class from race in your mind if you think that makes it less ugly.

The statements in the original post talk about high density and affordable housing. I am not going to debate what a duplex looks like (or whether I have seen a true Scotsman) or the meaning of urban. Overriding zoning to double density is not going to create affordable, high-density housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous
For someone who represents suburbia, he certainly supports some different policies. Don't think he approves of suburbia.

Lots of people who live in suburbia are not afraid of duplexes, THs, etc. Or may even want the freedom to build one on the lot they own

I wonder if PP has been to Loudoun, if she thinks there are no TH's there.

PP here. Sure, I know there are townhouses. I've lived in one. No problem with them. I hardly consider them "urban." Most of the ones in suburbia have plenty of property around them. That includes the ones in Loudoun. Do have a problem with rezoning areas that are already zoned single family. Sponsor of the bill wants to outlaw sfh zoning. Wonder how this will affect HOAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Urban planning does not “generally” approve of blanket increases to housing supply. It is not a political movement or ideology. It is not a liberal or conservative policy. It is the process of the development of land and the surrounding infrastructure. Good urban planning is what everyone should strive for and hope to achieve. Rubber stamping increases in housing, without taking into account any of the necessary infrastructure, is extremely poor urban planning.

Dude. Check out Minneapolis.

Dude, let Minneapolis go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

+1

“Increasing density” is the same thing as gentrification. I guess it’s supposed to sound better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

+1

“Increasing density” is the same thing as gentrification. I guess it’s supposed to sound better.

So you understand that people want to live in dense areas and businesses want to locate there. And yet local governments should make it illegal to build a dense area because... you bought a house in the 1960s and you’re afraid of change?

Truly the mental gymnastics at play here are astounding.

[Anonymous]

If affordable housing was simply a matter of building more condos and apartments, New York City would be cheap.