Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

instead of addressing each individual comment i'll make a final blanket statement.

The people that seem to be on the attack and hate these regulations seem to forget that these are being applied to established single family detached neighborhoods that were a - not designed to add this new capacity and b - are likely full of homeowners who purchased their property thinking they were purchasing in a single family detached neighborhood.

It also goes beyond just looking at household size (although that is still a major argument for regulating the number of these units allowed). There is also the mental barrier people are going to have about renters. Most people who rent are great people, I myself rent, and I myself would love an accessory apartment. But i'm also aware that there is a stigma attached to renters, and as another comment suggested, the biggest hurdle is going to be getting any law in place that recognizes these units. Their has been a lot of public outcry over this legislation from people who do not want it at all. Adopting a limited version of this legislation may be the smartest way to show the group of nay-sayers that this will not be the detriment of their community. Imposing a new development pattern on them without their cooperation is just as offensive as you feel the County is being toward you by making these types of dwellings difficult to come by.

Also, most people who are looking for these accessory apartments are likely to be younger professionals, or elderly, and are going to be single or at least a couple without children. The same demographic that we already find is driving the resurgence of urbanization in this Country. Most are going to want to be transit accessible, and are not even going to be interested in living in 70% of MoCo's housing stock. The better idea in my opinion is to have more restrictive rules on accessory apartments in the more "suburban" or "rural" areas of the County, and more relaxed rules closer to the concentration of transit opportunities (and jobs).

I do not think most of these regulations are going to have a huge limiting factor on accessory apartments - just because the door has to open to the side (it's not to hide the renters, it's to make the house still look like a single family detached unit from the street), or because the larger of the two units has to be lived in by the owner (this is an accessory apartment rule, not a 'convert single family dwelling into duplex' rule). The only real limit is the rule limiting how close the next accessory unit can be located. Honestly, building these units takes time and money and even if there were very relaxed regulations you're not going to see thousands of these units appearing tomorrow. I support getting the language in the code, and starting with heavy regulation until all sides involved have a handle on how this will work.

by Gull on Aug 1, 2012 9:24 am • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam