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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

If this is even true, it’s irrelevant because they use current student generation rates to assess school adequacy and assess impact fees. In fact, they revised the formula a few years ago to exclude high-rise apartments built before 1990 in order to lower the fees that high-rise developers pay. They also include age-restricted housing units (these don’t pay impact fees) in the divisor to artificially suppress student generation rates for other units.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

There is a tension but the negative effects accrue mostly to big corporate landlords, not homeowners. The big corporate landlords have an interest in limiting the stock of SFH and driving up the prices of SFH because doing so creates more customers for them and increases the rents that they can charge. “Compact growth” is nothing more than a long con that took a lot of land off the table for development and limited housing choice to the small areas experiencing growth. There are some earnest people who thought — and still think — compact growth is the right policy but even many of them now realize that their policy preference drives up housing costs.

For SFH owner occupants, their location alone affords them more than enough price protection against increased supply because there’s almost no chance that there will be a significant increase in SFH in their location (especially if they’re close to the beltway or a metro stop).

Personally, as a detached SFH owner, I am more than happy to see rental apartments and even townhouses break ground because having more people in my neighborhood makes nicer retail and dining more viable, which makes my life nicer and increases demand for SFH in my neighborhood.

What a crock! Corporate landlords lose out? Hardly. Look at the above. Current residents lose out because the current levels of public facilities/infrastructure are already too low, there's no requirement to make that better before adding density, and local history shows us that won't happen by itself (nor will nicer retail/dining).

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

There is a tension but the negative effects accrue mostly to big corporate landlords, not homeowners. The big corporate landlords have an interest in limiting the stock of SFH and driving up the prices of SFH because doing so creates more customers for them and increases the rents that they can charge. “Compact growth” is nothing more than a long con that took a lot of land off the table for development and limited housing choice to the small areas experiencing growth. There are some earnest people who thought — and still think — compact growth is the right policy but even many of them now realize that their policy preference drives up housing costs.

For SFH owner occupants, their location alone affords them more than enough price protection against increased supply because there’s almost no chance that there will be a significant increase in SFH in their location (especially if they’re close to the beltway or a metro stop).

Personally, as a detached SFH owner, I am more than happy to see rental apartments and even townhouses break ground because having more people in my neighborhood makes nicer retail and dining more viable, which makes my life nicer and increases demand for SFH in my neighborhood.

You all need to lay off the juice, these conspiracy theories are really "moon is cheese" level insanity lol.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

There is a tension but the negative effects accrue mostly to big corporate landlords, not homeowners. The big corporate landlords have an interest in limiting the stock of SFH and driving up the prices of SFH because doing so creates more customers for them and increases the rents that they can charge. “Compact growth” is nothing more than a long con that took a lot of land off the table for development and limited housing choice to the small areas experiencing growth. There are some earnest people who thought — and still think — compact growth is the right policy but even many of them now realize that their policy preference drives up housing costs.

For SFH owner occupants, their location alone affords them more than enough price protection against increased supply because there’s almost no chance that there will be a significant increase in SFH in their location (especially if they’re close to the beltway or a metro stop).

Personally, as a detached SFH owner, I am more than happy to see rental apartments and even townhouses break ground because having more people in my neighborhood makes nicer retail and dining more viable, which makes my life nicer and increases demand for SFH in my neighborhood.

What a crock! Corporate landlords lose out? Hardly. Look at the above. Current residents lose out because the current levels of public facilities/infrastructure are already too low, there's no requirement to make that better before adding density, and local history shows us that won't happen by itself (nor will nicer retail/dining).

I’ve already given up on getting new public facilities.

Corporate landlords lose out if there’s more competition. Everything they do is to limit competition or constraints on their profits.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

This is a factually incorrect statement.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

[Anonymous]

Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

Yes, they should because most this is funded by local municipal bonds and local tax revenue. Growth should pay for growth.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

Yes, they should because most this is funded by local municipal bonds and local tax revenue. Growth should pay for growth.

+1. The developers have lobbied hard and successfully to reduce the fees they pay. That’s helped them make record profits. The fee reductions are effectively subsidies that have neither reduced housing prices nor resulted in more supply.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

There is a tension but the negative effects accrue mostly to big corporate landlords, not homeowners. The big corporate landlords have an interest in limiting the stock of SFH and driving up the prices of SFH because doing so creates more customers for them and increases the rents that they can charge. “Compact growth” is nothing more than a long con that took a lot of land off the table for development and limited housing choice to the small areas experiencing growth. There are some earnest people who thought — and still think — compact growth is the right policy but even many of them now realize that their policy preference drives up housing costs.

For SFH owner occupants, their location alone affords them more than enough price protection against increased supply because there’s almost no chance that there will be a significant increase in SFH in their location (especially if they’re close to the beltway or a metro stop).

Personally, as a detached SFH owner, I am more than happy to see rental apartments and even townhouses break ground because having more people in my neighborhood makes nicer retail and dining more viable, which makes my life nicer and increases demand for SFH in my neighborhood.

Large multi family and townhomes directly adjacent as a buffer to SFH is ideal and I agree that it supports SFH property values. Randomly dumping trash 4 plexes without parking in SFH neighborhoods has the opposite effect. There is more than enough space and ability to promote more large multi family and townhouses without this “missing middle” nonsense which is promoted not because it will appreciably increase housing supply but instead out of spite because it will negatively affect others for no reason other than envy.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

If you're intimating that those residing (buying or renting) would have to pay more, yes, they would, but microeconomics suggests not the entirety. Some would be absorbed by the developers as lower profit.

If we don't get them to pay, then we are left with the current populace shouldering the burden or the school system remaining underfunded, and similar circumstances for other public facilities/infrastructure.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

There is a tension but the negative effects accrue mostly to big corporate landlords, not homeowners. The big corporate landlords have an interest in limiting the stock of SFH and driving up the prices of SFH because doing so creates more customers for them and increases the rents that they can charge. “Compact growth” is nothing more than a long con that took a lot of land off the table for development and limited housing choice to the small areas experiencing growth. There are some earnest people who thought — and still think — compact growth is the right policy but even many of them now realize that their policy preference drives up housing costs.

For SFH owner occupants, their location alone affords them more than enough price protection against increased supply because there’s almost no chance that there will be a significant increase in SFH in their location (especially if they’re close to the beltway or a metro stop).

Personally, as a detached SFH owner, I am more than happy to see rental apartments and even townhouses break ground because having more people in my neighborhood makes nicer retail and dining more viable, which makes my life nicer and increases demand for SFH in my neighborhood.

Large multi family and townhomes directly adjacent as a buffer to SFH is ideal and I agree that it supports SFH property values. Randomly dumping trash 4 plexes without parking in SFH neighborhoods has the opposite effect. There is more than enough space and ability to promote more large multi family and townhouses without this “missing middle” nonsense which is promoted not because it will appreciably increase housing supply but instead out of spite because it will negatively affect others for no reason other than envy.

That seems like a reasonable approach, probably too reasonable for Montgomery County.

[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:

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.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

If you're intimating that those residing (buying or renting) would have to pay more, yes, they would, but microeconomics suggests not the entirety. Some would be absorbed by the developers as lower profit.

If we don't get them to pay, then we are left with the current populace shouldering the burden or the school system remaining underfunded, and similar circumstances for other public facilities/infrastructure.

I.e., they wouldn't build in the first place.