If only: https://bit.ly/2V8U88g
This is where the definition of an ADU comes into play. I think there is no problem with these as they donât have things you need to live in it long-term like a bathroom and full kitchen, etc.
I am thinking of building an auxiliary dwelling unit could work in my backyard in North Raleigh. Is this legal yet? Is there an expert in the field who could handle it from start to finish? Are there prefab that would meet regulations.
I am just looking at the idea. It seems doable, but who has experience to do this from start to finish? What type of costs for an 800 sq ft home?
Thanks for your help. Any suggests would be much appreciated.
2 Likes
They are legal but only after you get an ADU Overlay District put in place. To the best of my knowledge, there hasnât been a single one passed yet the process is fairly new.
https://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/Zoning/AccessoryDwellingUnits.html
2 Likes
Make sure to vote in October! I wanted to build one and the shenanigans from our city council on this is what got me to start following politics and decide we need to throw some people out.
They took years to come up with a âcompromiseâ where no one who actually wants ADUâs input was taken into account. If you want one you need to get 10 acres of your neighbors involved to vote on an overlay. Then after that request to build an ADU. If you start now you might be allowed to start planning one in a year. No one has been able to get an overlay yet. Most people who wanted one gave up after learning the rules.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article225552725.html
5 Likes
Anna Johnson is reporting on Twitter that Nicole Stewart made a motion at todayâs first meeting of the new council to repeal the ADU overlay requirement. David Cox 2nds motion.
10 Likes
In addition parking requirements and landscape reqs. Staff should come back with recommendations on how to remove all three of those.
1 Like
HOOOOOLD UP⌠David Cox SECONDED a motion made by Nicole Stewart??? Day 1 and heâs playing ball. WOW. This is surprising- but great news!
7 Likes
Shocking - I know. 
2 Likes
He smiled a couple of times.
1 Like
I believe Cox spoke of providing more protection for LGBTQ in Raleigh at this Councilâs first meeting. His philosophy on growth is development harms neighborhoods & increases car traffic. Most in this community seem to welcome dense concentrated development, along with transit accessibility, as I do. But basically heâs not a bad guy (endless you build near Bedford).
Cox likes to talk a lot for sure.
So, regarding ADUs, what sort of design guidelines should there be, and/or should neighborhoods be allowed to have their own? Or, should it be a free for all? I ask because an ADU could be a 40 year old single wide, or it could be a camper, or one of those âtiny housesâ thatâs built on a trailer chassis.
I suspect that a lot of people assume that an ADU is cute little cottage that matches the house and makes everyone say âahhhh, how cuteâ, butâŚ
I donât live in a SFH, so I have no skin in this game. Iâm just curious what everyoneâs presumptions are and whether or not there should be some boundaries around their incarnations.
1 Like
I think the baseline would be a structure on a foundation that meets all building codes. The rest is up for debate.
My biggest requirements are little to no setbacks (no greater than a foot or two) and no parking requirements.
3 Likes
Whatâs wrong with allowing the rules were put in place to work? If a person wants to build one of these his or her neighbors should have a say. You canât just claim itâs âhis/herâ private property and should be subject to no regulations.
A) the property is already subject to regulations today (setbacks, lot size, impervious surface, etc)
B) storm water/impervious surface requirement a do address real issues. Unless you are going to require the homeowner to provide a storm water plan, you are going to create problems
c) parking concerns are not imaginary. If you donât require it, what prevents the homeowner from not providing any and all of a sudden you have 2-3 cars parking all over the street. You think this wonât create a problem with the neighbors you are kidding yourself
D) the biggest problem with ADUs is there is a small percentage that will âF it upâ for everyone. We see examples of these problems with slumlords today.
It seems like a lot you think everyone is going to build these cute little Architectural Digest-award wining cottagesâŚthat house some poor quiet graduate studentâŚainât going to happen.
You WILL end you with shitty design and people trying to cram as many bodies into every possible inch of their propertyâŚto make a buck.
I own a lot of rental property myself. What prevents me from slapping these ADUs on every property I own and trying to cram as many people onto those already small lots and streets as I can possibly squeeze in?
ADUs are NOT a solution. There are enough people that will F it up and I donât want to be the neighbor that has to deal with that one a-hole. I can tell you with confidence that 99% of my 5 Points neighbors agree.
1 Like
I think the key is that it needs to be managed properly. Devil is always in the details. I think itâs a good concept with limits. Obviously some people will take advantage of it without the proper regulations.
1 Like
Again, if your neighbors and you are in agreement on not wanting them, then no ADUs will be built in your neighborhood and you have nothing to fear.
The current rules have been in place for quite some time now, and not a single unit has been built.
Also, sorry, the polls have spoken and the neighborhood protectionist HOA idealists were oustedâŚ
5 Likes
Thatâs under the current rules. What some are trying to propose is to throw out the âneighborhood approvalâ requirement. Thatâs my point about letting the current rules stand.
I was not a fan of the old council but I can tell you if the new council tries to toss out the neighborhood approval requirement for ADUsâŚyou will quickly find out it wasnât just a small number of âprotectionistâ city council members who donât like the ADUsâŚwith no rules
There are already existing rules for accessory structures (sheds, garages, man caves, etc). ADUs should just allow those to be dwelling units. Basically, only things that can already be built today, but with both a kitchen and a bathroom, and permitted for residential occupancy.
If setbacks, etc are going to be changed, it should affect all accessory structures.
I own a lot of rental property myself. What prevents me from slapping these ADUs on every property I own and trying to cram as many people onto those already small lots and streets as I can possibly squeeze in?
So can you expand on this as a rental property owner? What is so special about an ADU that itâs not just another house/structure? In your statement, what prevents you from cramming as many people into your houses?
Honest question. I just donât see why an ADU has to be micromanaged when we seem to be fine with SFHs. If I have the space for a second SFH on my property, itâs just much smaller, and meets the same reqs as the main house, whatâs the issue?
As far as parking goes, thatâs a philosophical difference. For me, 2-3 cars on the street per house, I have no problem with because the owners of those cars are choosing to place them on the public street. If the public wants to use the street for something else, it is their responsibility to move them or house them on their property. The public does not owe them parking space.
3 Likes