Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Consider yourself fortunate. Where do you live? I'm assuming it's a fairly wealthy, educated area for people to know to call DPS.

We live in a less wealthy area, and neighbors just called 311 last weekend for people drag racing up one of the streets in our neighborhood. Right by the park. The one neighbor couldn't even get a response from the police. Took an hour and a half, and they told her to call the Desk Sargent, which just confused her. We find it really tough to get enforcement for anything in our neighborhood. Police just have bigger fish to fry.

Don't call 311, call 911.

+1 Why would you call 311 about drag racing? Bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:

Consider yourself fortunate. Where do you live? I'm assuming it's a fairly wealthy, educated area for people to know to call DPS.

We live in a less wealthy area, and neighbors just called 311 last weekend for people drag racing up one of the streets in our neighborhood. Right by the park. The one neighbor couldn't even get a response from the police. Took an hour and a half, and they told her to call the Desk Sargent, which just confused her. We find it really tough to get enforcement for anything in our neighborhood. Police just have bigger fish to fry.

Don't call 311, call 911.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There will absolutely be landlords taking advantage of this, trying to cram in as many people as possible to maximize their revenue.

What's stopping them from doing it now?

The fact that it's illegal to drop a prefab ADU on their property in the middle of their lawn currently. But make that legal, and there's no way to police how people are actually using the unit, despite MoCo's purity pledge to ban Air B n'Bs from those new units.

I'm imagining a property owner thinking, "Boy, I sure would like to use the property I live on for short-term rentals, but I need to wait until the county enacts a regulation that prohibits me from using the property I live on for short-term rentals!"

Don't know where you live in MoCo, but where I live, the second construction an ADU type structure gets plopped down/ in someone's backyard, there would be be 7 calls into the Department of Permitting checking it's legality.

Consider yourself fortunate. Where do you live? I'm assuming it's a fairly wealthy, educated area for people to know to call DPS.

We live in a less wealthy area, and neighbors just called 311 last weekend for people drag racing up one of the streets in our neighborhood. Right by the park. The one neighbor couldn't even get a response from the police. Took an hour and a half, and they told her to call the Desk Sargent, which just confused her. We find it really tough to get enforcement for anything in our neighborhood. Police just have bigger fish to fry.

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.

Where to start?

First off, you live in DC not MoCo which is the subject of this thread. In DC, all but two zones are multifamily zoning, including R-40. Reference the DC Zoning Handbook-

http://handbook.dcoz.dc.gov/use-categories/other-uses/accessory-dwelling-units/

Second, you are crazy if you think these people bought their homes "for a song". You don't seem to understand inflation and time value of money concepts. I can guarantee these people spend very significant portions of their income on housing. Lastly, your post is offensive. I'm glad you're so excited that the Boomers and the elderly will be dying so upzoning can move along. Your karma will come when the next generation says that about you. In the meantime, the youngest boomers are just turning 55, are probably a decade or more from retirement, and are very likely to have teenagers still in their homes. Sorry they can't die quicker to open up the housing stock for you.

Price-to-income ratios for housing are reaching historic highs.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/price-to-income-ratios-are-nearing-historic-highs/

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.

Where to start?

First off, you live in DC not MoCo which is the subject of this thread. In DC, all but two zones are multifamily zoning, including R-40. Reference the DC Zoning Handbook-

http://handbook.dcoz.dc.gov/use-categories/other-uses/accessory-dwelling-units/

Second, you are crazy if you think these people bought their homes "for a song". You don't seem to understand inflation and time value of money concepts. I can guarantee these people spend very significant portions of their income on housing. Lastly, your post is offensive. I'm glad you're so excited that the Boomers and the elderly will be dying so upzoning can move along. Your karma will come when the next generation says that about you. In the meantime, the youngest boomers are just turning 55, are probably a decade or more from retirement, and are very likely to have teenagers still in their homes. Sorry they can't die quicker to open up the housing stock for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There will absolutely be landlords taking advantage of this, trying to cram in as many people as possible to maximize their revenue.

What's stopping them from doing it now?

The fact that it's illegal to drop a prefab ADU on their property in the middle of their lawn currently. But make that legal, and there's no way to police how people are actually using the unit, despite MoCo's purity pledge to ban Air B n'Bs from those new units.

I'm imagining a property owner thinking, "Boy, I sure would like to use the property I live on for short-term rentals, but I need to wait until the county enacts a regulation that prohibits me from using the property I live on for short-term rentals!"

Don't know where you live in MoCo, but where I live, the second construction an ADU type structure gets plopped down/ in someone's backyard, there would be be 7 calls into the Department of Permitting checking it's legality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There will absolutely be landlords taking advantage of this, trying to cram in as many people as possible to maximize their revenue.

What's stopping them from doing it now?

The fact that it's illegal to drop a prefab ADU on their property in the middle of their lawn currently. But make that legal, and there's no way to police how people are actually using the unit, despite MoCo's purity pledge to ban Air B n'Bs from those new units.

I'm imagining a property owner thinking, "Boy, I sure would like to use the property I live on for short-term rentals, but I need to wait until the county enacts a regulation that prohibits me from using the property I live on for short-term rentals!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There will absolutely be landlords taking advantage of this, trying to cram in as many people as possible to maximize their revenue.

