Why do they allow all the tear downs in Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I hope that you opted for the whole house sprinkler system as homes like yours burn quickly.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.capitalgazette.com/news/annapolis/ph-ac-cn-mansion-fire-anniversary-0119-20160118-story,amp.html

Sprinklers have been required in MoCo for all new builds since 2004, so yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I hardly call several illegally double park trucks and worker cars up and down block gabbing on phones, smoking, drinking coffe and eating breakfast every morning at seven am by bedroom window for one year not a big deal.

I moved from Bethesda a few months ago and my neighbor across steeet did same. Funny we both ended up same block in Potomac. Potomac is so crowded no one wants to live there anymore. I work in Bethesda and I literally have to keep track of the McMansions blocking traffic.

Would love to hear an example of a _house_ blocking traffic? Did the house not pay the meter? Did it double-park?

As for cars being double-parked, you can call the police and they will come and ticket. Especially at that time of day, they don't have much else to do so will be there relatively quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP go protest in front of this house and save it:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Bethesda/7714-Radnor-Rd-20817/home/10646496

That house above is not in real Bethesda, and is on a large plot. The houses on places like Chase and Pearl streets with tiny and narrow plots the McMansions encroach on neighbors. Also no room for trucks, deliveries to pull into property, dumpsters, work trucks, workers meeting every morning on sidewalks parked illegal, smoking, drinking coffee at crack of dawn not fun as some houses this goes on for 1-2 years.

You are not helping your cause when your additional arguments that people shouldn't be able to improve their homes are because you don't like construction in your neighborhood, or construction workers (People drinking coffee! The horror!). Perhaps a house on more land would better suit your sensibilities, rather than trying to dictate to your neighbors.

I hardly call several illegally double park trucks and worker cars up and down block gabbing on phones, smoking, drinking coffe and eating breakfast every morning at seven am by bedroom window for one year not a big deal.

I moved from Bethesda a few months ago and my neighbor across steeet did same. Funny we both ended up same block in Potomac. Potomac is so crowded no one wants to live there anymore. I work in Bethesda and I literally have to keep track of the McMansions blocking traffic.

And my neighbors on Berhesda don't build McMansions. It is mainly people who don't live there or builders who buy the houses. Bethesda should incorporate and get there own building dept.

One town I know had this issue passed law no commercial vehicles allowed to park or even stand on street. They ticket the crap out of McMansion builders till they disappears. Also no commercial vehicles in driveways.

The builders called a truce with town and reallowed to build at a more normal pace.

Please use English next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP go protest in front of this house and save it:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Bethesda/7714-Radnor-Rd-20817/home/10646496

That house above is not in real Bethesda, and is on a large plot. The houses on places like Chase and Pearl streets with tiny and narrow plots the McMansions encroach on neighbors. Also no room for trucks, deliveries to pull into property, dumpsters, work trucks, workers meeting every morning on sidewalks parked illegal, smoking, drinking coffee at crack of dawn not fun as some houses this goes on for 1-2 years.

Hmm. I've lived two blocks from that house for 16 years; didn't realize I don't live in "real Bethesda." Not all lots in Bethesda are 6,000 square feet; ours is 14,000 square feet.

And yes, I live in "real Bethesda" in a large house, on a large (for "real Bethesda") lot.

Real Bethesda walking distance to metro

You mean downtown Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP go protest in front of this house and save it:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Bethesda/7714-Radnor-Rd-20817/home/10646496

That house above is not in real Bethesda, and is on a large plot. The houses on places like Chase and Pearl streets with tiny and narrow plots the McMansions encroach on neighbors. Also no room for trucks, deliveries to pull into property, dumpsters, work trucks, workers meeting every morning on sidewalks parked illegal, smoking, drinking coffee at crack of dawn not fun as some houses this goes on for 1-2 years.

Hmm. I've lived two blocks from that house for 16 years; didn't realize I don't live in "real Bethesda." Not all lots in Bethesda are 6,000 square feet; ours is 14,000 square feet.

And yes, I live in "real Bethesda" in a large house, on a large (for "real Bethesda") lot.

