Three years ago the city passed new regulations to encourage the creation of “accessory apartments”. The city hoped to encourage the creation of additional less expensive housing options and also to help homeowners take care of loved ones or create an additional source of income from their property.
At the time the regulations were being considered some folks warned that their would be an explosion in housing with thousands of additional apartments springing up everywhere. After three years though the results have been the opposite – .i.e. underwhelming.
According to recent V14 comments by Bryan Barash, in the three+ years since the liberalized regulations took effect there have been a total of 33 new accessory apartments created. Additionally, six illegal existing apartments were legalized,
year – new – legalize existing
2016 – 3 – 1
2017 – 9 – 2
2018 – 9
2019 – 12 – 3
I’m certain the new accessory apartment regulations were greatly appreciated by the homeowners that took advantage of them these past three years. I do wonder whether going forward that’s we should expect – 5 or 10 new additional units a year.
What do you think? Is this a great success or a disappointment? Would you like to see more accessory apartments or is it worrisome/ If you’d like to see more, what steps could or should the city take to make it easier for homEowners to create additional apartments?
I wonder if the low adoption rate is having to deal with contractors for a major renovation.
A few things the city could do to make it easier (for an external accessory unit)
– provide free water/sewer/electric tie in to an external ADU
– consider an interest free loan for 20% of cost if rented BELOW market for 5 years
– The city to provide a website of ADU providers and prices and allow the homeowner to start the process from a website with upfront pricing. Buy and click model to take the fear of being ripped off by a contractor.
– A cursory look seems to imply 200k to build an “external” unit which runs counter to the ADU model (should be 50-80k)
I wonder how Newton’s unit count will compare to Boston and surrounding communities which have approved ADUs.
You can actually search all the Newton ADU permits to see the price to build
http://apps.newtonma.gov/egovplus (dropdown on permit type: BUILDING PERMIT – ACCESSORY)
+1 to everything @bugek said. I’d also add that ADU companies are starting to come on the market and I have to imagine that as they get going they’re going to start marketing specifically to homeowners. If the city worked with them more closely so the permitting can be faster and easier, I’m sure a few will find business models that speed adoption.
I’ve thought about getting one on my property, but the cost and complexity have meant it’s backburnered for now. It’ll really depend on when and if I need it for a child or in-laws.
What are ADUs?
@meridith
ADU = accessory dwelling unit
I really think this is a good way for homeowners to decide for themselves whether they support increased density… I guess its a shame you can only rent out the unit(forced to be a landlord) and not sell it.
What no one considered, was the change in fire code for these homes. This all looks great on paper but adding additional units (bedrooms or renovation over 1/3 the assessed value of the home) requires the addition of hardwired smoke alarms. In cases where there are already 12 smoke alarms, the whole system has to be upgraded to low voltage smoke alarms (ie: an alarm system with a panel) in order for the system to properly function. So many times people had no idea that these regulations were in place, so when they begin the project they realize what a major undertaking it is.
Now, if you have a 3 family in Newton (rare), you have created a 4th unit, which requires the addition of a sprinkler system in all the units.
The concept was to keep aging boomers in their homes as in-law apartments, but most of the time people admitted they were creating units to help supplement their mortgage.
Awhile back I did a preliminary look into creating an accessory apartment as we have an existing apartment on our property. We don’t use it as such but every so often people ask us about it, It was really hard to find info on how to go about doing this on the City’s old website. I asked a City Councilor who was doing door to door campaigning and she mentioned that most people hire a lawyer to do so. It looks like the information on the website is now better but I think the key to encouraging people to create or legalize existing apartments is to make the process a simple one so it’s clear what needs to be done and where one doesn’t need to have Lawyer to do so.
@Smokey the rental income is what would motivate us to proceed with legalizing our apt. Yes we would use the rental income to offset our expenses for living in Newton but it also creates one unit for someone to live in.
I think this is all a work in progress, but the application and approval process seems nicely laid out on the city website.
To help answer @Jerry’s question, perhaps the planning department could interview the people who reached various steps in that process to see how they perceived it.
Or an enterprising reporter could do the same . . . .
@Smokey – you also have to add “hard wired” fire alarms if you add a bedroom.
Fortunately, we live in the age of wi-if and when we put addition on our house (to add a play room & space for a new master bedroom above, convert the ground floor master to a TV/media room) we learned that while the power is hardwired, the alarms all connect wirelessly to the central unit.
But since this requirement doesn’t seem to be slowing down renovations, attic conversions, and additions, I don’t think it’s what’s holding up accessory units. We considered one, and may return to it in the future if we need live-in help, but figuring out the process was beyond us at the time…
(As always, this is a personal statement)
I wonder if the low rate has to do with the 11th-hour amendment submitted by Councilor Baker, and adopted in a panic before the final vote on the ordinance (in which Baker was a No), to continue requiring special permits for detached units (e.g., over existing detached garages). I always thought that would turn out to be a poison pill. Carving space out of an existing single-family footprint seems a more complicated proposition than adding a unit over a detached garage.