A Bit of a Mess

Part III of III

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

- Grouch Marx

Last column, I noted how the new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) legislation may well lead to a lot of problems in condominium associations. This column let's take a look at some of the problems for homeowners associations (HOAs) and some suggestions on what to do in your HOA or condo association.

For HOAs, it's even easier to construct an ADU than in a condominium association as every home in an HOA is, by definition, on its own single-family Lot. Thus, there can be, unless a municipality limits it, which will surely be challenged, an ADU on any single-family Lot, which is what HOAs are of course, a single family home on a Lot. So ADUs can proliferate like bunnies in HOAs. Suddenly, your 40 residence HOA may have 60 or more residences.

The legislation specifically notes a municipality, town or city, cannot ban ADUs for single family residences. It can limit them in some ways, such as size, not more than 950 square feet (!), aesthetics (?), but can't make them less than 750 square feet.

I already have one that was set up for a family member. Now that the family member is gone, it's a pure rental … and not to a workforce housing person, but for top dollar.

Let's not kid ourselves, we are largely a capitalist society. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, except the unintentional dishonesty that underlies the claim that we are going to establish “workforce” housing to help those who make less, yet charge what only a professional can likely afford.

Lest you think I jest I checked, and a brand new 750 s.f one bedroom in Portsmouth? It would be nice if the owner would rent to a waitress, bus driver for the school system, janitor or dishwasher for $500.00-$800.00 per month, but it's currently renting for $3,600.00 per month which no workforce worker can afford.

If it was really for workforce housing, why not put language in the bill that caps the rental at 20% more, for example, than the average rent in a community or neighborhood, which could easily be found through local realtors … or asking a work force worker what they pay for rent. Doing so would help the owner get some money and help the work force that is the infrastructure of communities, the blue collar people who make communities thrive.

But I guarantee you, from experience already, they are charging the most they can get … which prices out workforce housing.

And, if it was really for family members who need some help as they grow older, but not so much help they need an assisted living facility yet, why not add that in the legislation? Instead, the legislation specifically notes the ADU does not have to be for a family member, and unless the town or city has a specific ordinance, the owner does not even have to live there, or even have it attached to the home, so if an HOA is set up for one-acre lots, or more, it can be a stand alone, separate building.

Towns should consider a proximity requirement so that it's actually what its name says, an accessory to the home. And not something on a distant part of the Lot.

So, what can you do about the potential proliferation of ADUs? Check with your town or city. Make it clear there are some issues, and ask the following

• Does it have an ADU Ordinance?

• If yes, ask to see it.

  • It should require a connecting door, i.e not a separate dwelling structure

  • Nothing above or in a garage (unless that's okay with you)

  • No off street parking

  • Review by DES as to status of leach field, if any.

  • One of the units has to be owner occupied.

  • Has to be limited to family members or for true work force housing. A five minute search will show such results.

  • And ask for a ban for condos as most are attached single-family dwellings, not single-family detached units.

• If not, ask if it is going to start drafting one as right now anything can be put in per the new law.

As a attorney friend of mine noted to me when discussing this situation, New Hampshire has a habit of passing laws and then going back and trying to correct flaws rather than by addressing them at the start (one of the downsides of having a 424 member legislature), sort of closing the barn door after the animals are out. And until the legislation is tweaked, the barnyard animals, I mean the owners, are going to run amuck.