MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

No, not necessarily within a mile of transit.

Even the supporters of this silliness don’t have a clue about what’s happening? If that doesn’t put a spotlight on the lack of transparency I don’t know what will.

Don’t be rude, it isn’t as if this thread is being particularly well cited or transparent either. And as someone who is not a planner or an activist, I don’t have everything memorized. What I do know is how this affects my neighborhood, and what my neighborhood is like — which is a mix of these kinds of housing types *already* that hasn’t fallen apart. In parking or in schools.

I see my mistake:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf - I thought it was more limited everywhere, but I see that it is just more permissive in the Priority Housing District I live in.

For those that are reading thinking there might be information in this thread:

Here are the recommended changes (page 5, and you can see other detail there)

“Planning Board recommends allowing, by-right with pattern book conformance, small scale attainable housing as follows:
- Duplexes everywhere in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones;
- Triplexes everywhere in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and
- Quadplexes in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District.”

I’m looking for something more recent, but here are fact sheets on what each zone means: http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/one_sheets2.shtm

[Anonymous]

Thank for posting that link. It specifically states that Zero Open/Green space is required for R60.

If you think summers are hot now, just wait until they remove all the streets and pave everything over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

For now you may be walkable to ES and MS but as they become more overcrowded you may be rezoned to schools where there's space. And then there goes your walking lifestyle. Just one example of how many aren't thinking about the real impact of 4-8x upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

No, it likely cannot. It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional. If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

No, it likely cannot. It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional. If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous.

It'll be so awful no one will want to live here!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

No, it likely cannot. It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional. If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous.

By this logic, the creation of a SF zone anywhere in the country would not be permitted, right? How were they created in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

No, it likely cannot. It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional. If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous.

By this logic, the creation of a SF zone anywhere in the country would not be permitted, right? How were they created in the first place?

No that is not true. It depends on what the allowable use for the land was before prior and how long since the rezoning has occurred. Downzoning is not necessarily a taking clause issue, but it is more likely to be a takings clause issue than upzoning. This is basic land use law and constitutional law, don't make fallacious arguments about the legality SFH zoning that are logically bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the basic question, but can someone explain to me what it takes for this proposal to become law? Majority of the council then Elrich signing it, or is the process somehow different than that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

No, it likely cannot. It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional. If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous.

By this logic, the creation of a SF zone anywhere in the country would not be permitted, right? How were they created in the first place?

No that is not true. It depends on what the allowable use for the land was before prior and how long since the rezoning has occurred. Downzoning is not necessarily a taking clause issue, but it is more likely to be a takings clause issue than upzoning. This is basic land use law and constitutional law, don't make fallacious arguments about the legality SFH zoning that are logically bankrupt.

First, relax. Allow for the possibility that somebody is actually trying to understand.

I think there are two arguments being made here. The first I read was that a state law was recently based that makes it impossible to create a SF zone. That would not be a constitutional question, but a state law question. I could not find that state law. Is there one?

The second is that as a general matter, regardless of whether any state law was recently passed, it *may* be an unconstitutional taking to change a multi-family zone into a SF zone. Am I understanding that right? And I'm still not sure I understand how SF zones could have been created int he first instance, if it is a taking to do so, assuming previous land use rules allowed a less restrictive use. But maybe that is changes in more recent case law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point? Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao. You are not serious people.

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point. I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion: This is a change that can never be undone!
Fact: This change could absolutely be undone.

No, it likely cannot. It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional. If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous.

By this logic, the creation of a SF zone anywhere in the country would not be permitted, right? How were they created in the first place?

No that is not true. It depends on what the allowable use for the land was before prior and how long since the rezoning has occurred. Downzoning is not necessarily a taking clause issue, but it is more likely to be a takings clause issue than upzoning. This is basic land use law and constitutional law, don't make fallacious arguments about the legality SFH zoning that are logically bankrupt.

First, relax. Allow for the possibility that somebody is actually trying to understand.

I think there are two arguments being made here. The first I read was that a state law was recently based that makes it impossible to create a SF zone. That would not be a constitutional question, but a state law question. I could not find that state law. Is there one?

The second is that as a general matter, regardless of whether any state law was recently passed, it *may* be an unconstitutional taking to change a multi-family zone into a SF zone. Am I understanding that right? And I'm still not sure I understand how SF zones could have been created int he first instance, if it is a taking to do so, assuming previous land use rules allowed a less restrictive use. But maybe that is changes in more recent case law?

Case law that allows single family zoning is well established. 1926 SCOTUS case: Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

In Lucas V SC Coastal commission (1992), SCOTUS established a takings clause test. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/1003/ If a downzoning results in a deprivation of all economically beneficial use of property it can potentially be considered a regulatory takings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.