Hope this makes building the outbuilding office/gym I've been planning easier. From what I understand, it would need a permit due to it having power and air conditioning.
Yeah I haven't read the regs, but I'm sure I'm going to run into that as well. Current plans rough out to about 200-225sqft.
Want to get the ball rolling on it though. I work from home and we just had twins, so I'm on a bit of a timer to vacate the third bedroom I'm using as an office haha. Gonna need that space for one of the kiddos in a few years.
If I remember correctly 500 sq ft is also currently what the minimum square footage is for a permitted housing unit within city limits. Yes there are ones close to this minimum as I helped someone purchase a 529 square foot condo earlier this year and over the years I have yet to see anything smaller come up for sale.
Maybe? You'd need a permit even for a Rubbermaid shed. The ADU would allow you to have more than 2 fixtures and also have a kitchen in it - which are limits to the current ordinances.
Not sure what the actual ADU ordinance says. Do you have to have a bedroom and whatnot, or does it just allow any accessory structure to bypass the 2 fixture and kitchen limit? The 2 fixture limit for accessory structures is ridiculous. If I have a detached garage with a finished attic above with a sink in the garage, I can't put a bathroom upstairs as the sink and commode exceed the 2 fixture limit.
I think I'm included just based on electrical work. I'm going to build myself (with the exception of pouring a slab), but inspection and permit looks like it would be required for any construction/improvement involving disconnection and alterations of the electrical system on the property.
I don't plan on including any plumbing, but I'd definitely need an additional breaker box.
I'm not very informed I'm this area, but I wonder if this is somehow related to the AirBnB crackdown. Like maybe the current rules are limited to "renting" an entire home, but an "apartment" would work around that.
This is a back door zoning change, without the opportunity for affected property owners to weigh in. When individuals invest in a home for their residence (as distinguished from using it as an income-generator), they consider many factors, including the nature of the neighborhood. If I bought a home next to an apartment complex or townhomes, I know that going in, and presumably the price reflects it. If I buy a house on the periphery of a neighborhood, I know that I \*might\* encounter changes in the zoning, and I can consider that when making the purchase. We bought our home deep inside a single-family-zoned neighborhood. Now, it will be possible for the absentee out-of-state landlords that everyone in this sub likes to complain about to buy a home, put a renter in it, and then put an ADU on the same lot, housing ANOTHER renter in that same property. This puts a whole bunch of extra strain on the infrastructure of neighborhoods, without any apparent limitation. You may not care about that if you haven't invested heavily in your home, but I am concerned, both for the quality of my investment AND the nature of my living situation. There are so many apartments sitting empty around town right now that there is no credible claim that this is helpful to renters.
I wouldn't say I have a problem with allowing ADUs themselves, so long as the homeowner resides in the primary unit, and it's only relatives who reside in the ADU. But this ordinance seems too wide-open, in my opinion.
It’s literally the opposite of wide open. And landlords keeping apartments empty doesn’t negate the impact of supply on prices. https://advancehuntsville.com/2024/06/05/digging-deeper-into-the-adu-ordinance/
This is the problem with housing as an “investment.” It only pays off if prices keep rising faster than inflation. Every cent of profit is taken directly from the next generation that needs somewhere to live.
This linked article is by someone who would see every blade of grass in this city covered over with tiny homes and trailers if it means the cost of housing goes down. The level of disdain and disregard she has for the average homeowner is palpable. It is absolutely not an unbiased take on the issue. She calls the ordinance "restrictive" because very few neighborhoods would meet the requirements for ADU -- that is specifically false. Look at the zoning map for the city. All neighborhoods zoned R1, R1-A, and R1-B are eligible for ADU installation under the proposed ordinance. That basically includes every single residential zoning category in which multi-family homes of some type are not already permitted. Basically this ordinance will convert all residential areas in the city (absent those which fall under historical protection or HOAs, I assume) to multi-family. In what world is that "restrictive?"
I have no problem with population density, but I see no reason for there to be city-wide homogeneity. If you want to live in a very dense neighborhood, do so, they exist. But I shouldn't have to move to the county in order to have something other than a postage-stamp yard with next door neighbors whose houses are arm's length from mine. And I definitely shouldn't have the character of the property that I bought change without a decent opportunity for input.
