- Why would we not want more people able to enjoy our community?
- Need more infrastructure
- We’re in a small (15 home) subdivision with lots so small no ADUs are possible. Further, our HOA has, as is common, CCRs that do not allow them. If we weren’t so double-restricted, my Neutral would be Yes.
- I don’t support ADU’s at all. We’re already having issues with short-term renters in the neighborhood, mostly with their pets. I’d rather not have random people living close by, who I don’t know, especially with my kids playing outside. I also think it will create more congestion on the streets, since a lot of driveways can’t accommodate more than just the main residents’ cars.
- Believe it will change the charming character of neighborhood, create parking problems, stress the infrastructure to the point of creating serious problems (I.e. runoff) and result in too many trees being cut and landscape eyesores.
- I think it is important to specify the total % of impervious surface in property – I am not against the additional ADU if there is still a % not covered by roof/driveway/etc. that drains water instead of allowing to soak in.
- As long as they’re not short term rental opportunities we’re ok with it!
- Would love them to be able to be short term rentals also!!
- I am concerned about the additional traffic in the neighborhood and the appearance of the ADUs
- Current infrastructure can’t support them. Need owner occupancy of at least 1unit, WITH ENFORCEMENT!
- Owner MUST occupy main home or ADU, canopy trees MUST be protected, infrastructure MUST be upgraded to support increased density and parking and traffic MUST be moderated for the safety of a walking neighborhood. North Main should strongly consider an overlay/covenant to better control and constrain what the city may not…
- I think parking is generally insufficient in the older neighborhoods, and this would exacerbate that situation. And infill (overbuilding) with not enough soil on lots is already an issue so I don’t support building and adding parking potentially to accommodate more people on these small lots.
- This doesn’t comply with the fabric of my neighborhood.
- I will admit that I am very new to the area and not fully up to speed on these changes…however, I also know that many people are building ADUs for elderly parents and/or children and grandchildren. I also know that long term rentals are needed as Greenville grows, but I would like to be assured that there are strict rules regarding ability to evict, etc., if the tenant is a problem, for the renters AND the neighbors. That is the biggest issue for me… I’m also hesitant to accept a code that could decimate the trees and ‘vibe’ of the neighborhoods…we are part of the North Main Community association and I’m not sure they agree with the new codes…I will defer to their guidance and wisdom, since I’m a new resident.
- Don’t think I want them being used as rentals. Also, would like footprint of ADU to be based on lot size behind main home.
- Size must be reduced down to 500 sq ft. and owner of property must live in home.
- Concern for groundwater runoff, loss of green space, possibility of too many units adding to traffic and overuse of infrastructure. Positive: additional affordable housing available, housing for aging parents, etc. Will units used for rental income be taxed as such?
- It’s important to accept and learn to live with density if we are to minimize sprawl and the awful ecological consequences that go with that. Also having some smaller buildings for rent may encourage more (and desired) diversity in our neighborhood. Just have to make sure storm water guidelines (with added impervious surfaces like roofs) are strictly adhered to.
- I think that property owners being able to add more affordable housing to rent out could be a good thing for Greenville, however there is nothing stopping them from renting these out as short-term rentals despite the city saying they are prohibited. There are multiple short-term rentals on just my street that have been reported multiple times and nothing has happened. I would hate for this city to turn into Asheville or other tourist towns.
- I am even ok with short term rentals
- Homeowners purchased their properties in this neighborhood understanding that these are single family residences. Changing the rules now—mid-game, if you will—is patently unfair to people who have been playing by the rules and depending on them.
- Unless very strict restrictions are put on such dwellings, I’m sure that developers and others seeking profit would take advantage of this and potentially destroy the character and quality of life in North Main neighborhood. We’re already losing beautiful trees to development. A home-owner wishing to build a tiny house might be ok. But if the main house isn’t owner occupied, I foresee many potential problems. Don’t let greed destroy our beautiful area
- Voted no due to likely increase in on-the-street parking
- I support as long as structures are limited to 1,000 sq ft
- ADUs can guarantee the long-term lease of the tenant, and there will be no change of tenants at any time.
