Comments on What's in the zoning update: Accessory dwellings - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by polo

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:37:19 EDT

I have lived in DC basements, apartments, ADUS and now my own house in the upper northwest. I have walked, biked, motorcycled, cross country skiied and driven the city, and appreciated all. I do, I admit, own a car now, to go with my house, a little VW golf. I do go to work by bus and metro.

I appreciate very much all the benefits brought by a larger population of younger residents. And I have appreciated a lot of the discussion you have sparked.

But you know, condemning people over 40 and anyone who disagrees with you as unfit for a voice in DC is really getting tiring. You have condemned opposition to ADUs as being opposed to neighborhoods and neighbors.

Now you have condemned people with small families as unfit to live in 'big' (1500ft2 in my case) houses. Never mind that my neighborhood schools are already 50% over capacity and kids study in trailers, and DC has no solution; that there is no more room for street or alley parking, even for my dinky car (the under-30 gloriously bike-conscious young generation students that rent across the street have 4 cars). Never mind that I actually let my parents visit my house without sleeping on the floor.

And then you say shit like: for people in my neighborhood "sometimes, it's anxiety that poorer and browner people might start living nearby."

No, people in my neighborhood, which include "brown" people, are mostly concerned that the local public schools are so overcrowded and that DC has no good solution that they will be forced, like decades ago, to move to Montgomery County because they can't afford private schools.

Let's do it this way: why don't you propose to raise the unit occupancy ratio in your building and rent out floor space to friends, allow hard-working low-paid people and students to occupy your building 10 to a room. Isn't that the logical conclusion to the way you express your sentiment?

And as you do, figure out the educational demands and alternatives and expenditures of your denser neighborhood, and whether your kid will be able to go to a neighborhood school or be forced to find an accepting charter school across town. And figure out whether all of you in the apartment should pay more tax to support all of that.

I could actually benefit from your ADU advocacy as I rebuild an old garage. But you know what? Suggesting that because i don't have 5 kids I don't merit living in my 1500 ft2 house makes me want to oppose anything you have to say. Even if it benefits me.

And seriously, as one of the gentrification generation which has helped push out black DC, perhaps you ought to put your "browner" crap where it belongs -- up yours.

Comment by Lansing

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:48:33 EDT

I'm an owner of a business and building in the westend.A two story building is adjacent to our main building. Both are on an alley 30 feet wide. I believe I could build a single family home there but under the proposed changes could I build multiple family housing.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:56:11 EDT

Nicole DuPuis: You can see it on the map here:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/16967/whats-in-the-zoning-update-corner-stores/

Click on that map for a bigger version. It looks like the only R-3 east of the river is in Anacostia, Fort Stanton, and River Terrace and a tiny piece along Oxon Run (not sure if that's Douglass or Congress Heights).

Comment by Andrew

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:27:52 EDT

OP has confirmed that the limit of 6 people on a property applies to both internal and external ADUs. Thus a family of 4 in the main house could only have up to 2 people living in the ADU, not the 4 or 5 claimed by many opponents of the rewrite.

I suppose there is a scenario where a single person living in the main house could rent out their 450/900 foot ADU to a group of 4 or 5 people, but that seems both uncomfortable, unlikely, and still possibly illegal, depending on the space requirements are per person in a dwelling.

Comment by Paul

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:20:26 EDT

Interesting that people are reading the provision about the owner also living on the lot as discriminatory. In my experience renters sometimes, not always but definitely sometimes, have a different level of investment in the community and the physical property they live in. That's ok, as a comedian once said "I like to rent because I don't have to buy (anything at the hardware store)." But the big problem isn't renters, which this law is in fact designed to increase, but absentee landlords who do not invest in maintaining either their own properties or the community - instead relying on everyone who actually lives there to keep things up while they collect a nice fat check every month.

Comment by Nicole DuPuis

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 08:36:24 EDT

Just a clarifying question on the R-3 zones. Does this include only Anacostia or all of the neighborhoods east of the river?

