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 county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But this is not a proposal for illegal apartments. It's a proposal for legal apartments.

When there's ample evidence that the county has minimal capacity to enforce illegal dwellings (see the proliferation of illegal air b'n bs).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know how many homes are within 1 mile of a metro station? Thousands and thousands. My home is and it certainly isn’t in a high density area so without a new parking space I can add an ADU. Most other jurisdictions who have encouraged ADUs just did it for within a half a mile, not one mile of a metro-type station. As for adding the cost of the unit, well, anyone who can afford a renovation an expects a return on their ADU can do this. And yes, my neighbor should care and have a right to say something. I have a shed that borders their property because when my house was built 100 years ago that was allowed-under today’s regulations it would not be, but my shed, which contains play equipment for my kid is grandfathered in. And so could be my ADU which could contain multiple people living there or even serve as an Air B n’ b

Yes. That's the whole point.

WHY should your neighbor have a right to control your use of your property?

The proposed ADU regulation prohibits use as an AirBnB.

Also, that must be a really big shed.

My neighbor didn’t buy a house expecting that a tiny house could be put not even 3 feet from his property line. The windows of my shed overlook his backyard. Lots of things are prohibited in MoCo, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. A study found 200 licensed units for AirBnB in the county, yet there were 1600 active listings. So they’re missing most of the bad actors.

Yes, that's surely true. But it doesn't answer the question of why your neighbor should have a right to control your use of your property.

Also, "people violate existing regulations" is not a good argument against more regulations. It's a good argument for more enforcement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

Yes, the fundamental thinking is:

1. I've got mine
2. If you have enough money, you too can have what I've got
3. If you don't have enough money, too bad

My opinion is that this ADU proposal doesn't go anywhere near what we need, and yet here people are, acting as though this very, very, very minimal proposal were the end of all that's sacred.

Agreed, this proposal is simply a Band-Aid for a gushing wound.

Look at it this way: Bethesda is less than 7 miles from the White House. In any other global city, Bethesda would be chock-full of dense urban dwellings. 7 miles in Paris, London, or Tokyo gets you nowhere and you won't encounter any neighborhood with REQUIRED SFH zoning. The island of Manhattan is 13.4 miles long and you won't see SFHs REQUIRED by zoning.

It's ridiculous. Families need homes and the zoning in the DC metro areas makes housing prohibitively expensive.

If you're worried about over-crowded schools? More families mean we need to build more schools - let's pressure our local leaders to do so. WOTP DC is in dire need of more schools and soon; the school-age population is set to increase by 15-20% in the next 5 years. Bethesda also needs more schools. That's how you respond to needing more seats. For every old person that dies in my MIL's Bethesda neighborhood, either (1) a young family moves in to an expensive house that usually in dire need of repairs and updates or (2) it's sold to a flipper who then sells the house to a family. All these people want to put their kids in Bethesda schools. And yet I hear incessant whining from MoCO retirees who sent their kids to MoCo public schools.

Enough of the ridiculous "got mine" attitudes.

DC is NOT NYC. If that is what you want, why would you not move to NYC?

DC and the DC suburbs have their own different character and many people like that about the area. DC doesn’t have to be like Tokyo or NYC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DC is NOT NYC. If that is what you want, why would you not move to NYC?

DC and the DC suburbs have their own different character and many people like that about the area. DC doesn’t have to be like Tokyo or NYC.

You could say the same thing about the farmland the DC suburbs were built on, of course.

Things change. You can either fight change and lose, or you can try to guide change the way you want to go. Your choice.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But this is not a proposal for illegal apartments. It's a proposal for legal apartments.

Anonymous wrote:
DC is NOT NYC. If that is what you want, why would you not move to NYC?

DC and the DC suburbs have their own different character and many people like that about the area. DC doesn’t have to be like Tokyo or NYC.

Anonymous wrote:

Not true for our area. In my neighborhood the older couples move out of the homes and it’s purchased by an illegal landlord and turned into a boarding house. So in a SFH where there used to be 3 kids, we now have 7. Poor enforcement of the housing codes already in place has led to more and more of these homes taking over our neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

Yes, the fundamental thinking is:

1. I've got mine
2. If you have enough money, you too can have what I've got
3. If you don't have enough money, too bad

My opinion is that this ADU proposal doesn't go anywhere near what we need, and yet here people are, acting as though this very, very, very minimal proposal were the end of all that's sacred.

Agreed, this proposal is simply a Band-Aid for a gushing wound.

Look at it this way: Bethesda is less than 7 miles from the White House. In any other global city, Bethesda would be chock-full of dense urban dwellings. 7 miles in Paris, London, or Tokyo gets you nowhere and you won't encounter any neighborhood with REQUIRED SFH zoning. The island of Manhattan is 13.4 miles long and you won't see SFHs REQUIRED by zoning.

It's ridiculous. Families need homes and the zoning in the DC metro areas makes housing prohibitively expensive.

If you're worried about over-crowded schools? More families mean we need to build more schools - let's pressure our local leaders to do so. WOTP DC is in dire need of more schools and soon; the school-age population is set to increase by 15-20% in the next 5 years. Bethesda also needs more schools. That's how you respond to needing more seats. For every old person that dies in my MIL's Bethesda neighborhood, either (1) a young family moves in to an expensive house that usually in dire need of repairs and updates or (2) it's sold to a flipper who then sells the house to a family. All these people want to put their kids in Bethesda schools. And yet I hear incessant whining from MoCO retirees who sent their kids to MoCo public schools.

Enough of the ridiculous "got mine" attitudes.