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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there’s no restrictions on the number of kids who can live in an ADU. Typical MoCo-the schools nearest to Metro and jobs, most of which are already way over capacity with no solution in sight, will suffer the increased enrollment from this plan which of course MoCo doesn’t bother to factor in.

I don't know about other areas, but most of the lots around Rockville metro aren't large enough to build ADUs in their backyard. And even if they were, a lot of the yards are slopey so it' s not that easy to build on, nor is it cheap. How many people around here would actually build an ADU? I might consider it for retirement, while I rent out the main house, but my backyard is about 5000sqft, narrow and long, and if I do build an ADU, most of the yard would be gone. I can't imagine building an ADU in my yard that would be big enough to be comfortable with the setback rules, and I wouldn't want the ADU to be too close to the main house. It would pretty tiny for two people, let alone for an adult with kids.

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.

Like where? And if they are illegal, why don't you call the county/city on them?

I am not surprised by how many people can fit in a tiny area because when my family first immigrated here, all six of us lived in a tiny 1 br apartment for a few months, then moved onto a tiny 2 br apt, then a tiny 3 br SFH.

All over MoCo. Wheaton, Silver Spring, Twinbrook, Aspen Hill, Manor Woods, Randolph Rd area.

We do call the county on them. But the county has very little enforcement. It's impossible for the county to prove how many people live in a home.

Where do you live that this is NOT an issue?

Rockville. Are these illegal ADUs or just over occupancy issues? I don't see lots of ADUs in Rockville. TB area lots are pretty small. I can't imagine building ADUs on those lots. Over occupancy is not the same issue as ADUs.

We're talking about illegal accessory apartments. People do these in their basements. Yes, the lots are small! And, there is not enough parking for all the vehicles that come along with the additional people. You can see it when you drive down the streets in the evening. Agree that it is both over occupancy issue AND illegal accessory apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

If they're not even requiring any of the units to be affordable housing, then this isn't about racial equity or social justice no matter how much Nancy Navarro may mention that. It's just about enriching developers.

Anonymous wrote:
What is the evidence that MoCo is providing increased school capacity to match housing development? Because there is a long list of overcapacity schools in popular areas. My kid's school has been more than 25% overcapacity for the last 3 years, and all it got is a "placeholder" to do a study for the next 6 years. Meanwhile they've lost a music room, and the teacher's lounge has become a classroom and the County isn't allowing them to put up any trailers. MoCo is setting the system up for kindergarten classes to become 29 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy[b]!)

THIS is what is key. And, this is where the money is. And, this is why this will pass.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Too bad Merriam-Webster can't teach you logic or reading comprehension. I could plop a house down on a deserted island, but there wouldn't be basic infrastructure (i.e. schools and necessary vehicular options) to get to my job. Adding housing in isolation without upgrading public transport and school capacity is truly bad planning.

Schools are infrastructure. Transportation systems are infrastructure. Communications systems are infrastructure. Utilities are infrastructure. Hospitals are infrastructure. And housing is infrastructure.

Again, you seem to lack understanding of the issue. You can add additional housing infrastructure but if you fail to upgrade school capacity and public transportation options as MoCo has, you will end up with a place that few people find attractive to live in.

If you don't add housing, you will end up with a place that few young people can afford to live in.

And actually that's the point we're getting to.

I'm a young person who lives in MoCo and if MoCo doesn't add school capacity to accommodate the overcrowding, young people aren't going to want to settle there. This has been a long-running issue that MoCo has shown no appetite to address.

How young?

Does Montgomery County need more school capacity? Yes, Montgomery County does.

Does Montgomery County need more housing? Yes, Montgomery County does.

It's not one or the other. It's both. Montgomery County needs both.

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, for TB area, since it's in Rockville, Rockville City enforcement will definitely look at illegal ADUs. They came to our neighborhood when someone complained about an unkempt front yard and fences collapsing.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Again, if you want to live in the real world, you would notice the study that there are 1400 air b n' bs operating illegally in MoCo. So if you think that MoCo is going to protect your home from your neighbor's inadequate stormwater management or the ADU turned illegal Air B n'B, you're not planning appropriately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can ensure that basic infrastructure is in place. My kids are already in an overcapacity school, and it takes me 10 minutes to drive a stretch of Wisconsin that would take me 5 minutes to walk. I don't have an issue with higher density-I lived in New York most of my life, but Montgomery County has not shown any willingness or capacity to plan for the increased population of school aged children or drivers, and it's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation.

No, you didn't answer the question. Where do you think the additional housing should go?

What's reducing the attractiveness of the area as a whole to a new generation is inability to afford to live here.

You didn't answer the question of why MoCo should be adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place. Why should they do that? Do you not think children deserve a good education? Housing can go many place--I lived in DC which has chosen to keep its low-rise character and not become New York despite being a much larger source of employment than MoCo. I don't understand your premise that MoCo needs to be the source of housing for the area--if there were better public transit (something MoCo is woefully lacking), people could enter far more easily. But I have colleagues who have turned down jobs in Bethesda because traffic is so bad, so adding housing without ensuring basic infrastructure is in place just reduces the area's competitiveness for skilled workers (but it makes the real estate agents and developers who donate to the Council happy[b]!)

THIS is what is key. And, this is where the money is. And, this is why this will pass.

+1.

Meet the "Democratic" politicians -- real estate developers complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.