Always Read the Fine Print

 

This morning I’m going to wade into an area where I generally express broad goals rather than getting technical or specific. Bear with me. 

You already know that I think that Howard County needs more housing, more housing at a variety of price points, and while we are at it, housing options that are accessible for those with disabilities. I’m also in favor of ADU’s (Accessory Dwelling Units.) So, when I saw an announcement from the County about ADU’s my first response was positive. “Oh good, ADU’s.” I’m here to sheepishly admit I didn’t do any further reading until yesterday.

Always read the fine print, as they say. A few things.

Here’s the announcement from the County Executive.

Here’s information about tonight’s meeting of the Planning Board which will discuss this. 

Here’s a recent article in the Baltimore Sun which I haven’t read yet because I no longer subscribe but I will try to access it through the library.

Accessory apartments are already allowed in Howard County. Residents fear a rise in density,  April Santana,  Baltimore Sun 

Well, I don’t fear a rise in density. I think that there are a lot of things that we need and want here that will only become possible through greater density. But, there is one thing about this I don’t understand.

I’ve always thought that the term Accessory Dwelling Unit applied to an owner-occupied property where the owner chose to build the ADU. You may have heard them called them Granny Flats. This proposal (called Petition No. ZRA-218 on the Planning Board website) does not require owned occupancy to build and to rent ADU’s.

I was surprised to see this. When neighboring Montgomery County examined ADU’s they chose to require owner occupancy. Why does this make a difference? Well, this means that in MoCo you can build an ADU but the owner still is in the house - - so it's like a granny flat or a place for your kids to live when starting out. The original structure remains.

In the language of the Howard County petition, whoever owns the land could, if desired, do a complete tear-down and reconfigure the parcel to include, say, a duplex and the accessory dwelling. They wouldn’t have to live there. This could be a great project for investors who have the money to make an outlay like this. Perhaps even undertaking multiple similar projects around the county. 

There’s nothing innately wrong with investors. It will change the nature of the outcome, however. Property owners would not necessarily be living in the community and/or invested in community life. More importantly, their goals would be different. The traditional model for building ADU is to provide an affordable place to live to someone who might not be able to afford one otherwise.

I could be wrong, but the business model for investors feels wholly different to me. I think the long term results of ZRA-218 as it stands could lead to higher rents which is exactly what we don’t need. 

Will this be discussed at the Planning Board meeting tonight? Probably. Can the Planning Board choose to add language (or recommend that it be added) which makes this proposal more like the one in Montgomery County?

And, the question you’ve all been waiting for: what do you think? 

Village Green/Town² Comments