Submitted by moisheah t3_108hbcg in WorcesterMA
moisheah OP t1_j3s77wt wrote
Proposed zoning change would allow 'in-law' rentals to help housing crisis, homeowners
Cyrus Moulton WORCESTER - District 3 Councilor George Russell is proposing that accessory dwelling units be allowed by special permit throughout the city as a way to mitigate the housing crisis and help homeowners financially.
“This change to the Zoning Ordinance will provide another option for housing in the City, but will also provide current homeowners the ability to offset increasing living expenses by renting their extra space,” Russell said in a press release. “I’ve heard from many residents from across the city that they would like the option to create ‘in-law’ apartments, of which the current zoning ordinance does not allow. A proposal like this would be a win-win for homeowners and renters.”
An accessory dwelling unit is a self-contained apartment in an owner-occupied single-family home/ lot that is either attached to the principal dwelling or in a separate structure on the same property. Examples of ADUs might include a small apartment over a garage or in a carriage house, a basement apartment and more.
Russell said that the city currently considers a single-family home with an added studio unit as a two-family dwelling, however, limiting where they can be legally built in the city. Dimensional requirements also can be a challenge in the creation of ADUs.
Therefore, Russell is proposing that ADUs be allowed by special permit “in all zones” and “with no added parking requirements or dimensional requirements in any owner-occupied dwelling.”
But because a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required, neighbors would still have a chance to weigh in on any proposed ADU.
The request is scheduled to be taken up by the City Council at its meeting Tuesday.
“Let’s make it happen!," Russell said
legalpretzel t1_j3twdeq wrote
I hate Russell for various reasons, but this is a good change that could have a positive impact in the city. IF, and only if, it is well monitored to avoid a bunch of fire-trap shoddy ADUs being tacked on. There are already a lot of houses in the city that have been poorly reno’d by DIY homeowners or crappy flippers. We don’t need people trying to rent out ADU shacks.
NativeSon508 t1_j3wt1et wrote
I doubt this gets the ok but then again it’s another reason for the city to boost your property value and rake in even more taxes that they’ll piss into the wind
Educational-List8475 t1_j3x0456 wrote
I think this is a fair point. With how much my assessed property value increased recently (which raised my taxes like 25%), I think the city officials would use ADU’s as an excuse to increase assessed values or even the tax rate. But we do need more places for people to live
NativeSon508 t1_j3xgq7e wrote
Here’s a crazy idea, maybe we don’t need more places to live in the city. Maybe more people need to look outside of the city. At some point we’re gonna be leveling parks and wooded areas to build more housing. When is enough enough?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments