ADU

There is an article in the RE Section of the NY Times about the concept of ADUs which have been authorized by ordinance in Princeton. It is the idea that two dwellings, a main house and an Alternate Dwelling Unit can be placed on the same plot of land. The ADU is supposed to provide "Affordable Housing" and/or rental income to the owner of the lot.

Dean Dafis is quoted as saying that Maplewood adopted a similar ordinance after members of the community pushed for it and citizens expressed support.

I have no idea what he is talking about because I never saw or read any discussion of this and never even knew the term ADU before I read the article.

Am I just "out of the loop"?

STANV said:

There is an article in the RE Section of the NY Times about the concept of ADUs which have been authorized by ordinance in Princeton. It is the idea that two dwellings, a main house and an Alternate Dwelling Unit can be placed on the same plot of land. The ADU is supposed to provide "Affordable Housing" and/or rental income to the owner of the lot.

Dean Dafis is quoted as saying that Maplewood adopted a similar ordinance after members of the community pushed for it and citizens expressed support.

I have no idea what he is talking about because I never saw or read any discussion of this and never even knew the term ADU before I read the article.

Am I just "out of the loop"?

I have never heard of it either in my 31 years in maplewood. Maybe I’m out of the loop also 

Apparently it's been on the books for about a year.

https://ecode360.com/36944016

I thought this was going to be a discussion of Audience Deficiency Units. 

STANV said:

There is an article in the RE Section of the NY Times about the concept of ADUs which have been authorized by ordinance in Princeton. It is the idea that two dwellings, a main house and an Alternate Dwelling Unit can be placed on the same plot of land. The ADU is supposed to provide "Affordable Housing" and/or rental income to the owner of the lot.

Dean Dafis is quoted as saying that Maplewood adopted a similar ordinance after members of the community pushed for it and citizens expressed support.

I have no idea what he is talking about because I never saw or read any discussion of this and never even knew the term ADU before I read the article.

Am I just "out of the loop"?

This was discussed by the SOMA Two Towns For All Ages Management Team and by the Maplewood Seniors Advisory Committee before several discussions were held at Township Committee Meetings.  The original proposal was an attempt to make it more affordable for seniors to remain in their homes by either occupying their home and renting out an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) or by moving into the ADU and renting out the "main" house.  The final ordinance, adopted after much discussion and revision was broader and opened up ADU construction/occupation to everyone.  There are a few significant differences between Maplewood's ADU ordinance and the ADU policy in Princeton as described in the NYT article.  A Maplewood ADU could not be sold independently of the main house.  The ADU cannot have its entrance directly on the street.  

joan_crystal said:

This was discussed by the SOMA Two Towns For All Ages Management Team and by the Maplewood Seniors Advisory Committee before several discussions were held at Township Committee Meetings.  The original proposal was an attempt to make it more affordable for seniors to remain in their homes by either occupying their home and renting out an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) or by moving into the ADU and renting out the "main" house.  The final ordinance, adopted after much discussion and revision was broader and opened up ADU construction/occupation to everyone.  There are a few significant differences between Maplewood's ADU ordinance and the ADU policy in Princeton as described in the NYT article.  A Maplewood ADU could not be sold independently of the main house.  The ADU cannot have its entrance directly on the street.  

Maplewood's ADU sounds like a version of what can be called a "carriage house".  The Princeton one sounds more like a new use of property, especially right up front in the description that it can be separately owned.

I was aware of and excited about this, but have found the requirements hard to process. It seems that many homes in Maplewood already occupy the maximum allowable footprint. If an existing house is already at the edge of the permitted distance from its lot lines, and you cannot transform a garage into an ADU (since you can't get rid of a garage), it seems this wouldn't be possible, correct? (at least not without a sizable variance.)

From what I understand, it is possible to transform a garage into an ADU.  I would check with the building department first to verify.  It is also possible to transform a section of the house into an ADU.  ADUs need not be stand alone.  Again I would check with the building department to verify.  Corner properties and properties with small back yards would be the most difficult spaces to place an ADU given the requirement that the ADU's entrance cannot be on the street.  

Thank you.

I like this ordinance, it's tight without being onerously restrictive and it achieves the goal of making sure the ADUs are true ADUs.  I've lived in places where ADUs or carriage houses set off a buyer rush to grab properties, and build ADUs that were huge(>1k sq ft), on existing multifamily lots, dangerous(conversions of basements into ADUs), poorly sited, and then use both the main structure and ADU(s) as investment properties or broken them up into condos.

One thing that's missing, and I'm hoping it's covered in other codes, is a restriction on short term rentals.