Issues
In response to the City Council’s
ADU initiative, which has been making its way through the Council for nine
months, homeowners in single family districts will be getting a Protest
Petition in this week’s mail. We urge
you to complete this Protest form and drop it in the mail, as this is your only
chance to be heard on this matter.
To summarize, the proposed ADU amendment to Title 20, Missoula’s 2009 Zoning Ordinance, will allow these changes to zoning in single family neighborhoods:
- It will allow apartments to be built in the existing residences by right. That is, all the owner will need is a City permit. Neighbors will not be allowed to protest as they would for a zoning variance. To put this in perspective, a zoning variance is required even if a homeowner wants to encroach on the City set-back with an addition to his house.
- An owner could build a 600 square foot, 22 foot tall apartment in the back yard or
garage as a conditional use. This means the owner must notify the neighbors who may voice their objections before City Council, however the Council may approve this structure by a simple majority, not the 2/3 super majority required if 25% of the neighbors protest.
This deeply flawed law is based on a number of erroneous claims and assumptions:
1. Building additional rental housing in single family neighborhoods will significantly increase housing availability or reduce its cost. Even proponents of ADUs agree that so few units would be built that their numbers would be unlikely to affect the housing market. Upon hearing Mayor Engen and President Engstrom’s recent commitment to build 1,000 rental units in the next several years, it begs the question, why the urgency to allow ADUs at all?
2. It is possible to require or to enforce owner occupancy of one of the units on a lot.
OPG has a sorry track record for enforcing anything. Once again, it will be the
neighbors who must spend their time and money doing this, often to no avail. Many
other questions about owner occupancy arise, such as what the definition of owner is
and whether, in the long run, owner occupancy can be enforced. More likely, over
the years, rules such as these which are viewed as too restrictive will be stricken
from the books or rarely enforced.
3. The most amazing argument put forth for ADU’s is the right of owners to maximize the value of their property. This flies in the face of the neighbor’s right to a quality of life free of congestion, parking problems and noise. Additionally, the neighbor’s
property value will decline as the ADU owner’s rises. Title 20 is supposed to
prevent these injustices.
4. While this law allows owners of illegal and non-conforming rentals to bring them up to code and be made legal, this is not mandatory. This again sends a clear message to owners of illegal units that compliance with any reasonable standard will not be enforced. In our opinion, issues of safety and code of the current inventory should be addressed long before allowing new units to be built.
This ordinance is scheduled to be heard in the Missoula City County Planning Board on February 5, and a few weeks after that in the City Council. The bill’s history strongly indicates that there will be more unproductive debate in those two bodies, leading to few, if any, changes in the law. Likely, It will then be voted on by the Council within a few weeks. We have every reason to believe that, without intervention, the City Council will continue to be deaf to our concerns and pass it.
Enshrined in Montana law, however, is our right to protest changes to zoning regulations. As I said before, a Protest Petition of owners of 25% of the property involved in the zoning change mandates a 2/3 majority vote in the City Council, a standard it is unlikely that the current Council could meet. To protect your property rights, we urge you to promptly return the protest card, and, in doing so, emphatically state your feelings to the City Council.
To summarize, the proposed ADU amendment to Title 20, Missoula’s 2009 Zoning Ordinance, will allow these changes to zoning in single family neighborhoods:
- It will allow apartments to be built in the existing residences by right. That is, all the owner will need is a City permit. Neighbors will not be allowed to protest as they would for a zoning variance. To put this in perspective, a zoning variance is required even if a homeowner wants to encroach on the City set-back with an addition to his house.
- An owner could build a 600 square foot, 22 foot tall apartment in the back yard or
garage as a conditional use. This means the owner must notify the neighbors who may voice their objections before City Council, however the Council may approve this structure by a simple majority, not the 2/3 super majority required if 25% of the neighbors protest.
This deeply flawed law is based on a number of erroneous claims and assumptions:
1. Building additional rental housing in single family neighborhoods will significantly increase housing availability or reduce its cost. Even proponents of ADUs agree that so few units would be built that their numbers would be unlikely to affect the housing market. Upon hearing Mayor Engen and President Engstrom’s recent commitment to build 1,000 rental units in the next several years, it begs the question, why the urgency to allow ADUs at all?
2. It is possible to require or to enforce owner occupancy of one of the units on a lot.
OPG has a sorry track record for enforcing anything. Once again, it will be the
neighbors who must spend their time and money doing this, often to no avail. Many
other questions about owner occupancy arise, such as what the definition of owner is
and whether, in the long run, owner occupancy can be enforced. More likely, over
the years, rules such as these which are viewed as too restrictive will be stricken
from the books or rarely enforced.
3. The most amazing argument put forth for ADU’s is the right of owners to maximize the value of their property. This flies in the face of the neighbor’s right to a quality of life free of congestion, parking problems and noise. Additionally, the neighbor’s
property value will decline as the ADU owner’s rises. Title 20 is supposed to
prevent these injustices.
4. While this law allows owners of illegal and non-conforming rentals to bring them up to code and be made legal, this is not mandatory. This again sends a clear message to owners of illegal units that compliance with any reasonable standard will not be enforced. In our opinion, issues of safety and code of the current inventory should be addressed long before allowing new units to be built.
This ordinance is scheduled to be heard in the Missoula City County Planning Board on February 5, and a few weeks after that in the City Council. The bill’s history strongly indicates that there will be more unproductive debate in those two bodies, leading to few, if any, changes in the law. Likely, It will then be voted on by the Council within a few weeks. We have every reason to believe that, without intervention, the City Council will continue to be deaf to our concerns and pass it.
Enshrined in Montana law, however, is our right to protest changes to zoning regulations. As I said before, a Protest Petition of owners of 25% of the property involved in the zoning change mandates a 2/3 majority vote in the City Council, a standard it is unlikely that the current Council could meet. To protect your property rights, we urge you to promptly return the protest card, and, in doing so, emphatically state your feelings to the City Council.
