|
Results of a survey taken by Hare indicate that communities
<br />with very high fees are unlikely to have a high conversion
<br />rate. But an accessory unit, Hare claims, does not usually
<br />result in more utility users than a family making full use of a
<br />home without a second unit.
<br /> Despite such hurdles, planners in Seattle and Ontario are
<br />trying to foster acceptance of second units. The Seattle city
<br />council has tried twice to pass an accessory units ordinance,
<br />only to encounter strong opposition from neighborhood
<br />organizations. John Skellon, senior land-use specialist for the
<br />city, says citizens in Seattle are very active: if the3' feel left
<br />ou~ of a planning effort, they'll make every effort to get the
<br />plans vetoed. In response, Skelton and others are working on
<br />an ordinance that will provide for parking, minimum house
<br />size requirements, appearance standards, and the opportunity
<br />for neighborhood groups to participate. The city may launch
<br />a pilot project to see how well such an accessory apartments
<br />policy would work citywide.
<br /> Part of the impetus for drafting a local ordinance is coming
<br />from the state. Variations on a proposal to require Washington
<br />cities to allow accessory units, or else make other significant
<br />efforts to promote affordable housing, have been bouncing
<br />around the legislature for about eight years. The most recent
<br />bill passed the state senate but stalled in the house rules
<br />committee. Bill Lynch, staff counsel for State Rep. Dick
<br />Nelson, says the bill could reappear next year. Although the
<br />state proposals are rather loose, local governments, fearing
<br />their authority would be usurped, have opposed them.
<br /> Ontario passed a law requiring local governments to adopt
<br />an accessory apartment ordinance by last August, but it too
<br />has met resistance, The province requires local governments
<br />to identify areas appropriate for accessory apartments and
<br />allow second units in them as of right. This would help
<br />further its goal of residential intensification, encouraging the
<br />use of existing housing stock and reducing sprawl. Although
<br />Canadian provinces have more authority to control local
<br />government planning than do most states in the U.S., the
<br />Association of Municipalities of Ontario is pushing for
<br />requiring owner occupancy of either the main or accessory
<br />unit, a common requirement in U.S. zoning laws.
<br /> James Douglas, policy adviser in the Ontario Ministry of
<br />Housing, says the province is currently working with
<br />communities to draft bylaws that are appropriate, but not so
<br />restrictive as to effectively bar accessory units. Ontario,
<br />Douglas adds, allows local input but has the right to reject an
<br />ordinance that it considers too rigid.
<br />
<br />Zoning Ordinances
<br />Zoning ordinances in Nantucket, Massachusetts, Boulder,
<br />Colorado, and Guilford County, North Carolina, all allow
<br />accessory apartments under some circumstances in single-
<br />family zones. But there are differences that reflect the
<br />communities' varying needs.
<br /> Nantucket is a popular island tourist community. Year-
<br />round residents have a difficult time finding affordable
<br />housing because summer visitors will pay premium prices. In
<br />response, the local government drafted an accessory apartment
<br />ordinance that allows homeowners to build another unit only if
<br />it is rented to year-round residents. Every, three years or when
<br />ownership changes, the homeowner must reaffirm that the unit
<br />is occupied by an islander. The ordinance also stipulates that
<br />the second unit cannot be sold separately as a condominium.
<br /> Other provisions resemble those elsewhere. The accessory
<br />
<br />unit cannot be larger than 800 nor smaller than 300 square
<br />feet. It cannot take up more than 40 percent of the principal
<br />structure's floor area or have more than two bedrooms. There
<br />must be at least one parking space per unit. The accessory
<br />apartment must be a complete living space, with kitchen and
<br />bathroom facilities entirely separated from the primary unit.
<br />The building's exterior must give every appearance that it is
<br />a single-family house.
<br /> Boulder, Co}orado, home of the University of Colorado,
<br />has its share of students competing with long-term residents
<br />for affordable places to live. Boulder stipulates that resi-
<br />dences with accessory units must be occupied by an owner
<br />who has at least a 50 percent interest in the property. No
<br />more than 10 percent of the single-family homes in a
<br />neighborhood may have second units. In lower-density areas,
<br />second units are not allowed within 600 feet of each other. In
<br />higher-density zones, the distance must be at least 300 feet.
<br />The city has a first-come, first-serve policy.
<br /> Boulder also has size limits--no more than 1,000 square feet,
<br />covering less than one-third of the principal unit' s gross floor
<br />area. The lot size must be at least 6,000 square feet, and the
<br />house size at least 1,500 square feet. The entrance to the second
<br />unit may face the street only if i~ is screened enough not to
<br />detract substantially from the single-family nature of the
<br />residence. Boulder prohibits speculation in accesso~ units and
<br />forbids builders from including them in new buildings.
<br /> Guilford County, unlike most communities, provides for
<br />detached accessory dwellings. These may be part of a garage, a
<br />manufactured building, or a home built on-site. The unit must
<br />have a sewage disposal system, meet setback requirements, and
<br />be placed at least 10 feet from the principal building. The
<br />detached unit may be no more than half the size of the main
<br />residence. The ordinance requires that the lot size be at least 50
<br />percent greater than the minimum required by the zoning
<br />ordinance for houses without detached units. Lots with a main
<br />and accessory unit must include four par'king spaces.
<br /> Guilfo~:d also provides for attached units. These may not
<br />exceed 25 percent of the main structure, but must be at least
<br />250 square feet. A separate entrance may be added only if it
<br />is necessary to bring the unit up to building code standards.
<br />Evidence of the second unit should not be visible from the
<br />street; multiple mailboxes and side entrances are prohibited.
<br />Only three parking spaces are required.
<br />
<br />Enforcement Problems
<br />Communities that prohibit accessory units often have them
<br />anyway. Some communities, in fact, adopt an accessory
<br />housing ordinance in part to bring homeowners with
<br />illegal units within the law. This allows building code
<br />inspectors to check on a unit's safety without evicting
<br />residents.
<br /> For its illegal units, Seattle uses a complaint-based
<br />enforcement system. Because the city used to allow acces-
<br />sory unii:s~ some of which are legal today under grandfather
<br />clauses, it is difficult to pinpoint illegal units. It is also hard,
<br />Skelton says, to distinguish between a dwelling unit and a
<br />family room'~with a wet bar. An inspector who notices a stove
<br />in the room,'along with other indicators, such as lockable
<br />doors, two mailboxes, or nonfamily members in a single-
<br />family home, will probably conclude that the building
<br />includes a second unit. But, in his book, Gellen notes that
<br />there are ways to hide illegal units. For instance, a second
<br />stove--a dead giveaway for an accessory use--is easily
<br />
<br />
<br />
|