Comment by Thayer-D

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:33:36 EDT

I agree with Tom C. in that they'll waste a lot of energy and political ammo on a device that while useful, would be negligable in terms of increasing density when the real up-zoning fight stays on the side line. Maybe this is being adressed already, but it seems a lot more important to upzone every metro stop to a 6-8 story height along the commercial corridors and wherever else it makes sense within a half mile.

Comment by Richard Layman

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 06:42:51 EDT

... although yes, if every one of the potential units in my neighborhood were built and all of the occupants used a car for the most part to get around it would have tremendous negative impact.

I think the biggest point ought to be to focus allowability in transit station catchment areas.

Comment by Richard Layman

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 06:17:01 EDT

Condition b in 603.1 basically eliminates most of the ability to add ADUs to places where they can be accommodated. Why tout or f*ing bother with it, if you can't add in substantive ways to the building stock through expansion of this opportunity.

I didn't think a provision in DC's zoning code could be even stupider than MoCo's maximum number provision of 2000 ADUs being allowed under their changes (this number is totally arbitrary which is why I think it's stupid), but this far exceeds it.

My neighborhood could accommodate hundreds of ADUs. Many of the blocks east of 5th Street have large lots (e.g., my backyard is 90 feet long). Many lots do not have garages, even if they may have existed in the past. A large section of my neighborhood lies within 3/4 to 1 mile walking distance of the Takoma Metro Station. Not being able to create new ADUs from the ground up destroys at least 75% of the opportunity for ADUs within this neighborhood. Adding to the population would make it possible to better support neighborhood retail, transit use, eyes on the street, etc.

Comment by Rich

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:00:05 EDT

There have been problems with people filling in their backyards with some monstrosity and doing it without permits, etc. the case I remember best was in Colonial Village. You see a lot of this in places like SoCal and Vancouver whe there are lage Chinese extended families and postage stamp sized lot is turned into a compound.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:54:02 EDT

A lot of controversy to try and get some changes in upper northwest and far southeast low-residential neighborhoods.

Bringing density levels in R-4 and R-5 up to modern times is much more needed. Instead OP's chosen to pick it's fight on something that really doesn't matter much.

Of course more than a few of these folks live in 3K sq' townhouses in R-4 and R-5 neighborhoods.

Comment by Gray's The Classics

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:20:41 EDT

@Thayer-D:

. . . [A]s a general rule, they should let people live in their homes as they like, since they do it anyway.

I think this is a good point. There was a huge fire in a house on my block the other week, and the fire department said that when they got there they discovered that the house was subdivided into three units, one of which was a salon. It seems like even my neighbors who are afraid of this change would find it preferable to houses being divided in crazy, unsafe ways outside of any system. It's not like inspectors are going to discover most of these until something bad happens, so why not be proactive and see that it's done in a safe way?

Comment by Hillman

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:13:24 EDT

Also as I understand it this would allow a family in the main house to utilize their basement.

If you live in a small house that currently has a rental basement you could reclaim the basement when you have kids or whatnot, and rent out the ADU on the alley.

This flexibility would be really beneficial to a lot of people.

And it would increase property values, as the idea of extra square footage and flexibility would make a house appealing to a wider range of people.

Comment by Hillman

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:08:57 EDT

Big fan of this concept.

The idiocy of allowing perfectly good space go to waste because technically it's on an alley never made any sense to me.

What many fail to realize about renters is that for many it's a lifestyle choice. They make as much $$ if not more $$ than many of these longtime-residents that own these massive but unused houses do, and many remain renters for a lifetime, by choice.

Building on an alley increases public safety, as a good many crimes start in the alley, or the alleys are used as an escape route.

You put a few houses back there with better lighting and the people living in those houses can keep an eye on things.

