site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10hr ago (text post)   539 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for June 12, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Surefire method of ingratiating yourself with a new community that you haven't even moved into yet: <del>Complain</del><ins>Submit feedback</ins> to the government about draft zoning changes

I would like to express the following concerns regarding the draft zoning ordinance that has been posted on the municipality's website.

Section ███ item ███ of the draft text says: "[An accessory dwelling unit shall not have a separate house number from the primary dwelling unit.]" Why? This is in direct opposition to 2024 IZC (International Zoning Code) section 903.2 item 3, which says: "An ADU shall have a separate house number from the primary dwelling unit." The IZC is far from the end-all and be-all of zoning, but I would like to see a rationale for this difference.

Alternatively (depending on the actual intent behind this provision), perhaps this provision should be reworded to say something like: "[An accessory dwelling unit shall not have a separate house number from the primary dwelling unit], but shall have a separate secondary address unit designator approved by the United States Postal Service, such as 'building 2', 'unit 2', 'side', or 'rear'." (I recognize that the municipal council has recently discussed some confusion that has resulted from "rear" addresses, and a proliferation of ADUs in the rears of lots would exacerbate that problem. But that's the fault of shipping-company employees for failing to understand the USPS's approved secondary unit designators, not the fault of the municipality.)

Attachment 2 of the draft text says that, in zone R-B:

  • "[Sit-down] restaurant excluding live entertainment" and "[non-drive-through] take-out restaurant" are permitted by right;

  • "[Sit-down] restaurant with live entertainment" is permitted only by special exception; and

  • "Drive-through restaurant" is not permitted at all.

However, an NJDOT (New Jersey Department of Transportation) document (attached to this message; the numbers probably are copied-and-pasted from an authoritative, but paywalled, ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) document) gives the following numbers for trips generated (per 1000 ft^2 on the weekend).

  • "High-turnover sit-down restaurant": 18.46 trips per hour, 142.64 trips per day

  • "Fast-food restaurant without drive-through window": 54.60 trips per hour, 696.00 trips per day

  • "Fast-food restaurant with drive-through window": 55.15 trips per hour, 616.12 trips per day

That is, according to NJDOT (and probably ITE), take-out restaurants generate basically the same amount of traffic—three to five times as much as sit-down restaurants—regardless of whether they have drive-through windows. Therefore, in my opinion, the zoning ordinance should treat drive-through and non-drive-through take-out restaurants the same—in zone R-B, either permitted only by special exception, or not permitted at all.

When the consultant exported the PDF of the draft map from whatever drawing program it is using, it failed to embed its fancy fonts into the file. This causes the PDF to not display correctly in certain PDF readers.

Thank you.

[ToaKraka]

Allegedly, though, I was one of only two people to provide any comments at all.

Two hilarious topics in one PDF!

(1) (a) Buy a single lot large enough to contain three or four houses. (b) Build a tiny house—400 ft2, two occupants. (b) Upgrade to a small house on the same lot—800 ft2, five occupants. Retain the tiny house as an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) on the same lot. (c) Upgrade once more to a normal-size house on the same lot—1600 ft2, ten occupants. Retain the small house as an ADU, and subdivide off the tiny house as a separate lot.

(2) The IZC (International Zoning Code) prescribes a minimum of two off-street parking stalls per dwelling unit. That obviously is a bit low for the modern age. However, providing a parking space for every single occupant may be an overcorrection. (a) The IZC starts requiring the installation of a three-foot-tall buffer when you reach five parking spaces in a single lot. (b) High proportions of impervious area to total area may cause drainage problems. The IZC fails to address this topic, while the IGCC (International Green Construction Code) requires a hydrologic calculation much more complicated than "impervious area ÷ total area". (c) According to environmental organizations, impervious area above 10 percent in a watershed (i. e., including roads rather than just lots) causes damage to water quality, and a watershed with impervious area above 25 percent is basically dead.

My suspicion is that the address rules are to prevent people from renting them out. In recent years, the armchair urbanists have gotten goopy about ADUs, acting like they're some panacea to the housing problem. They're usually prohibited in most subdivisions, but they've tried to make a case for them by claiming that it's so your mother-in-law doesn't have to go into assisted living or whatever. Municipalities don't want to approve them so they can be used as a back door to allowing multi-family in neighborhoods zoned for single family. Allowing them with the provision that they have to share an address means that the only people who live in them will be friends or family of the occupants of the main unit, which is more in line with the intention of the zoning code. I suspect that the concern about the restaurants is more aesthetic than traffic-related. This is a residential district, and there's a difference between living in close proximity to a storefront that happens to have a sub shop or pizza place and a McDonald's on its own lot with a wraparound driveway and cars idling in line.

I don't know if you read my recent award-winning writeup on East Liberty, but in it I discuss Jane Jacobs and how more serious academics (particularly sociologist Herbert Gans) tended to criticize her urban theory as being based more on aesthetics than anything else. I think the same applies to the armchair urbanists of today, who have waged war against the parking minimum. I have no strong opinions on any particular policy, but I can tell you right now that no builder outside of a dense urban area is going to build an apartment complex without adequate parking, regardless of what the law says, and even in urban areas there's little demand for car-free living. While it may be true that eliminating parking would reduce the per-unit cost of an apartment, it would most likely just shift that cost from the developer/occupant onto the public at large, as the residents would park on the street. They also say nothing about the possibility that very few developers would be willing to forgo parking completely and would still surround their complexes with huge lots and garages that the armchair urbanists like to bitch about, much in the way they also include pools and rec rooms as amenities to residents.

My suspicion is that the address rules are to prevent people from renting them out.

No, the consultant confirmed at a meeting (again, attended by only two interested citizens including me) that it was just poorly worded and would be fixed to refer to secondary unit designators. There's already a separate provision that bans an ADU from (1) being inhabited if the owner lives neither in the ADU nor in the principal building, or (2) being a bed-and-breakfast or a short-term rental.

Municipalities don't want to approve them so they can be used as a back door to allowing multi-family in neighborhoods zoned for single family.

The zone in question already will allow three-story apartment buildings by right under the draft code (up from just duplexes under the current code).

I suspect that the concern about the restaurants is more aesthetic than traffic-related.

No, a government official confirmed at the same meeting that it was traffic-related. Specifically, he doesn't want to see a repeat of a particular drivethrough elsewhere in the municipality that consistently backs up into the street during mornings. (He said something like, "I don't know how PennDOT approved that highway occupancy permit.") And he expects the traffic numbers that I cited to be applicable more to a fast-food restaurant in a commercial zone than to a "neighborhood" fast-food restaurant that would actually be built in a residential zone.

I have no strong opinions on any particular policy, but I can tell you right now that no builder outside of a dense urban area is going to build an apartment complex without adequate parking, regardless of what the law says, and even in urban areas there's little demand for car-free living. While it may be true that eliminating parking would reduce the per-unit cost of an apartment, it would most likely just shift that cost from the developer/occupant onto the public at large, as the residents would park on the street.

Aren't you contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences? Developers would never build without adequate parking (then we can get rid of the minimum, right?) and also getting rid of the minimum would cause people to park on the street. Pick one?

No builder outside of a dense urban area would go without one. Builders within a dense urban area might, which will mightily piss off residents of that neighborhood who already rely on street parking, generally because their houses were built prior to parking requirements.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats