Single family or two family

[Streck]

How does one keep Single Family districts from deteriorating into two-family districts if your ordinance allows "mother-in-law cottages," "guest houses," or "pool houses," and the like?

One could say that the economics and space on the lot should limit it practically, but I suspect that wise developers could see an opening to take advantage of the situation and actually begin putting two houses on every Single Family lot (while meeting the letter of the law) - effectively turning Single Family into Two-Family or "Duplex" classification.

[mendelman]

Well, you could change the code to limit the maximum square footage of the "second" or accessory unit. Put a maximum of 500--800 sqft for the accessory unit. That would limit it to studio or small one-bedroom units and not be a problem.

Many munis. that allow such units generally put a maximum size limit.

[Joe Iliff]

I have seem some cities try to control this by setting a maximum of one utility service for each property, like one water meter, one electric service, etc. This isn't perfect, as someone could still rent out the second unit (or both units) and just include the cost of the utilities in the rent(s). But, it would mean that service can't be turned on or off for each unit separately.

Similarly, I suppose you could restrict the number of driveways or curb cuts to just one per property, so again the units have to share. Or, you could set a relationship between the size of the main house and the second unit, something like the second unit can't be more than 25% of the size of the main house. Then you'd at least have a mix of building sizes throughout.

I've seen relationship criteria for the occupants of a second unit, but I'm a bit weary of how well those stand up in court.

[KSharpe]

We also require that a) the homeowner lives in the main residence and b) the "granny flat" has to be occupied by a relative. That helps a good deal.

[zman]

We also require that a) the homeowner lives in the main residence and b) the "granny flat" has to be occupied by a relative. That helps a good deal.

How would one enforce this?

[Masswich]

Not sure I agree with the term "deteriorate" for two-family houses, but putting that aside, I have struggled with the issue of in-law apartments. In Massachusetts we can't limit ownership so we often have to back into making apartments "in-law" through limiting size, or other factors. The City of Newton, MA, has a pretty good in-law apartment ordinance, I hear.

[Tide]

Our second unit (guesthouse) accessory structure limitations are only 25% of the principal use, it also counts against the total accessory use allowance (either 50 or 65%) and can be a max of 800 SF. Resident must be related to the primary owner OR cannot give the primary owner any monetary compensation (to cut down on rental of these units).

[KSharpe]

How would one enforce this?

It's not as bad as you might think. Very few people want to live in such a small apartment, so it will usually be some kind of dependent relative. Also, (I forgot to mention) they are required to be either above the garage or actually in the principle structure. You are therefore basically forcing the homeowner to have a lot of interaction with the tenant, which is more palatable with a close relative. I'm not sure if we worry about how "related" they are- we aren't doing DNA tests or anything. It actually rarely comes up.

[Suburb Repairman]

We do the following to avoid what you describe:

• accessory dwelling cannot exceed the lesser of 50% of the size of the principal residence or 650 square feet.
• Principal residence must be inhabited by the property owner
• single utility service
• only permitted in certain districts (due to impervious cover & environmental issues in some areas of the city)

In a college town, this seems to be an effective way to provide affordable rental housing while avoiding some of the problems you get when student ghettos of apartment complexes are built. Having the property owner live on-site helps with noise & nuisance issues because they don't want trouble-maker tennants. I have nothing to back this up, but it seems the second dwellings are usually occupied by young married/committed college student couples and graduate students.

[Streck]

Thank you.

Those are all good helpful points.

I might also point out that our ordinance defines Family as one or more persons living together "as a single housekeeping unit."

A house keeping unit is not defined, but I would imagine that means basically one kitchen facility with all rooms having access to it - or "Guest Houses" etc, would not have cooking facilities. What about microwaves?

What else would constitute a "house keeping unit?" Bathrooms would have common access from any room? Utility ("house keeping") rooms would be accessible from all rooms?

[maximov]

Ours says the same thing, then seems to expand on that:

1.lives and cooks together in a residence as a "single housekeeping unit"
2.shares expenses for food, rent, utilities or other household expenses
3.is, "to all outward appearances, a relatively normal, stable, and permanent family unit"
4.is not "a temporary living arrangement as would be a group of college students sharing a house"
5.will inhabit a dwelling which does not provide "a framework for transients or transient living.”
6.shares the entire house
7.includes one or more adults domiciled in the residence

The quotes, I think, are from some court opinion.

[The One]

I seem to remember taking a tour of a neighborhood in SW Weld County that had a great two unit setup. The main detached home and a second unit above the detached garage......very cool.....very expensive.....

The 2006 International Code considers single family, two family duplexes and attached townhomes under three stories. I don't think duplexes are that bad and can add a lot to a mixed development.

[Luca]

WTF?? WHy does a plot of land with two instead of one house constitute a 'deterioration'????

Why is it ever important for a whole area to be made up of single-family dwellings?? Isn't this euclidian zoning at its worst?

