MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

This is true if you are talking about any property anywhere. But I thought we were talking about changes to SF zoning? The section you cite very explicitly excludes any property that was zoned for SF as of 1/12024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

“Consistent with” doesn’t mean “the same as.” I think planning has been pretty clear that the multiplexes don’t pencil if they have to fit within existing setbacks. They’re going to reduce the setbacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

This is true if you are talking about any property anywhere. But I thought we were talking about changes to SF zoning? The section you cite very explicitly excludes any property that was zoned for SF as of 1/12024.

That only applies to the 3/4 mile from a rail staion bit. The other two categories, nonprofit-owned land and land formerly owned by the government don't have that zoned-as-of-1/1/24 exclusion. As the law is vaguely written in some areas, including those, one could make arguments that 7-502 covers any land that ever was government owned (courts may strike that if allowed to divine intent, but that could take legal action against an aggressive development effort), and that under 7-504, one could create a nonprofit whose purpose was to "create housing opportunity" and use that as a straw-buyer/front to purchase whichever property on which a developer wanted to effect extra-extra density (using both the planned MoCo allowance and the state law plus-up, along with the injunctions against setback restrictions and the like), and that's not even necessary for the church and other nonprofit properties being eyed currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this impact cities like Rockville that have their own govt?

It can, particularly if Rockville city government decides it has visions of grandeur in trying to grow property tax revenue through upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Who is filling their pockets? Name & Shame them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is filling their pockets? Name & Shame them.

Any of the County Council, Planning Board, state legislators or M-NCPPC folks who have been pushing these policies despite the observations raised, here and elsewhere, of their approach's benefit to developers and concomitant negative consequences to the populace they are entrusted with serving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is filling their pockets? Name & Shame them.

You are! All except Friedson used public financing. Friedson is backed by land use lawyers and developers.

[Anonymous]

No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

[Anonymous]

Happy to hear it. I live in a duplex in DC with a big front porch and it’s a great lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Yes it just boosts inequality, harms county finances, and hurts the middle class. Doesn’t benefit the overall welfare or county residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Happy to hear it. I live in a duplex in DC with a big front porch and it’s a great lifestyle.

Sir, this is an Arby’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.