Comment by Bradley Heard

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:03:12 EDT

Vancouver has a more robust accessory dwelling program that, I think, would work well in the District and (maybe, someday) in the redeveloping Metro station areas in Prince George's.

Comment by Thayer-D

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:51:00 EDT

Not being a fan of legalese, I'll rely on youz guys to break it down, but as a general rule, they should let people live in their homes as they like, since they do it anyway. Group houses can be very crowded, and what's the difference between a family of 12 and a family living in the basement? The idea that renters will bring down the value of an area by itself is crazy. If you've got jobs, buzz, and beauty, no amount of renters is going to bring down a neighborhood. These fears are a hold over from the 1950's when an urban neighborhood's vitality seemed much more tenuous. We know that most people have moved beyond all the stereotypes that kept many a potential city dweller at bay. This is one of those areas in the zoning code that should be one page long. Life safety and 'nuff said.

Comment by drumz

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:31:20 EDT

And would it be better for size restrictions to be based on lot size than an arbitrary number?

Comment by drumz

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:27:32 EDT

renters is a code word for poor people. And somehow renters don't contribute to the community. Their tax dollars don't count and an increase in a house's value from having an ADU doesn't count either.

Comment by Alf

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:22:38 EDT

I think that one can debate the merits and demerits of this proposal without raising the race/class bogeyman. There are plenty of reasons to think this could be a positive development for Washington. Let's also acknowledge that some residents who live in single family neighborhoods have concerns about impacts on parking, crowding, noise, light, etc., without (darkly) suggesting that it is about new residents being "pooer and browner." Let's keep the civic discourse civil and on point.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:16:27 EDT

If you violate no factors, you don't need a hearing. If you want to get out of 1-3 factors, you need a hearing and need to demonstrate that it's not averse to the public interest and the intent of the zoning regulations and comprehensive plan. So if neighbors are fine with it, they'll probably allow it, but if neighbors object and seem to have good reason, then probably not.

Comment by Steve

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:07:08 EDT

One of the big issues being raised is that new ADUs can be constructed without there being a hearing. As I read this, if you want to build a new ADU that meets the other requirements, meaning that you violate one of the factors, there is no need for a hearing. Am I reading this right?

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:51:10 EDT

Chris R: No, you can't make effectively a 3rd unit. An R-4 allows 2 regular units and 0 accessory units. I think you would even need a variance, not just a special exception, because the rules do not provide for a special exception to exceed the number of units as far as I am aware, and the accessory dwelling rules do not apply to R-4s at all.

Note that in the R-4, you CAN have a 3rd unit if the lot is unusually big. There's some number of square feet that if you are over, you can do a 3rd unit. But it's larger than the typical lot, so it's unlikely.

Comment by Chris R

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:40:07 EDT

So If I have a building in a R-4 zone with an existing upstairs unit, separate basement unit and a carriage house out back can I finish the carriage house and make it its own separate unit? There is already a studio apt on the 2nd floor it would just be adding a kitchen and the ground floor. Or would I have to get a special exception? The lot is and end unit on a alley if that changes things. This whole process is so confusing!

Comment by Andrew

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:31:08 EDT

So as I read this, here is what I am able to surmise:

Old Code:
Can have an interior and exterior ADU (if the exterior ADU is inhabited by a domestic employee);

New Code:
Can have EITHER an interior OR Exterior ADU, but not both. Removes the domestic employee restriction.

Old Code:
External ADU can be as large as zoning lot coverage permits and 20 feet in height;

New Code:
External ADU is limited to 450 square feet and 22 feet in height.

Old Code:
Existing out structure can be converted to an ADU by right as long as neither the footprint nor height change. Any changes to the footprint or height requires a special exception.

New Code:
Existing out structure can be converted to an ADU by right as long as neither the footprint nor height change. Any changes to the footprint or height requires a special exception (identical to old code).

Other than the removal of the "domestic employee" restriction, can someone please point out where there is a significant change to the existing code?