Laura Brown
Proposed ADU rules for new construction.
The City Plan Commission voted to recommend lifting some restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units — but maintaining a requirement that owners live on the property.
At a special meeting on Wednesday evening, commissioners unanimously issued that mixed review of a city proposal that would further legalize Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the zoning term for extra apartments created on the same property as existing houses.
The proposal, which will next go before the Board of Alders, would expand the original 2021 ordinance allowing owner-occupants to build ADUs “as of right,” without zoning approval, under certain circumstances.
The ordinance was an effort to spur more housing in a tight rental market — and in theory, promote affordable housing development — by eliminating the ned in many cases to seek special zoning permission to build an extra apartment onto a residential property. But it never actually resulted in the creation of any ADUs without zoning relief.
Now the city is trying again with a new phase of loosened regulations that would permit ADUs entailing new construction, get rid of minimum lot size requirements, and remove a mandate that the owner of a new ADU live somewhere on the property.
City Plan Director Laura Brown and Deputy Director of Zoning Nate Hougrand offered more details to the commissioners:
The proposal would remove a current requirement that ADUs be built on lots with an area of at least 4,000 square feet. According to Brown, that amendment would make up to 4,258 parcels across the city newly eligible for an ADU (provided that other requirements are met).
While the current ordinance permits only the conversion of existing structures (such as basements, attics, and garages) into new apartments, the proposed revisions would also allow property owners to construct new buildings or building additions as of right. No new parking spaces would be required.
Any new structures would have to follow certain rules. An ADU couldn’t occupy a front yard and would have to be at least 5 feet from the side and back of the lot. It couldn’t be any taller than the “principal structure” on the property, or any larger than the average apartment floor area in the main house.
ADUs would still only be allowed in residential (RM and RS) zones, and all new construction would have to align with other zoning regulations — including a requirement that buildings take up no more than 30 percent of land on the property. And the property owner wouldn’t be allowed to sub-divide the lot in a way that turns an ADU into a “principal structure.”
Finally, Brown stressed that the current owner-occupancy requirement for an ADU “is a significant barrier.” The revised ordinance would allow landlords who don’t live on the property to take advantage of the opportunity to build or convert new apartments.
This last proposed change proved to be the most controversial among commissioners and members of the public alike.
In public testimony, New Haven Rising organizer Jaime Myers-McPhail expressed reservations, asking, “How would we then keep absentee landlords like Ocean and Renaissance from not keeping these apartments up to code?”
Newhallville resident Sam Fawcett agreed. “If you don’t require that [the owner live on the property], can you require that they be a resident of New Haven or the county or the state?” she asked. “I live in one of those buildings of an absentee landlord who lives in Florida! If you looked at where I live, I think you’d understand why I think the landlord has to be closer so they can be held accountable.”
Other members of the public expressed unreserved support of the city’s proposal.
“Anything we can do to increase our availability of housing stock is an emergent necessity,” said Annalisa Boerner.
Several local disability advocates urged support for an amendment to the city’s proposal that would require first-floor ADUs to comply with the state’s “Type B” accessibility standards — making the apartment easily adaptable for residents with mobility-related disabilities. Those standards would require, for instance, wide-enough doorways and restrooms for wheelchair users and a wheelchair-accessible entrance to the unit.
Office of Disability Services Director Gretchen Knauff noted that finding an accessible place to live is a severe challenge for many disabled residents. “During my career doing disability work, the highest number of overall questions revolved around finding affordable, accessible housing.”
In the end, commissioners offered measured support for most of the proposed changes, while noting some hesitations for alders to examine.
They cautioned, for instance, against enabling short-term rentals like Airbnbs.
“What about people creating ADUs simply to rent out on weekends to people going to Yale reunions?” asked Westville Alder and Commissioner Adam Marchand.
Though Hougrand said that city staff is working on a separate ordinance to address short-term rentals, the commissioners took note of the concern in their recommendation.
All commissioners voted to recommend that the owner-occupancy requirement be preserved.
Commissioner Joshua Van Hoesen argued that “it’s expensive to build an ADU,” and that corporate real estate owners would be better positioned to take advantage of the ordinance than small landlords or homeowners. “A private landlord who owns a lot of properties will be able to do that a lot easier than Joe Schmo who owns one unit.”
Commissioner Carl Goldfield agreed that removing that requirement would create “a free-for-all for landlords … trying to make more money.”
ADUs should be restricted to smaller mom and pop landlords who live in New Haven, but not necessarily on the property. Smaller mom and pop landlords who own a few multifamily buildings and live within city limits and build ADUs on their properties would be able to raise more income with more units, allowing them able to generate more income for paying rising taxes, insurance, utilities, and repairs and maintenance of older housing stock.
Garage conversions and ground/first floor units should all be ADA accessible. That would increase the number of studio and one bedroom ADA units in the city.
None of the ADUs should be allowed to be used as short term rentals like AirBnBs. We need apartments that are more affordable for long time residents in the city.
The rest of the restrictions and restriction amendments mentioned in the article all make sense, as does the concerns raised.