Read on Twitter
Get excited again for it is ZOAC meeting day! We're talking ADUs AGAIN.
The ZOAC seems to be gaining some notoriety for we have 7 speakers registered today, which is about 7 times the usual number.
Oooo, public comment is coming FIRST before discussion.
First commenter says we're going TOO FAST and this zoning change is disruptive. Also says allowing ADUs won't even result in any being built, (which makes one wonder she's opposed). Doesn't like that opt-outs would require 75% agreement of residents.
This has been under discussion for literally years, previously discussed by ZOAC, CPC, and the City Council and now at the ZOAC again, which actually has no authority to do anything.
Second commenter has tragically bad feedback on the microphone and can't be heard. I will take that as a vote of support (ohohohoho)
Third commenter: She is a native Dallasite and her family has been here for 100 years. She says ADU proposal is DANGEROUS. Says allowing density will threaten lower-density neighborhoods (via unspecified means).
Fourth commenter: She was born in her neighborhood. Says she could build herself an ADU already but says there no parking and the density disrupts her life from traffic, crime, and protestors who used the DART station (?). Says she doesn't want density. (That's why it's opt-out)
She also vaguely insinuates everyone else has a conflict of interest and needs to disclose them.
Fifth commenter! He's "so perplexed" and says nobody is asking for this. Said he served on BDA and said they've never unjustly denied an ADU. Says this feels pushed and that density should be placed along our (laughable) rail spine.
Sixth commenter: Former city staffer and neighborhood association VP is "also perplexed". Says there hasn't been enough notice. Calls this a cramdown and should be delayed because of the pandemic. Doesn't know why it has to come and says the opt-in process is working fine.
We've only had 2 ADUs applied for thus far, so not sure how well it's working.
Number 7! He says people bought a single family home to have a single family home, not a duplex. He expects the city to protect that. Says duplex zoning violates his rights. Says historic/CDs should be exempt.
Woot, I get to go last! I said that we must think of those who cannot speak here: those who would like to live here but cannot due to our restrained zoning. This is the smallest possible increment to zoning (from 1 regular size unit to 1 regular + 1 small unit).
Further, it is right and appropriate that the burden of opting-out should fall upon those who wish to restrain the property rights of others by restricting ADUs.
That's all the comments!
That's all the comments!
Staff is now laying out the current process for getting an ADU approved by the BDA. Basically it's file the application, pay the fee, and wait yo' turn to present to the BDA for your special exception. Notifications go out to the neighbors and then the public hearing.
ZOAC member says not many have been requested, but asks how many adus already exist. ZOAC member Rieves points out that code-hack ADUs are already legal (i.e. a backhouse without a kitchen). Rieves also says the BDA process allows negotiating with the applicant.
ZOAC Chair Murphy is talking about the controversial point of whether zoning change notification is required. Is telling our fearful commenters to remember this so there will be plenty of chance for even MORE comments.
Staff says 7 ADUs have been requested in last 2 years: 5 for non-rental and 2 for rental.
ZOAC Member Bagley is asking how many notifications would have to be sent? Staff says they can't give a number now. Note: It would be a lot since like 85% of land is zoned single family plus the 500 ft area around would have to be noticed.
ZOAC Member MacGregor is questioning the notification req and whether this is really a zoning change that requires mailed notices. Asks if the other cities who have done this recently did this? Staff doesn't know. @DanKeshet did Austin send notices when ADUs were legalized?
City Attorney's office sticking to story that this is a zoning change. Keeps mentioning "fundamentally change" the definition of single family zoning, which doesn't exactly seem like air tight reasoning.
@_ryanbehring asks whether the "Live Unit" change allowing residential in commercial zones had notice. City Attorney says no, but lamely reasons that (paraphrasing) "Some commercial zones already allow residential so that wasn't a fundamental change". Where is this coming from?
Someone tell me how allowing residential in multiple zones where it has never been allowed isn't a "fundamental change"?
Chair Murphy is asking ZOAC members to consider whether the small number of ADUs that have been approved (2 rentals) is because the process is too laborious or whether there's no demand. Note: If there's no demand, moot point so who cares? That said, it's too laborious.
Who wants to spend $600 (plus consulting fees probably) to wait for months for a meeting where things might not go your way and your time, money, and efforts are for naught?
MacGregor requests a thorough legal opinion on why notification is required.
Chair Murphy asks if the City Attorney is erring on the side of caution in doing this to "protect property owners". Who is protecting the renters and residents who want to live here but can't?
My question: Is it wise to spend literal millions of dollars to send out notices on a modest (positive) change that's not even a required notice?
