MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
There are neighborhoods in Chevy Chase that are already working with Lawyers to create protective covenants for their homes in response to this zoning proposal. Good luck everyone else. |
Anonymous
Did you see anything in the video of the meeting that indicated in any way that setbacks would be reduced? |
Anonymous
The wording says everything we need to know “similar” means that there will be a reduction in setbacks. The word choice is very intentional and it indicates that they have a plan to allow reduction in setbacks. If they intended to maintain setbacks they would have used wording like identical or equal to emphasize that they are keeping existing setbacks. However, they chose not to do this. |
Anonymous
Do you know which neighborhoods? |
Anonymous
our neighborhood has a covenant, many in the area had them and that were rooting in racism, homophobia etc. However, if you have a covenant that hasnt been updated to reflect current times or try to create a new one, that could be problematic as MOCO is definitely going to sue to void. however, if you neighborhood has a covenant, that has been updated to remove the 'isms AND you all can show that you have been living according to it, maybe you can beat the MOCO lawsuits. |
Anonymous
DP. In the same segment of the recording, they talked about an "SRA" (basically a change to the rules for subdividing lots) to allow for the lots to be broken up without frontage for all of the resulting parcels/units (given utility access is maintained and the like). This would result in units facing to the side or to the back, but with setbacks to those faces that were consistent with the side or rear setbacks of the previously defined (now divided) parcel --much less than the front setback requirements. The justification was plainly stated as allowing more units to be built than otherwise would be the case. And then there were the reductions in minimum parking, with on-street and off-site counting. Properties in the "priority housing districts" with on street available would see a 75% reduction in required spaces per unit, along with being able to count any "off-site". With PHD being defined as anything within a mile of a rail stop, Putple Line included, or within 500 feet of a growth corridor (street having or having planned BRT), that's a huge area where neighborhood parking, in many cases, is already tight. The whole worksession was talked through incredibly quickly for the amount of change proposed, with Council staff supporting the Planning recommendations at every turn. There was incredibly little questioning by the Council Committee that would draw out more understandable descriptions of that being proposed. You'd need to rewatch it about three times, having had some significant exposure already (e.g., reading the full report) to pick up on all that was being suggested. Compare that with the much greater amount of the same committee's questioning/interaction related to the following agenda item. Camping in the agriculture reserve, a far simpler and less contentious subject, apparently is much more worthy of scrutiny. 
|
Anonymous
The Council knows exactly what it is doing. Fani-Gonzalez was on a prior Planning Board. Jawondo had put forth Zoning Text Amendments as a means of end-arounding the more typical zoning change/exception processes. Friedson set the table for Planning's delivery of the report in June, noting large changes were in play and claiming the need to have them. That interleaved perfectly with Planning's introductory comments (including the straw man of "nobody is forcing you to turn your home into an apartment") when laying out the breathtakingly large scope of the proposal, strikingly different in depth and breadth from those ideas previously suggested while the public had a chance to review/provide input in a meaningful way. The Council placed Harris and others on the Planning Board with clear intent to push this to the maximal extent possible when they threw out the old board. That prior board was no foe of development, but this one is more clearly pushing much more, and at a quicker pace. Planning takes its direction from the board, and, consequently, has not worked toward alternatives to compare/consider potential effect, much less to place in front of the Council. The Council and Board want this to be the only game in town. They couch it in the thought of its just being one of several upcoming policy initiatives towards densification/additional housing. They start with this, though, rushing to get it done before opposition might have a chance to set up or weigh in at the ballot box, knowing that it would be the biggest fight. Meanwhile, they dismiss related concerns with straw man arguments and hand waiving about far future (and rather uncertain, if not definitively unlikely) action in separate processes. |
Anonymous
That is not how covenants usually works. The rest of the covenant is still enforceable event if portions of it are no longer legal. Maryland literally passed a law about this in 2023. https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/real-property/title-3/subtitle-1/part-i/section-3-112/ The law only allows people to strike invalid portions of a covenant, but the rest of it must remain. That being said it would be wise to have an attorney further review existing covenants and see if there is any room to enhance protections for your neighborhood. |
Anonymous
I saw that part. And it does not change setback requirements. The same setbacks would be required as for a SFH. It just allows for a main entrance on the sides and back. Nothing would change about the total square footage allowed to be covered, or where that coverage should be placed on the plot of land. I'm totally cool with the parking reductions, so that is not an issue for me. |
Anonymous
I do agree with you that they went through a lot of information very fast. At several points Friedson acknowledged that and asked for clarification for the public- creating a few maps, tables to say what applied to what etc. I also expected more discussion. That being said the purpose of the meeting was not to be the final decision, nor was it a presentation specifically aimed at the public. It was for the committee members who HAVE read the report and the packet for that meeting. There have been and will continue to be targeted outreach sessions. |
Anonymous
|
Does anyone know where this initiative came from? Is it a campaign promise of some sort? Who is pushing this agenda or what prompted it?
Friedson has been quite open to his constituents, connecting well and being an active listener. This plan seems to be quite tone deaf on so many levels. It will not do what it wants, and will devalue key corridors for tax payers who really build the county coffers, providing funding for county development. It’s like he is shooting himself on the foot and dragging the county down. |
Anonymous
Friedson said as much in the first work session, but if the disingenuous response of Planning to the committee superficially asking if there had been public engagement is to be any indicator, those targeted outreach sessions, and any pro forma public testimony opportunity will be minimal and brushed aside. The public engagement that Planning referenced was limited, without the breadth of public notice to inform all the potentially affected residents/stakeholders, and well before any of the massive breadth and depth of change they then put in the plan they laid on the table in June. Their claim that they had gathered public comment was a farce. |
Anonymous
| It is too long post. Where are they building? |
Anonymous
I see. You saw that part, but didn't bother to mention it to the other poster in your response in your detail of the timestamps where setbacks were discussed. Hmmm... We already know you don't mind the parking reductions. There are those of us living where the additional use of existing street parking that would result from the lower minimums would present a burden and/or hazard. |
Anonymous
I didn't mention it because the word setback wasn't used and it does not impact setbacks. Again, I would have an issue if setbacks were changed. I am LOOKING for evidence that indicates they will be. I don't see it. I hear you on parking. I'm not saying it shouldn't be an issue that anybody cares about. I'm just focused here on setbacks. (I am a person who lives in an area where the additional use of existing street parking would be a burden, though in a municipality. I personally just think it is worth the burden. But that is another point of discussion.) |