Real Bethesda walking distance to metro

I'm the PP you're quoting - I can walk to Bethesda Metro in 15-20 minutes. In most cities in the world, that's walking distance. We walk to downtown Bethesda all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I complain about McMansions on tiny lots I am not talking about places with 90 foot setbacks on all sides.

I'd post pics if I know how but i would be surprised if there is 15 feet between my neighbor's new house and my property.

Some side setbacks in the R-60 zone can be as small as 7 feet (or 5 feet on really old lots) depending on when the lot was recorded. So - yes - there can be as little as 10-14 feet between the sides of 2 houses. That's pretty darn close.

FWIW - R-90 zone in MoCo has a 30 foot minimum front yard setback, not a 90 foot front setback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is obviously one of the oldsters who bought his/her tiny Bethesda house 20 years ago for next to nothing and, despite benefiting greatly from appreciation over the years due to all of the nice new houses in the neighborhood, cannot afford one himself/herself, and is now bitching that the nice, big Craftsman-style house next door is creating shade on his/her shitty little tomato garden.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is obviously one of the oldsters who bought his/her tiny Bethesda house 20 years ago for next to nothing and, despite benefiting greatly from appreciation over the years due to all of the nice new houses in the neighborhood, cannot afford one himself/herself, and is now bitching that the nice, big Craftsman-style house next door is creating shade on his/her shitty little tomato garden.

lol

x10000

TRUTH.

[Anonymous]

This, exactly. A shorter version of this conversation:

Person A: "I really don't like the new houses, they're too big and ugly!"
Person B: "Well, they're permitted by the current zoning laws, so if you really want to do something about them, you need to lobby the county to change those laws."
Person A: "But it's too hard to change the county laws! I want people to stop because I say so. I also would really like it if people ran their aesthetic decisions by me, so I can approve them beforehand."
Person B: [Shrugs and goes to check on toddler, who displays more rational thought processes than Person A.]



What a gross oversimplification.

-1

The above is actually quite accurate. You can't control everything. Get over it. If you don't like it, you have to move to a place where people think just like you. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is obviously one of the oldsters who bought his/her tiny Bethesda house 20 years ago for next to nothing and, despite benefiting greatly from appreciation over the years due to all of the nice new houses in the neighborhood, cannot afford one himself/herself, and is now bitching that the nice, big Craftsman-style house next door is creating shade on his/her shitty little tomato garden.

lol

In turn the owner of the big craftsman will complain if a 6 story mixed use "urbanist" building is proposed nearby, calling it a "high rise"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This, exactly. A shorter version of this conversation:

Person A: "I really don't like the new houses, they're too big and ugly!"
Person B: "Well, they're permitted by the current zoning laws, so if you really want to do something about them, you need to lobby the county to change those laws."
Person A: "But it's too hard to change the county laws! I want people to stop because I say so. I also would really like it if people ran their aesthetic decisions by me, so I can approve them beforehand."
Person B: [Shrugs and goes to check on toddler, who displays more rational thought processes than Person A.]



What a gross oversimplification.

-1

The above is actually quite accurate. You can't control everything. Get over it. If you don't like it, you have to move to a place where people think just like you. Good luck with that.

Sometimes zoning laws are changed. Sometimes historic districts are declared. And sometimes shaming certain aesthetic choices changes them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This, exactly. A shorter version of this conversation:

Person A: "I really don't like the new houses, they're too big and ugly!"
Person B: "Well, they're permitted by the current zoning laws, so if you really want to do something about them, you need to lobby the county to change those laws."
Person A: "But it's too hard to change the county laws! I want people to stop because I say so. I also would really like it if people ran their aesthetic decisions by me, so I can approve them beforehand."
Person B: [Shrugs and goes to check on toddler, who displays more rational thought processes than Person A.]



What a gross oversimplification.

