Durango would provide an extended grace period to allow the owners of illegal accessory dwellings to come into voluntary compliance with a new land-use code that could be approved by the City Council later this fall.

Accessory dwelling units, more commonly known as mother-in-law apartments or alley cottages, are smaller homes subordinate to larger houses on the same property.

Except in duplex situations, ADUs are not permitted in the current City Code. Under the proposal, they would be allowed in the city’s two original neighborhoods just east of downtown and along the avenues that run parallel to North Main, provided they meet certain conditions, such as for building and lot size, an off-street parking requirement and height restrictions.

What to do about current ADUs that were illegally built has been a vexing issue because they’re hard to identify and sort out, officials said Monday during a public forum at the Durango Community Recreational Center.

A teenager sleeping in the attic of the family garage is not in an ADU situation.

If the new land-use development code should pass, officials hope to use “carrots” to bring them into compliance, such as not issuing citations, administratively approving code variances and allowing a payment plan for fees.

No exceptions, however, would be allowed for housing situations that pose life-safety issues, said Greg Hoch, director of community development for Durango.

To illustrate his point, Hoch recalled a housing inspection in which a renter lived next to furnace with combustible gas underneath the kitchen accessible only through a trap door.

After the grace period is over, which could be two years or so depending on direction from the council, the city would take a more aggressive, proactive approach with fines and neighborhood checks for illegal ADUs.

Out-of-compliance accessory dwellings would be subject to a public-hearing process before exceptions to code would be allowed.

Because ADUs have become such a contentious issue, Hoch suggested the council would vote on them separately from the new land-use code otherwise the new code might never get approved.

At the forum Monday, proponents and opponents echoed many of same arguments for and against ADUs that have been heard in Durango for about two decades, according to a slide from Hoch’s presentation which listed many of the same pro’s and cons.

Opponents fear the loss of privacy, overcrowding and the proliferation of deteriorating rentals. Proponents like them as investment properties and extra revenue to afford a mortgage. They also provide living space for family members, such as the mother-in-law or a returning college graduate, They provide affordable housing in expensive Durango.

An ADU advocate, Sam King, said opponents of accessory dwellings should realize that Durango must provide for a growing population.

“We have to figure out how to manage (growth) instead of shutting the doors,” King said.

There were signs that the city might be coming to a consensus.

Dave McHenry, an ADU skeptic, said he was satisfied “that we are arriving at a proposal that will be more reasonable and lessen the impacts on the neighborhood.”

McHenry did get in a dig, putting a twist on the notion that there is nothing worse for a neighborhood than a party house. McHenry said no, what’s worse is “a party house with a smaller party house in back.”

One stipulation that critics would like to add is to require the owner live on the property, either the smaller or larger house.

This was taken out of an earlier draft after former Mayor Doug Lyon argued earlier this year that property owners should not be tied to their properties or told where they must live.

To break the stereotype that all ADU supporters are investors and developers, some ADU advocates at the forum Monday identified themselves as a Fort Lewis College professor renting out to fellow professors and as a mother of two small children who works as nurse and affords her mortgage by renting a room.

Because Durango allows up to five unrelated people to live in the same house, Hoch said the mom was well within the law.

“Thank you, Crystal. You’re not a slumlord and you don’t have an ADU,” Hoch said.

jhaug@durangoherald.com