Maybe the need to change the Cyburbia kicker to "The meddling, unthinking bureaucrat community".

[KSharpe]

WTF?? WHy does a plot of land with two instead of one house constitute a 'deterioration'????

Why is it ever important for a whole area to be made up of single-family dwellings?? Isn't this euclidian zoning at its worst?

Maybe the need to change the Cyburbia kicker to "The meddling, unthinking bureaucrat community".

Well, Luca, its less about reality than perception. Most people looking to buy a house want to do so in a single family neighborhood. Therefore, property values are somewhat lower in an area of two family dwellings than in one. I don't think you can blame the bureacrats...part of the American Dream, and all that.

[craines]

Its all about the dollar!!!

[Suburb Repairman]

Thank you.

Those are all good helpful points.

I might also point out that our ordinance defines Family as one or more persons living together "as a single housekeeping unit."

A house keeping unit is not defined, but I would imagine that means basically one kitchen facility with all rooms having access to it - or "Guest Houses" etc, would not have cooking facilities. What about microwaves?

What else would constitute a "house keeping unit?" Bathrooms would have common access from any room? Utility ("house keeping") rooms would be accessible from all rooms?

I believe most jurisdictions use kitchen facilities as the trigger--most often the presence of a stove, range or oven.

[Tranplanner]

WTF?? WHy does a plot of land with two instead of one house constitute a 'deterioration'????

Why is it ever important for a whole area to be made up of single-family dwellings?? Isn't this euclidian zoning at its worst?

Maybe the need to change the Cyburbia kicker to "The meddling, unthinking bureaucrat community".

I heartily agree with you Luca (well, maybe not on that last bit). As an aside, I think "two family" (semi-detached) houses are much more common in the UK and Canada and are therefore not seen as being "undesireable".

[CJC]

Therefore, property values are somewhat lower in an area of two family dwellings than in one.

Is this actually true? I hear this all of the time, but I've never seen any kind of study to reinforce this common "belief". It goes along with the assertion that density=lower property values, when there have been studies that have completely put that notion to bed. It's about quality, not single/multi family.

[Mastiff]

WTF?? WHy does a plot of land with two instead of one house constitute a 'deterioration'????

Why is it ever important for a whole area to be made up of single-family dwellings?? Isn't this euclidian zoning at its worst?

Maybe the need to change the Cyburbia kicker to "The meddling, unthinking bureaucrat community".

While you may be correct about the choice of wording, I know I wouldn't use "deteriorate" if it were me. However, I think the main question stands regardless of that particular word.

Most cities have areas for duplexes... it's R-2. What I took from the original post was how we keep an R-1 (low density rez) from becoming R-2 (medium density rez), while still allowing for small apartments and granny flats that are often associated with smart growth. I think others have provided very good answers to the question.

Taking a shot at Cyburbia itself was silly, and by now you should know that a) we do think about what we do (Streck was asking a legitimate question even if he used a word you didn't like.), b) we aren't all beaurocrats in here, and c) those who are "meddle" where we are directed by administration and government.

[The One]

It seems to me that townhomes and duplexes often sell for about the same as detached homes that are just a few years older......if there is an appraisal difference, it must be related to a slighlty lower privacy level and shared risk for fire?? The size of home, age, upgrades and physical condition are much more likely to determine value.

[KSharpe]

Is this actually true? I hear this all of the time, but I've never seen any kind of study to reinforce this common "belief". It goes along with the assertion that density=lower property values, when there have been studies that have completely put that notion to bed. It's about quality, not single/multi family.

Again, its not reality that matters...its perception! Most bourgeious (sp?) types assume that multiple family residences are not worth as much and that the type of people who live in them aren't as well off as the single family residential types.

[CJC]

Again, its not reality that matters...its perception! Most bourgeious (sp?) types assume that multiple family residences are not worth as much and that the type of people who live in them aren't as well off as the single family residential types.

That's true about the perception thing (in most areas of the country), and in some areas it might even be true. Numerous studies have been done in California to disprove the link (in this state, at least).

[KSharpe]

I don't know how anyone in California can buy a home. The real estate prices are astounding! In Iowa, where I live, almost everyone can afford a modest single family home.

[mendelman]

In Iowa, where I live, almost everyone can afford a modest single family home.

That may be true, but then you have to live in Iowa.

[CJC]

I don't know how anyone in California can buy a home. The real estate prices are astounding! In Iowa, where I live, almost everyone can afford a modest single family home.

There are a multitude of reasons for the high prices in California, but a lot of it goes back to building soooo many single family homes on 1/8 to 1/4 acre lots in the 40's-70's. Now, the population increases haven't stopped, and we're out of land in the areas that are still creating jobs (and auto congestion in most areas is mind-boggling). This may not ever happen in Iowa, but probably will in other places that now have decent prices - if job growth continues in those areas and the current policies of pursuing only single-family detached housing on large lots continues. (The Northeast, Washington state now, others in the next few decades)