Accessory buildings are not permitted in required year yard without a special exception

[Cheryl Cort]

The bad news: the zoning regulations do not permit an accessory building by right in the required rear yard.

The good news: the zoning regulations clearly provide for a special exception to this rule, but requires asking permission at the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 

I spoke to Office of Planning staff to understand the impact of Zoning Commission No. 20-19 which clarifies that all residential zones do not permit an accessory building (other than a shed) in the required rear yard. OP’s view is that this has always been the case, “required yards are required for a reason,” but the regulations were not clear until the Zoning Commission clarified them last year. The impact, from OP's perspective is not that great since it states that DC has many deep lots where an accessory building can be located outside the required rear yard. And if a lot is not deep enough, a special exception is readily available.

A special exception is permitted in order to construct an accessory building in the required rear yard. It appears that a special exception (in other jurisdictions, sometimes called a “conditional use”) is routinely approved if the proposal conforms with the other guidance in the special exception rules (such as maximum lot occupancy). So if you are planning a project in the required rear yard, assess if it otherwise conforms with the special exception rules (5201.2 - see below for full citation), and apply to the BZA for a special exception. You can also request a consultation with the Zoning Administrator, called a Preliminary Design Review Meeting (PRDM) (learn more here).

Here’s an illustration for the R zone of the rules for an accessory building. Note that DC measures the required rear yard from the rear of the principal dwelling towards the rear lot line.

The following is the zoning regulations reference for a special exception that permits an accessory structure in the required rear yard:

5201  SPECIAL EXCEPTION RELIEF FROM CERTAIN REQUIRED  DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

 

5201.2

 

For a new or enlarged accessory structure to a residential building with only one (1) principal dwelling unit on a non-alley lot, the Board of Zoning Adjustment may grant relief from the following development standards as a special exception, subject to the provisions of this section and the general special exception criteria at Subtitle X, Chapter 9:

• (a) Lot occupancy subject to the following table:

• 

• (b) Maximum building area of an accessory building;

• (c) Yards, including alley centerline setback; and

• (d) Pervious surface.

Summary of the key changes for accessory building regulations in the Residential zones from ZC No. 20-19:

1. Clarified an accessory building not permitted in the required rear yard but for a  special exception (5201.2)

2. Alley centerline setback reduced to 7.5’ (from 12’) (5004.1 )

3. Height maximum of accessory building increased to 22’ (from 20’) (5002.1)

Key issues that will or can be addressed at a September meeting of the Zoning Commission

The Zoning Commission will hold a hearing related to accessory apartments regarding use restrictions, and perhaps some other matters. This would be the time to appeal to the Commission to also relax the rules on required rear yards. It's unclear that the Commission will be very receptive. Office of Planning views the special exception process as straight forward for addressing this concern.

There are two important issues that will or can be raised at the September meeting of the Zoning Commission:

• Five year wait in the use of a new or enlarged accessory building for a dwelling in the RF zone: Office of Planning intends to recommend the removal of the 5 year delay in the RF zone for new construction related to an accessory building use as an accessory apartment. I’ll give people information on how to write letters of support, or testify for this action as it is put out for public notice.

• Attention architects regarding the 450 square foot maximum building area (Section 5003): The zoning code restricts accessory buildings to a maximum building area of 450 SF or 30% of the required rear yard, whichever is greater. Architects have expressed concern that this small footprint (typically 450 SF) prevents a unit from being wheelchair accessible. Can architects provide actual examples of this? What is the right maximum footprint? 600 SF? If we can provide evidence and specific recommendations, we are likely to convince the Zoning Commission to change this restriction. 

_____________________________ Cheryl Cort (she/her) Policy Director Coalition for Smarter Growth Mobile: 202-251-7516 (e) che...@smartergrowth.net | www.smartergrowth.net  Twitter @betterDCregion | @cherylcort Your gift helps keep CSG's advocacy going! Donate today!