-1
Of course it’s -1 if you delete the text of the person’s comment on why it’s an oversimplification because you’re not capable of responding to it.
The above is actually quite accurate. You can't control everything. Get over it. If you don't like it, you have to move to a place where people think just like you. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This, exactly. A shorter version of this conversation:

Person A: "I really don't like the new houses, they're too big and ugly!"
Person B: "Well, they're permitted by the current zoning laws, so if you really want to do something about them, you need to lobby the county to change those laws."
Person A: "But it's too hard to change the county laws! I want people to stop because I say so. I also would really like it if people ran their aesthetic decisions by me, so I can approve them beforehand."
Person B: [Shrugs and goes to check on toddler, who displays more rational thought processes than Person A.]



What a gross oversimplification.

-1

The above is actually quite accurate. You can't control everything. Get over it. If you don't like it, you have to move to a place where people think just like you. Good luck with that.

Sometimes zoning laws are changed. Sometimes historic districts are declared. And sometimes shaming certain aesthetic choices changes them.

This is the funniest response so far. Because the large houses paying higher taxes are somehow taking something away from you? Why, because you have to look at someone else living large on your way to work, so that shouldn't be allowed? You are hilarious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county LOVES these hideous monstrosities as the county does get more in taxes. Bethesda gets nothing but reduced quality of life.

Also benefitting - local realtors and builders getting rich off of these high priced sales and pocketing it all. Other Nethesda residents , again, get nothing but a reduced quality of life.

Now when people, especially older residents, are looking for a small house there aren’t any because the builders have bought them all.

Please explain how a larger house on your street gives you a "reduced quality of life."

Well, if you have a house that's built almost entirely over the lot (which many of these McMansions do), it reduces privacy for all involved because your neighbor is literally on top of you. Plus it looks ugly. McMansions are often taller which changes the character of the neighborhood. McMansions shouldn't be on 5.5K lots. It's just disproportionate and ugly.

Lobby the county to change the yard setbacks. New houses have to have permits. If construction is permitted, then yard setbacks are as required.

Yard setbacks, at least in Montgomery County, are averages. That is, you can have a porch jutting out into the border of your property and if the rest of the house is further back, MoCo DPS considers that fine. But the end result is that the new McMansion is now right on top of your backyard, fishbowl style. It's easy to say "lobby the county" but these things are not easy to change and are not likely to change given the influence of developers and their campaign contribution.

Then live with it. The agency that governs the setbacks is the county's permitting office, not any one person's individual taste.

This, exactly. A shorter version of this conversation:

Person A: "I really don't like the new houses, they're too big and ugly!"
Person B: "Well, they're permitted by the current zoning laws, so if you really want to do something about them, you need to lobby the county to change those laws."
Person A: "But it's too hard to change the county laws! I want people to stop because I say so. I also would really like it if people ran their aesthetic decisions by me, so I can approve them beforehand."
Person B: [Shrugs and goes to check on toddler, who displays more rational thought processes than Person A.]

What a gross oversimplification. People aren't complaining about McMansions because they are big and ugly. They're complaining because the McMansions can have an adverse effect on their property. As others have mentioned upthread, swapping a tiny 1200 square foot footprint house with a 50 square foot setback to a 5000 square foot house with an average of a 20 foot setback can really limit privacy for both parties. You're literally living on top of someone--might as well put in taller townhouses which are more space efficient than have a 5000 square foot plus McMansion which is just environmentally unsound unless you have 6 kids. Also, when people remove most of the lawn/trees/backyard from a lot to make room for the new house footprint, the soil/trees aren't there to absorb water. Many of my neighbors have suffered from drainage plans approved by DPS that aren't adequate for the new size of the McMansion.

so what do you want?

Minimum setback requirements (rather than these average setbacks) which really can put part of someone's home right on top of someone else's backyard in an obnoxious way. And more importantly, no adverse effects on neighboring properties. It isn't right that my neighbors have had to have spent thousands of dollars redoing their drainage after decades of living in a house because someone tears down an old house and takes out all the trees and lawn so that stormwater flows much more into someone's yard.

Neighbor's drainage was wrong to begin with. Only the new homes have proper grading plans. You are wrong

[Anonymous]

The benefit of the new houses:
Energy saving: better wall insallation, better window,
Safety: sprinkles in every room
Enviroment friendly: all storm water are absobed on the lot
Less street parking
More property tax
High income families.

Old houses
Small, dark, one bathroom,small kitchen