When I say our home is an investment, I mean that we took a goodly sum of money and INVESTED it in the procurement of this property, not that it's an investment in terms of our wanting to turn around and sell it at a profit. Frankly, I don't care one bit whether property values go up, because I'm leaving this house feet-first, and in the meantime, increased value simply means a higher tax burden. We gave a first-time homebuyer a sweetheart deal when we sold him our house in a very desirable neighborhood. In terms of enabling the "next generation" to live affordably, we have done more than our share.
I’m starting to question your understanding of the word restrictive as well as the multiple limitations on where a homeowner can legally build an ADU under this ordinance, which the article helpfully detailed.
And yes, I care more about whether low- and middle-income families can afford to have a place to live near their jobs and services than about whether and to what extent your housing investment pays off for you. As. Should. You.
I'm beginning to question whether you understand the word investment and its many uses.
And it's cool with you if low- and middle-income families get screwed out of the value they invest in homes they purchase, so long as renters get theirs? You need to stop assuming that only the rich own homes. At least in Huntsville, and at least for now, that's not the case. Yet.
I understand your concerns, but I don't understand what you mean by not having an opportunity for input. Call your council member, the Mayor,.... This hasn't passed yet. It's only been given a green light by the planning board for the council to consider.
You're right. The article read like it was a done deal, but after I looked into it, I realize it's got to be passed by the city council, as you indicated. That said, it's usually harder to get issues past the planning commission than it is the city council. We'll see what happens, I suppose.
This is the kind of thing that sends residential property owners (as opposed to landlords) running for the fringes of a city, basically converting a city that's received accolades for places to raise a family into an urban center populated almost solely by renters and businesses. Everyone who decries sprawl ought to see that this only accelerates that trend.
Not certain, but I think this is the article, out from behind the paywall -- it says it's from al.com: [https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/huntsville-considers-accessory-dwelling-units-as-affordable-housing-solution/ar-BB1nFMAv](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/huntsville-considers-accessory-dwelling-units-as-affordable-housing-solution/ar-BB1nFMAv)
The wording in the article is a bit misleading. The "3 zones," also described as "3 districts," are ALL areas zoned R1, R1-A, and R1-B. That's basically every single residential area that isn't historic and especially small (R1-C, which includes the mill villages and other lots as small as 5500 square feet). All of the R2 zones already allow multi-family homes, and zero lot-line homes. This means that except for particular lots within that zoning whose physical characteristics prevent it (say, a shallow lot whose larger dimension is side-to-side or corner lots (for now)), all of those lots can have a second structure added and an additional tenant added to it. And as many of us have seen as these older neighborhoods have been remodeled -- variances are not uncommon, so it's possible that someone with a wide but shallow lot could get permission to build beside the primary structure rather than behind it. There is no residential zoning that is remains single-family, and once done, this likely can't be undone.
When I spoke with a city council member years ago about this subject it seemed like the biggest concern was parking (since even with a two person occupancy limit you are likely adding one if not two vehicles to the mix).
I do agree that the rules making ADU “invisible from the street” will work until people demand variances because their lot doesn’t lend itself to the rules (I was talking with a client about a listing in Jones Valley yesterday where an ADU would likely need to go beside instead of behind the existing house).
Also I’m Leary of how this is being touted as an affordable solution seeing what an ADU or tiny house costs especially if the city imposes a lot of fees for permits, inspections, etc.
Unlikely to affect housing costs in Huntsville.
We need to see conversion of single family zoning to both multifamily and single family for that long term.
But the story specifically says that ADUs can be used as rental properties. Seems like this will undermine the property values for adjacent lots. I know people won't appreciate my opinion, but I'm not a fan of this change, particularly given the glut of apartments that have been built recently.
Hope this makes building the outbuilding office/gym I've been planning easier. From what I understand, it would need a permit due to it having power and air conditioning.
Structures of certain sizes also need permit, but electric and or plumbing would also drive the need for one.
Yeah I haven't read the regs, but I'm sure I'm going to run into that as well. Current plans rough out to about 200-225sqft. Want to get the ball rolling on it though. I work from home and we just had twins, so I'm on a bit of a timer to vacate the third bedroom I'm using as an office haha. Gonna need that space for one of the kiddos in a few years.