[Jim P]

If a 2000sf main house assessed at $625K and with $5000/yr property tax bill (not counting homeowner deduction),  do we have any data points indicating likely assessment for say a 1000sf free standing ADU facing an alley?  It's clearly worth quite a bit less than half ...

Thanks,

Jim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DC Accessory Apartments Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to adudc+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/CACM%2B%2Bj1mKY-AfEo8EiSoVp8Jo9kg%2B0b-n8wPCkSBTi80N7csWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Levine]

Hi Cheryl et al:

Responding to your questions regarding the area for the footprint of a wheelchair-accessible, accessory building, I am pleased to attach an analysis that may aid in approaching the Zoning Commission at their September meeting.

This attachment shows two simple, almost square, one story plans: (1) one showing an actual bedroom accessed through a door, and has a footprint of just under 600 SF; and (2) the other with the bed in an alcove that can be closed off with a flexible screen, with a footprint of 450 SF.   

Prof. Ed Steinfeld, the Director, IDEA Center, School of Architecture and Planning at University at Buffalo, SUNY let me know that the Center has designed two homes that are accessible and smaller than 450 SF.  -  basically they are one room and a bathroom. 

Thus, it is possible to design a studio unit with a footprint of 450 SF.   However, I believe it would be more reasonable to increase the maximum building area to 600SF, enabling the inclusion of a more private conventional bedroom, in particular for an elderly or disabled person.

I hope this helps.

Jeff Levine

[Ileana Schinder]

Thanks Jeff,

I agree with you, a 450 sqft unit barely covers the space demand of a person with special needs, it lacks privacy and areas for special uses (a desk? storage?) 

I am happy to join the voices that will strengthen the argument that will increase the minimum area from 450 to 600. 

Thanks!

ileana

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DC Accessory Apartments Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to adudc+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/082DBF44-2E85-42E6-9139-CD49D2BDC625%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DC Accessory Apartments Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to adudc+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/082DBF44-2E85-42E6-9139-CD49D2BDC625%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DC Accessory Apartments Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to adudc+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/CACM%2B%2Bj1mKY-AfEo8EiSoVp8Jo9kg%2B0b-n8wPCkSBTi80N7csWA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DC Accessory Apartments Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to adudc+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/082DBF44-2E85-42E6-9139-CD49D2BDC625%40gmail.com.

--

PS: Did you see us featured in The Washington Post?! 

ileana schinder, Architect

AIA, LEED AP BD+C

i...@ileanaschinder.com
o: 202-381-7463 / c: 202-431-6760

http://www.ileanaschinder.com

[Jeffrey Levine]

Thanks Ileana, I'm glad you agree.

Jeff

[Cheryl Cort]

Thanks! It seems that it is possible, but that it's far from ideal for an aging-in-place unit.  I have heard from other architects that 450 SF is possible for wheelchair clearance. Given that an accessory building is likely to have better level entry access than a basement apartment, it gives more strength to the argument that there should be flexibility for a larger footprint.

Should we argue for a 600 SF for accessible units? Or ask for a special exception of 600 SF for accessible units? 

[Charlie Perla]

Hi Cheryl, et al:

 

While I am in agreement with that the area required by ADA  in an ADU is a challenge, I am wondering if making the minimum be 650 sf will have a detrimental impact on a typical 18 ft wide lot that requires 12 ft set back from the alley and 20 ft worth of backyard.

 

Charlie Perla

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/CAPzHPzPPOQsd0%3DWwVJxJw_1Or44ZFOn2sjDSFy8i3jvPEaSJZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Cheryl Cort]

We are not talking minimum as a regulation, but rather a minimum allowable size to provide a reasonable ADA design. Currently the maximum footprint is 450 SF for an accessory building where you could build an accessory or second living unit. 

So our request to the zoning commission is that it amend regs to allow a maximum size footprint to support ADA compliance units in accessory buildings. 

[Jeffrey Levine]

Hi Cheryl et al:

I believe we should argue for a special exception of 600 SF for accessible accessory units, both from the advantages of flexibility and liability.

