|
Accessory
dwelling units seen
broadening housing options
Providing
for accessory dwelling units was presented to the Planning Board
as a "small but important" first step toward implementing the
Coons administration's housing strategy aimed at making houses
available for purchase by families with lower and moderate
incomes.
Meanwhile, a prominent land-use
lawyer told County Council he is putting together proposed
legislation that he said would encourage construction of more
'affordable housing' in the county.
Anne Farley, general manager of
the Department of Community Services, told the planning board
that the measure now before Council and awaiting its
recommendation is the result of six months worth of "the
collective input" from community and business groups. She said
it is intended primarily to "adapt existing suburbs" to
accommodate the needs and desires of "aging baby-boomers."
The biggest surprise at the
board's public hearing on the measure was the near-total absence
of opposition from civic leaders and associations, which
generally have been vocal in their objections. The audience at
the session on Feb. 6 was sparse and only three people testified
against the measure.
Rebutting previously expressed
views that accessory dwelling units would significantly alter
the character of older residential areas and lower property
values, Patrick Hare, a Cornwall, Conn.-based urban planning
consultant hired by the department, testified that numerous
surveys in this country and Canada, including his own, found no
evidence of that happening.
More than half of the local
governmental jurisdictions in the United States have some
provision for that kind of housing, he said. None have repealed
laws permitting them nor tightened restrictions, but several
have liberalized them and removed 'sunset' provisions, he added.
If accessory dwelling unites were detrimental, "there would
[have been] a lot of news stories about them," he said.
An
accessory dwelling unit is a
portion of an existing house or an addition to a house which
provides rooms for sleeping and preparing food separate from the
rest of the house. The proposed legislation also would expand
existing development code provisions for guest houses, reducing
the minimum lot-size requirement from three acres to two acres.
The Planning Board and Department
of Land Use will decide on a joint or separate recommendations
at a business meeting later in February. Council could act on
the measure as soon as Mar. 13.
At the hearing, Hare agreed with
Farley that relatively few existing houses would be remodeled or
added onto as a result of enacting the ordinance. "We do not
anticipate a proliferation," Farley said. Hare said a survey of
47 communities showed an average of one new accessory dwelling
unit for every 1,000 houses and a maximum of three per 1,000
anywhere. Farley said that data indicates that New Castle County
can expect no more than 115 a year.
Board chairman Victor Singer
suggested the ordinance be changed to set a limit on the number
to be allowed.
Councilman Penrose Hollins,
primary sponsor of the measure, said it has been carefully drawn
to prevent such situations as absentee landlords taking
advantage of it. Present law, he said, allows anyone to rent any
house without a requirement that they live there, to expand any
house within parameters set by the development code, and to take
in up to four borders.
The proposed ordinance would not undo
existing deed restrictions nor circumvent the code, he said. It
would, however, make housing available to seniors and young
couples starting out who are now priced out of the local market.
New developments coming on line or going through the planning
process carry pricetags upwards of $400,000, he said.
"Our sole intent is to provide
greater opportunities," he said, adding that opposition is
coming from "a group of people who are afraid of this
legislation."
Carol Hegan, of the Sherwood Park
Civic Association, said the proposed ordinance obviously is part
of an effort by country government "to legalize the
establishment of permanent rental units in communities of
single-family homes." She cited a purported news report on
television station WHYY about a woman enjoying life in a
so-called 'granny suite', as part of an effort to "push"
legislation which "threatens hundreds of communities in New
Castle County that are not protected by deed restrictions."
Hare testified that most
accessory dwelling units are constructed to accommodate family
members or care-givers. Over time, the ratio of such occupants
to outside rental tenants evens out to 50:50, he said.
"Nobody has a problem with
anybody remodeling a single-family property to accommodate a
family member," said Bill Dunn, of Milltown-Limestone Civic
Alliance. But he said the proposed ordinance "discriminates
against the homeowner in mature communities of moderately-priced
houses" by introducing urban-type housing into communities "that
were never designed [for it]."
At a meeting of Council's land
use committee earlier in the day, Larry Tarabicos, whose legal
practice is largely centered on representing developers, said he
is "tired of waiting" for Council to get around to enacting
legislation "enabling and encouraging affordable housing."
So, he said, he has taken
it upon him to consult with builders and others and is nearly
finished drafting possible legislation which he said he will
"deliver to Council and let you take it from there."
He did not go into detail about
what his proposal will contain, but did hint broadly at its
contents by saying that New Castle County's housing-availability
problem shuts out would-be buyers well up into 'moderate-income'
status and that the various development and building fees
imposed by the county make it "too damn expensive to build
affordable housing." |