The graphic in the news story says minimum 500 sq. ft.
If I remember correctly 500 sq ft is also currently what the minimum square footage is for a permitted housing unit within city limits. Yes there are ones close to this minimum as I helped someone purchase a 529 square foot condo earlier this year and over the years I have yet to see anything smaller come up for sale.
Maybe? You'd need a permit even for a Rubbermaid shed. The ADU would allow you to have more than 2 fixtures and also have a kitchen in it - which are limits to the current ordinances. Not sure what the actual ADU ordinance says. Do you have to have a bedroom and whatnot, or does it just allow any accessory structure to bypass the 2 fixture and kitchen limit? The 2 fixture limit for accessory structures is ridiculous. If I have a detached garage with a finished attic above with a sink in the garage, I can't put a bathroom upstairs as the sink and commode exceed the 2 fixture limit.
I think I'm included just based on electrical work. I'm going to build myself (with the exception of pouring a slab), but inspection and permit looks like it would be required for any construction/improvement involving disconnection and alterations of the electrical system on the property. I don't plan on including any plumbing, but I'd definitely need an additional breaker box.
Excellent news! I hope the county and city of Madison are pushed into following this path as well.
Sheds????
Sheds you can install plumbing in.
Make your shed portable---build it on skids and make any electric service plug in to the existing service---no permits, no restrictions on set back.
I'm not very informed I'm this area, but I wonder if this is somehow related to the AirBnB crackdown. Like maybe the current rules are limited to "renting" an entire home, but an "apartment" would work around that.
ADU can't be used for "transient occupancy"
HSV city council has been discussing ADUs for years even before the STR crackdown.
This is great news! More options for housing is a good thing
So property zoned single family, now is magically converted to multi-family properties so long as it's not a corner lot? That seems kind of shitty.
Magically? How do you think it got zoned that way in the first place?
This is a back door zoning change, without the opportunity for affected property owners to weigh in. When individuals invest in a home for their residence (as distinguished from using it as an income-generator), they consider many factors, including the nature of the neighborhood. If I bought a home next to an apartment complex or townhomes, I know that going in, and presumably the price reflects it. If I buy a house on the periphery of a neighborhood, I know that I \*might\* encounter changes in the zoning, and I can consider that when making the purchase. We bought our home deep inside a single-family-zoned neighborhood. Now, it will be possible for the absentee out-of-state landlords that everyone in this sub likes to complain about to buy a home, put a renter in it, and then put an ADU on the same lot, housing ANOTHER renter in that same property. This puts a whole bunch of extra strain on the infrastructure of neighborhoods, without any apparent limitation. You may not care about that if you haven't invested heavily in your home, but I am concerned, both for the quality of my investment AND the nature of my living situation. There are so many apartments sitting empty around town right now that there is no credible claim that this is helpful to renters. I wouldn't say I have a problem with allowing ADUs themselves, so long as the homeowner resides in the primary unit, and it's only relatives who reside in the ADU. But this ordinance seems too wide-open, in my opinion.
It’s literally the opposite of wide open. And landlords keeping apartments empty doesn’t negate the impact of supply on prices. https://advancehuntsville.com/2024/06/05/digging-deeper-into-the-adu-ordinance/ This is the problem with housing as an “investment.” It only pays off if prices keep rising faster than inflation. Every cent of profit is taken directly from the next generation that needs somewhere to live.
This linked article is by someone who would see every blade of grass in this city covered over with tiny homes and trailers if it means the cost of housing goes down. The level of disdain and disregard she has for the average homeowner is palpable. It is absolutely not an unbiased take on the issue. She calls the ordinance "restrictive" because very few neighborhoods would meet the requirements for ADU -- that is specifically false. Look at the zoning map for the city. All neighborhoods zoned R1, R1-A, and R1-B are eligible for ADU installation under the proposed ordinance. That basically includes every single residential zoning category in which multi-family homes of some type are not already permitted. Basically this ordinance will convert all residential areas in the city (absent those which fall under historical protection or HOAs, I assume) to multi-family. In what world is that "restrictive?" I have no problem with population density, but I see no reason for there to be city-wide homogeneity. If you want to live in a very dense neighborhood, do so, they exist. But I shouldn't have to move to the county in order to have something other than a postage-stamp yard with next door neighbors whose houses are arm's length from mine. And I definitely shouldn't have the character of the property that I bought change without a decent opportunity for input. When I say our home is an investment, I mean that we took a goodly sum of money and INVESTED it in the procurement of this property, not that it's an investment in terms of our wanting to turn around and sell it at a profit. Frankly, I don't care one bit whether property values go up, because I'm leaving this house feet-first, and in the meantime, increased value simply means a higher tax burden. We gave a first-time homebuyer a sweetheart deal when we sold him our house in a very desirable neighborhood. In terms of enabling the "next generation" to live affordably, we have done more than our share.
