Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I for one am adding an ADU (well technically the only owner did but never made it legal). Can’t wait to generate income from renting the basement apartment...

Why can't you do this already? If you have a basement apartment, bring it up to code and you can easily rent it. In MoCo, you can make a good amount of money. Post on Craigslist or NextDoor and you'll get a ton of responses. And, get the rental license.

You don't need to wait for the new zoning law.

You can't currently do it legally, in most parts of the county.

DP

Of course you can. It's perfectly legal to have a basement accessory apartment in your home if you live upstairs. What makes you think it's illegal? We have two on our street. You are required to get the rental license however if you want it to be legal.

You can also just do it illegally. Which we also have on our street. If you want to do it illegally, it's better to find undocumented renters, who are willing to pay cash. This way, the County can't prove anything if a neighbor complains of a housing code violation.

The county's regulations on Class 3 accessory apartments.

Can you provide a link? That's interesting to me because I wonder if the people doing this in our neighborhood are doing it illegally. Always thought it was fine, as long as you live in the home yourself. But, that it's illegal if you do NOT live in the home yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I for one am adding an ADU (well technically the only owner did but never made it legal). Can’t wait to generate income from renting the basement apartment...

Why can't you do this already? If you have a basement apartment, bring it up to code and you can easily rent it. In MoCo, you can make a good amount of money. Post on Craigslist or NextDoor and you'll get a ton of responses. And, get the rental license.

You don't need to wait for the new zoning law.

You can't currently do it legally, in most parts of the county.

DP

Of course you can. It's perfectly legal to have a basement accessory apartment in your home if you live upstairs. What makes you think it's illegal? We have two on our street. You are required to get the rental license however if you want it to be legal.

You can also just do it illegally. Which we also have on our street. If you want to do it illegally, it's better to find undocumented renters, who are willing to pay cash. This way, the County can't prove anything if a neighbor complains of a housing code violation.

The county's regulations on Class 3 accessory apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

DP

I don't think it's 'real estate developers' who are behind this. It's the real estate investors. They want to make as much money as possible on the property they own. We see this already when the investors come into the neighborhood and build a gargantuan second story on the home so that they can rent it out to 4 families instead of just 2. Regardless of how much room there is for parking, and regardless of how many kids will be now attending the already overcrowded schools.

The real estate investors, meaning the people who are so concerned about the effect this will have on their property values?

The proposed change to the ADU regulations only applies to people who live on the property they add the ADU to. People in the county who own single-family-detached houses they don't live in, and who are illegally renting them to multiple families, won't benefit from the change. So why would they be pushing for it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

Yup, like the real estate developers who donate to the Council.

I don't understand why people are convinced that the real estate developers are behind this. Pulte and Toll Brothers are not interested in converting your basement into a rental apartment or building an accessory dwelling in your backyard.

DP

I don't think it's 'real estate developers' who are behind this. It's the real estate investors. They want to make as much money as possible on the property they own. We see this already when the investors come into the neighborhood and build a gargantuan second story on the home so that they can rent it out to 4 families instead of just 2. Regardless of how much room there is for parking, and regardless of how many kids will be now attending the already overcrowded schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I for one am adding an ADU (well technically the only owner did but never made it legal). Can’t wait to generate income from renting the basement apartment...

Why can't you do this already? If you have a basement apartment, bring it up to code and you can easily rent it. In MoCo, you can make a good amount of money. Post on Craigslist or NextDoor and you'll get a ton of responses. And, get the rental license.

You don't need to wait for the new zoning law.

You can't currently do it legally, in most parts of the county.

DP

Of course you can. It's perfectly legal to have a basement accessory apartment in your home if you live upstairs. What makes you think it's illegal? We have two on our street. You are required to get the rental license however if you want it to be legal.

You can also just do it illegally. Which we also have on our street. If you want to do it illegally, it's better to find undocumented renters, who are willing to pay cash. This way, the County can't prove anything if a neighbor complains of a housing code violation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

Yup, like the real estate developers who donate to the Council.

I don't understand why people are convinced that the real estate developers are behind this. Pulte and Toll Brothers are not interested in converting your basement into a rental apartment or building an accessory dwelling in your backyard.

Agreed. There's no money in building a 1,000 sq ft building behind your house.

Anonymous wrote:

If you have just over a 1/4 acre lot, you will be able to build a 1200 sf house in your backyard. You will be able to put a driveway for that house. Separating your lot by any other name is still subdivision.

Only if you define subdividing as "having two buildings on your property that people may live in", and why would you do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

Yup, like the real estate developers who donate to the Council.

I don't understand why people are convinced that the real estate developers are behind this. Pulte and Toll Brothers are not interested in converting your basement into a rental apartment or building an accessory dwelling in your backyard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

Yup, like the real estate developers who donate to the Council.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

I don't care about basement apartments but the new build a house in your backyard and rent it out thing sucks. It's back door subdivision. DC and Arlington now allow versions of this so Reimer doesn't want to be outdone. He was also interested in allowing people to convert shipping containers to dwelling spaces and was kind of upset when nobody else hopped on his bandwagon.

Except for the part where there is no subdividing.

Also, shipping container homes are a thing: https://www.dwell.com/article/shipping-container-home-floor-plans-4fb04079

Also, it's Riemer, not Reimer.

If you have just over a 1/4 acre lot, you will be able to build a 1200 sf house in your backyard. You will be able to put a driveway for that house. Separating your lot by any other name is still subdivision.

Anonymous wrote:Read here: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/resources/files/zta/2013/20130205_17-28.pdf

This is from 2013. The zoning code was amended in October 2018 and that just took effect in January 2019.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

I don't care about basement apartments but the new build a house in your backyard and rent it out thing sucks. It's back door subdivision. DC and Arlington now allow versions of this so Reimer doesn't want to be outdone. He was also interested in allowing people to convert shipping containers to dwelling spaces and was kind of upset when nobody else hopped on his bandwagon.

Except for the part where there is no subdividing.

Also, shipping container homes are a thing: https://www.dwell.com/article/shipping-container-home-floor-plans-4fb04079

Also, it's Riemer, not Reimer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the Council made up its mind to do this, public opinion notwithstanding. The only thing they're debating about is whether your ADU should be fenced off from the neighbor's property.

What do you mean, public opinion notwithstanding? There are certainly people who oppose the idea, but there are also plenty of people who support it.

I don't care about basement apartments but the new build a house in your backyard and rent it out thing sucks. It's back door subdivision. DC and Arlington now allow versions of this so Reimer doesn't want to be outdone. He was also interested in allowing people to convert shipping containers to dwelling spaces and was kind of upset when nobody else hopped on his bandwagon.

Read here: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/resources/files/zta/2013/20130205_17-28.pdf

I clicked on your link and it makes clear the requirements for getting an accessory apartment. Maybe you think the requirements are too strict, but that doesn't mean they are illegal in most of the county.