Last year, RUPCO offered a grant program called "Columbia County Plus One ADU." It provided grants of up to $125,000 to help low to moderate income homeowners in Columbia County construct or rehab accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
There were income caps for those applying for the grants and the requirement that ADUs be permitted by right in local zoning laws. The information provided here about the grant program suggests these possible uses for an ADU.
- Enable family members (including family caregivers) to reside on the same property while having their own living spaces.
- Provide housing for a hired caregiver.
- Provide rental income to homeowners.
- Help older residents remain independent and "age in place."
- Provide an adaptable form of housing; ADUs provide flexible solutions for changing needs.
It seems to me, as someone who has observed the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals for decades, that all that is needed to make it easier to create an ADU is to reduce the requirements for rear and side setbacks and increase the permitted lot coverage. RUPCO's examples of ADUs show a detached structure beside the existing structure, but Hudson's zoning law should probably require that detached ADUs be located at the back of a property, behind the existing structure.
The question was raised at the Legal Committee meeting if Hudson should prohibit using an ADU as a short-term rental (STR). It should be noted that the RUPCO grant program made no restrictions on how the ADU could be rented but only suggested that rental income—whether it was long term or short term—could help the property owner meet the ever increasing burden of homeownership—mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.
Councilmember Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward) expressed one concern about ADUs: "We can't afford to have people erecting ugly things around the city." For much of the city, those areas that are locally designated historic districts, review by the Historic Preservation Commission might prevent the construction of "ugly things."
For the rest of the city, requiring that ADUs be located at the back of the property, behind the principal structure, would have to be sufficient.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
I agree with Carole’s assessment, if we want to make building ADUs easier, then the zoning code should be amended so that they can be built as a right without having to get a zoning variance for the needed adjustments to setbacks and lot coverage that the current outdated code does not automatically permit. Example, current code requires setbacks of 15’ from each side neighborhood lot line, so if the average Hudson grid lot width is 30’, nothing can be built without a variance… ADU, tool shed, garage, kitchen extension… anything. That being said, the zoning board is pretty accommodating granting these variances, especially when a new structure, like an ADU, is similar in size to existing structures in the area, like alley carriage houses, that have existed before current code.
ReplyDeleteIf the goal is to encourage people to build ADUs then changing the law to require planning board approval would do exactly the opposite of that. The planning board could delay your project for over a year and add significant additional costs like paying your designers for multiple revisions based on the current whims of the board, as well having to fund their escrow account to pay for their lawyers and engineers to endlessly nit pick your product on your dime.
Furthermore, I don’t see how the city can determine what you do with your ADU. They can’t tell you what to cook in the new kitchen you renovated. As long as it’s up to building code for occupancy, you should be able to use it to house guests, renters, your mother-in-law, if you can stand it. If you’re getting a grant or tax credit to assist your financing, then sure, those entities can require restrictions based on their goals. But if homeowners are using their own money, paying full property and lodging taxes, they should be able to do as they see fit under current law.
I was told when this was first announced that Hudson wasn't included. Is this still the case?
ReplyDeleteI am not aware that Hudson was specifically excluded from the RUPCO grant program, but the requirement that ADUs be permitted by right would have prevented Hudsonians from applying. Area variances would be required to build an ADU in Hudson. Whatever was the case, the program is over now. If it will happen again is something I don't know.
DeleteClearing up some pretty important factual errors here:
ReplyDelete1. ADUs built with the Plus One ADU funds cannot be used as short-term rentals for a period of 10 years.
2. Hudson was not included in the previous (second) round, but there is a third round of funding for which RUPCO has applied, which does include Hudson.
3. Municipalities do not need to allow ADUs by right to qualify for this program.
4. This is a state program that RUPCO is administering; it is not a RUPCO program.
Hello Thomas. Thank you for this information. We have been approved by the Zoning & Historical to build an ADU on Partition street behind our residence. Do you happen to know what is considered short-term rental? And, do you know when the third round of funding will be available? We plan on starting in the Spring, so the time line may not work?
DeleteShort-Term Rentals are defined as any unit rented out for fewer than 30 days. The Plus One ADU program requires homeowners to make a 'good faith effort' to maintain the unit's occupancy.
DeleteThe deadline for applications to the third round--i.e., the application RUPCO sent to NYS--was just a few weeks ago (January 15). There will likely not be any awards announced until mid-March at the earliest. Using the previous round's timeline as a guide: the awards were announced in April and the homeowner application period opened in--I believe--August (or at least that's when the "kick off" event was held). So if you were looking at a Spring 2025 project, the timing likely does not work.
There is also an income qualification component; homeowners qualify if they earn less than 100% of the Area Median Income, which varies with household size. For example, 100% of AMI for a two-person household is $85,120. Households with incomes higher than that would be ineligible.
Very curious what Vicky thinks her comment means. Who's "we"? What does she mean by "can't afford"? Who decides what's "ugly" (aside from Walter and Carole)?
ReplyDeleteIt might help you to know that before Daskaloudi made the statement that was quoted she said, "We have a historic city. Aesthetically they have to be pleasing."
DeleteHi Thomas. Is it true that permitting or variances would need to be in place before receiving the grant? When is the third round applications starting? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteFrom what was said at the kickoff event and at some of the county's housing task force meetings: homeowners don't need to have approvals in hand prior to applying, but RUPCO is prioritizing "shovel ready" projects.
DeleteAs above re: third round. The state has not announced which nonprofit/municipality* applications have been selected.
*although it is mentioned nowhere, it is worth pointing out that RUPCO was not the applicant for the round currently active in Columbia County; the County was the applicant, with RUPCO as its partner. There are a number of housing initiatives happening throughout the county, but our (hyper)local 'news' sources don't cover those stories. People may know that Hudson received a certification from the state ("Pro-Housing") that gives the city access to a cornucopia of grants, loans, etc. According to the Governor, Hudson is far from alone; every town and village in the county has opted into the program, which no other county can claim. The Pro-Housing website lists 10 other Columbia County municipalities as 'certified'.