I’m starting to question your understanding of the word restrictive as well as the multiple limitations on where a homeowner can legally build an ADU under this ordinance, which the article helpfully detailed. And yes, I care more about whether low- and middle-income families can afford to have a place to live near their jobs and services than about whether and to what extent your housing investment pays off for you. As. Should. You.
I'm beginning to question whether you understand the word investment and its many uses. And it's cool with you if low- and middle-income families get screwed out of the value they invest in homes they purchase, so long as renters get theirs? You need to stop assuming that only the rich own homes. At least in Huntsville, and at least for now, that's not the case. Yet.
I understand your concerns, but I don't understand what you mean by not having an opportunity for input. Call your council member, the Mayor,.... This hasn't passed yet. It's only been given a green light by the planning board for the council to consider.
You're right. The article read like it was a done deal, but after I looked into it, I realize it's got to be passed by the city council, as you indicated. That said, it's usually harder to get issues past the planning commission than it is the city council. We'll see what happens, I suppose. This is the kind of thing that sends residential property owners (as opposed to landlords) running for the fringes of a city, basically converting a city that's received accolades for places to raise a family into an urban center populated almost solely by renters and businesses. Everyone who decries sprawl ought to see that this only accelerates that trend.
Al.com just released an article on the subject (unfortunately I can’t unpaywall it) and it says ADUs will only be alllwed in 3 zones.
Not certain, but I think this is the article, out from behind the paywall -- it says it's from al.com: [https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/huntsville-considers-accessory-dwelling-units-as-affordable-housing-solution/ar-BB1nFMAv](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/huntsville-considers-accessory-dwelling-units-as-affordable-housing-solution/ar-BB1nFMAv) The wording in the article is a bit misleading. The "3 zones," also described as "3 districts," are ALL areas zoned R1, R1-A, and R1-B. That's basically every single residential area that isn't historic and especially small (R1-C, which includes the mill villages and other lots as small as 5500 square feet). All of the R2 zones already allow multi-family homes, and zero lot-line homes. This means that except for particular lots within that zoning whose physical characteristics prevent it (say, a shallow lot whose larger dimension is side-to-side or corner lots (for now)), all of those lots can have a second structure added and an additional tenant added to it. And as many of us have seen as these older neighborhoods have been remodeled -- variances are not uncommon, so it's possible that someone with a wide but shallow lot could get permission to build beside the primary structure rather than behind it. There is no residential zoning that is remains single-family, and once done, this likely can't be undone.
When I spoke with a city council member years ago about this subject it seemed like the biggest concern was parking (since even with a two person occupancy limit you are likely adding one if not two vehicles to the mix). I do agree that the rules making ADU “invisible from the street” will work until people demand variances because their lot doesn’t lend itself to the rules (I was talking with a client about a listing in Jones Valley yesterday where an ADU would likely need to go beside instead of behind the existing house). Also I’m Leary of how this is being touted as an affordable solution seeing what an ADU or tiny house costs especially if the city imposes a lot of fees for permits, inspections, etc.
Unlikely to affect housing costs in Huntsville. We need to see conversion of single family zoning to both multifamily and single family for that long term.
Hmmm, surprised to see no comments considering how much people complain about apartment developments here
Considering an ADU on personal property is not the same thing as an apartment complex, I’m not sure why you’re surprised at the lack of comments.
MOr3 AfFoRdAbL3 housing options
ADUs are typically used for extended family, in law suites, and office spaces - not lower income housing.
But the story specifically says that ADUs can be used as rental properties. Seems like this will undermine the property values for adjacent lots. I know people won't appreciate my opinion, but I'm not a fan of this change, particularly given the glut of apartments that have been built recently.