This process will put the responsibility solely with the applicant, such as the primary homeowner - not an outside group such as the CSG nor the City - to explain why they really want an accessible ADU in their rear yard.  Before the Board of Zoning Adjustment will grant special exceptions to the Zoning Regulations, the applicant will have to successfully meet the burden to prove no undue adverse impact.

Such possible  "undue adverse impacts” could be:  (1) a larger footprint for an ADU in an already restricted rear yard;  (2) restricting the building to a single story;  (3) having to provide an accessible parking space.  

Also, would there need to be a covenant restricting the proposed units to only those with disabilities, in perpetuity - or should the unit be regarded as "universally-designed” and thus appropriate for everyone?

Jeff Levine

[Cheryl Cort]

I agree that a special exception and one story limit might be a good way to go. 

I don’t think we should also mention the parking. I’d like to remove the current parking rule (replace if existing) but we can just let it be for now. 

I also don’t think we should require that only people with a disability can live there. Requiring a universal design standard does sound like a good idea. 

--

[Ileana Schinder]

I agree with Cheryl. I would remove any requirement for occupancy but I would add an ADA requirement for the whole unit. So, the city gives you a larger apartment but you have to make it zero barrier for permitting purposes (i.e.: zero steps, bathroom with clearances, etc)

I hope this helps!

ileana

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/CACM%2B%2Bj0a7FbUjgRQK4EQrW3nJQMMnh_%3DYFHDJmwD46ro5TADiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Cheryl Cort]

Thanks! Can you suggest the specific language to propose to OP? Do we have an ADA/universal design lawyer on the list? 

1. Require minimum ADA compliance: "Unit must be fully accessible, complying with relevant ADA standards, including zero barriers, zero steps, doorway and bathroom clearances, and minimum kitchen accessibility."

2 Do we specify a larger footprint, like 600 SF? Or say, "BZA can grant a Special Exception for a 600 SF footprint, or larger if justified by applicant, but no more than 900 SF.

[Ileana Schinder]

I think that the least you say, the better. I would set ONE standards, like ADA and not mention any other design requirements (there is plenty there!)

[Cheryl Cort]

Another architect suggested this:

An ADU could go up to 600 SF with as special exception if it meets these standards:

1. Is limited to a single story
2. Meets ICC/ANSI A117.1 standards for accessible units

Does this citation cover all our bases? If so, I'd like to pitch it to OP.

[Jim P]

Hi

Anybody have experience with how much rent a 450sf ADU can likely bring in, in a prime location (right near Petworth Metro)?

I'm contemplating a 450sf free standing ADU over a carport.

But also wondering the likely rent if i added another 160 to 200 sf underneath to make it into a 2 bedroom

ALSO:  Has anyone suggested to the mayor, etc to provide maybe 15 year tax abatement ( not including ADU in city prop assessment) on the ADU itself, to make ADUs more financially viable?

Thanks,

Jim

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/adudc/CACM%2B%2Bj3g42_zDDhp0kpctRa9HxBZyQg%3D6JmkkqHa2wwZ-ePEOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Levine]

Hi Cheryl et al:

I agree with this architect’s suggestion to keep proposed requirements simple.  

However, you may want to consider the implications of having a homeowner comply with the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard (on which, by the way, I was part of the formulating Committee). 

It probably would advisable to read Section 102 to understand its purpose and intent.  For example, there are several different types of dwelling and sleeping units considered: accessible, Type A, Type B and Type C - and it is confusing to figure out which would be the most appropriate.

Additionally, the standard refers to site plans and accessible routes, including parking space requirements.

Finally the standard, similar to the ADA, does not apply to privately owned residences.

Maybe we should just list some of the basic criteria such as, as already stated, “ zero barriers, zero steps (implying a single story), doorway and bathroom clearances, and minimum kitchen accessibility”,  in order that a special exception be granted for an ADU up to 600 SF?

Jeff

 

Jeff Levine

<Screen Shot 2020-12-06 at 9.20.23 AM.png>