- Can increase the source of income.
- It can solve short-term housing problems
- yes, support this, there are some already, and as our parents age, having that option is nice
- Concerned for increased density when traffic on Stone has been so difficult already
- More people in the world = more need for housing. Prefer infill over loss of wilderness
- This is very good and helpful to us.
- My primary concern is what ADUs will be developed by investors not living in their homes. The ADU should be limited and fit in with the current neighborhood. Investors will focus on maximizing revenue opportunities, not the impact to the neighborhood.
- Allow people to use their property as they wish. This may allow additional income for people and/or enable families to add space for a relative.
- You can have an additional income
- This will change our living environment
- Have extra income
- I virtually attended the Planning Commission session and listened to the community feedback. While the storm water drainage argument was understandable, I think it was misguided to suggest that preventing ADUs would really help with that. I found the other arguments against (of which there weren’t many) to kind of stink of NIMBYism. As a younger resident in the community who experienced how hard it was to find a home here, it’s pretty frustrating to see residents (who often own several properties) try to gatekeep increased availability.
- I don’t necessarily have an issue with ADUs but I do worry that they could make the neighborhood look overcrowded and unsightly if there is no oversight in what the dwellings can look like. Some of the ADU’s that are already in North Main are built with cheaper materials and do not match the home. There would have to be oversight and rules on that for me to be completely supportive.
- At a minimum the owner of the property should be required to live at the house if the ADU is rented or the neighborhoods will become multi-family and owned by landlords. Everything Greenville currently is not.
- The main reason for the code changes and additions of ADUs is to provide more affordable housing in Greenville. This is a very good principle, that being said to rent a 1,000 square foot property in the North Main area (the ADU) is not going to bring it into the financial capability of the people who need affordable housing. Thus it wont accomplish its main goal. In addition there are the inherent problems with extra demands on drainage, sewer overflow, more traffic, water etc.
- The owner should have to reside in either the main home or the ADU.
- It is a small step in creating more affordable housing in the NM community. It is not likely this will cause issues and I am confident very few homeowners out of the over 2000 homes will take advantage of this. I believe this would be very helpful as an option for homeowners who have ageing parents to live on the property with them and be well taken care of and not be concerned about long term living facilities.
- ADU and main dwelling cannot be rented for short term renters. Time minimums, restrictions and code of conduct for long-term renters outlined clearly.
- Opposed to being able to rent short term.
- A certain percentage of land needs to be preserved to absorb water. This was a requirement when we renovated our backyard (w an ADU) 3 years ago. Seemed like current percentage was reasonable. Has been nice to have our adult children use the ADU with their dogs when they visit. Also nice to have the ADU in case we ever need/want to do a 3 month lease or the such. Agree with most of the proposed ordinance. If Gville wants a workforce to handle the incoming tourism – they all can’t live 20 miles outside the city.
- I am concerned with water runoff and with changing the look and feel of the North Main neighborhood.
- I do not think our infrastructure can handle it.
- Do not support a second separate residential unit. We feel it needs to be attached to the primary home and would support if ADU was defined as only “added attachment to the main house with a separate entrance”.
- In addition would not be in favor unless it required primary owner occupancy.
Comments from NMCA Survey Re: ADUs as Proposed in New Draft Development Code
I agree with the comments that talk about changing the charter of the neighborhood, street parking, and over taxed infrastructure. The number of people in the ADU might not be limited to one or two people; it could be four students or single young adults, or an adult family with four drivers, all with cars parked on the street. Some in front of other homeowners lot and house.
Some renters will not care about the neighborhood and not pick-up after their dog (s); that’s happening now with some neighgobors. We do not need more? The appearance of the property, grass, trash, etc., could go down also.
Has there been any effort to gauge the impact on property valve in a neighbohood with ADU’s; .both the property with an ADU and that of nearby neighbors without an ADU?