What's stopping them from doing it now?

The fact that it's illegal to drop a prefab ADU on their property in the middle of their lawn currently. But make that legal, and there's no way to police how people are actually using the unit, despite MoCo's purity pledge to ban Air B n'Bs from those new units.

Anonymous wrote:

There will absolutely be landlords taking advantage of this, trying to cram in as many people as possible to maximize their revenue.

What's stopping them from doing it now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap, what is with the deliberate disinformation? MoCo does not prohibit Airbnb. Moreover, this new legislation will allow you to convert your ADU to an Airbnb so there will be lots more. Please do not post if you have no idea what you’re talking about.

No. The zoning text amendment prohibits ADUs on lots with short-term rentals. See A(2)(d).

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ZTA-19-01-accessory-apartments-jks-final_02-07-19.pdf

And we already know that there are many illegal AirBnBs in the county. This will not help.

Yup, it's like saying, here's the gun, but don't fire it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you--I hadn't thought of the stormwater issues. Our yard and our neighbor's yard began flooding regularly when a neighboring house was torn down and a new larger house was built in its place reducing the grass and tree cover to the bare minimum allowed. The builder didn't care. We appealed to MoCo but they said since we were infinitesimally downhill from our neighbor that it wasn't their problem, even though our yard never flooded in 10 years prior. We each had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade our property and install additional drainage.

So your neighbor had to pay thousands of dollars to regrade their property so it wouldn't flood your yard?

That sounds like a good incentive for the homeowner to make sure that, if they build a free-standing ADU, it doesn't flood their neighbor's yard.

DP

I read it that the PP had to pay so that her own property did not get flooded.

PP you're responding to. I read it that they both had to pay - the PP, and the neighbor who bought from the builder.

Actually, if I'd been the neighbor who bought from the builder, I might have consulted a lawyer about the builder's legal obligations to deal with the stormwater runoff.

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.

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There will absolutely be landlords taking advantage of this, trying to cram in as many people as possible to maximize their revenue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap, what is with the deliberate disinformation? MoCo does not prohibit Airbnb. Moreover, this new legislation will allow you to convert your ADU to an Airbnb so there will be lots more. Please do not post if you have no idea what you’re talking about.

No. The zoning text amendment prohibits ADUs on lots with short-term rentals. See A(2)(d).

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ZTA-19-01-accessory-apartments-jks-final_02-07-19.pdf

And we already know that there are many illegal AirBnBs in the county. This will not help.

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap, what is with the deliberate disinformation? MoCo does not prohibit Airbnb. Moreover, this new legislation will allow you to convert your ADU to an Airbnb so there will be lots more. Please do not post if you have no idea what you’re talking about.

No. The zoning text amendment prohibits ADUs on lots with short-term rentals. See A(2)(d).

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ZTA-19-01-accessory-apartments-jks-final_02-07-19.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is going to be a lot of angry voters when the ramifications of these ADUs are more carefully thought through. Many of those tiny lots weren't designed to hold extra units. If they want to rezone these areas near metro (and their definition of 1 mile from Metro includes most of Chevy Chase and thousands of house in Bethesda), they need to just do it in a more drastic fashion, because this hodge podge approach of adding random ADUs is just going to make conditions untenable when bad actors exploit this poorly thought out proposal.

There won't be a lot of angry voters unless there are a lot of ADUs. And if there are a lot of ADUs, then that will show that the ADUs are meeting a major need.

But my guess is that there will not be a lot of ADUs.

Here's a look at ADU permit trends in Portland, OR: https://accessorydwellings.org/2019/01/14/adu-permit-trends-in-portland-in-2017-and-2018/

But MoCo isn't adopting Portland's regulations. A number of residents who have been involved in zoning and land use policy have proposed that MoCo 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 (i.e. AirBnBs). MoCo isn't doing this.

How is that relevant to numbers of ADU permits? Would the number of ADU permits be higher or lower without these requirements?

It's relevant if you actually care about the outcomes of the ADU policy. If you don't put this restriction in, you run the risk of the proliferation of Air BnBs.

"Affordable" rent and AirBnBs are two separate issues. Montgomery County currently prohibits and will continue to prohibit AirBnBs.

How are the difference between Portland's ADU regulations and Montgomery County's proposed ADU regulations relevant to the NUMBERS of ADUs?

Holy crap, what is with the deliberate disinformation? MoCo does not prohibit Airbnb. Moreover, this new legislation will allow you to convert your ADU to an Airbnb so there will be lots more. Please do not post if you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

This is a thread on ADUs, not the number of ADUs. If the purpose of ADUs is to promote affordable housing and social justice, MoCo would do well to emulate Portland. But it's not.

Numbers of ADUs are an aspect of ADUs, no? If people are worrying that the neighborhoods will be overrun by ADUs, but in reality there will probably not be very many ADUs, that's relevant.

The purpose of the proposed rule change on ADUs is to increase the supply of housing, which helps with housing affordability.

Here's the Planning Department staff summary on the proposed rule change (minus the changes the Council discussed last week): https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ZTA-19-01-accessory-apartments-jks-final_02-07-19.pdf

Here's what Nancy Navarro said about it last week: "I think this is a step forward in terms of getting us to diversify our stock of housing, especially for young professionals, this is a great option."