The ordinance changed. Nine years in, I'm still sitting on my hands.

I've been holding two single family rentals in the same city for nine years and doing nothing clever with either. The city just passed an ordinance that removes the parking requirement for accessory units and raises the size cap from 600 to 900 square feet, effective at the start of next year.

Lot A: corner lot, alley access, existing detached two car garage in decent shape. Conversion quote was $118,000 for 640 sq ft, done two years ago, so call it $135,000 now. Current rent on the house is $2,050. Small unit comps around $1,500.

Lot B: interior lot, no alley, 1940s house with a full basement, 7 foot ceilings. A basement conversion would need a lowered slab or a variance on ceiling height. Nobody has quoted it because I haven't asked seriously.

What's holding me up is that the new ordinance keeps an owner-occupancy requirement in one section and appears to waive it in another for lots that were rentals before a certain date. I've read it four times. My reading is that Lot A qualifies for the waiver and Lot B does not, which is backwards from what I'd want since Lot B is the one I'd rather live in.

I'm slow by nature and I'm fine waiting a year. The specific decision is whether to get the garage conversion permitted under the current rules with the parking requirement, which I can satisfy on the alley, or wait for the new rules and the larger size cap and risk that the owner-occupancy language gets interpreted against me. Anyone dealt with a mid-ordinance timing question like this?

3 replies

2nicole_adeyemiPassivePRO5

Two things. First, the conflicting sections are exactly what the planning department's counsel exists to resolve, and how a statute or ordinance applies to your specific lots is a question for a land use attorney in your state, not a forum. But you can often get an informal written interpretation from the zoning administrator, and in a lot of jurisdictions that letter is what you'd rely on when you submit. Ask for it in writing, name both parcels, and cite both sections by number.

Second, permitting under current rules to beat an ordinance change is a real strategy and it cuts both ways. Some ordinances include a vesting provision that ties you to the rules in effect when the application was accepted, which is what you want if you like the old rules. You'd be locking in the 600 foot cap. On a 640 foot garage footprint you are already over, which suggests you were going to need a variance or a slightly smaller build under the old rules anyway. That alone might answer your question, ember's point about getting numbers aside.

Anchor, I'd also check whether the parking waiver is tied to transit proximity. Several cities wrote it that way and it caught people who assumed it was citywide.

3kevin_lombardPG1BPRO5

I went through this twice before replying. Parcel, when you say vesting ties you to the rules at application, does that mean anchor could apply now and then withdraw if the new ordinance turns out better? Or does applying start a clock that costs something to abandon?

The ordinance changed. Nine years in, I'm still sitting on my hands.

3 replies