MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Coffee goooood. 🙂 |
Anonymous
But that whole thread is basically about how this is unenforceable. What covenants would properties have in place that could prevent this? |
Anonymous
I'd imagine, as someone mentioned, that many neighborhoods are creating covenants now in preparation for this. and yes those that have them will come out making more money b/c those neighborhoods will be ever desirable and drive up prices. If you are in Chevy Chase or Close-In Bethesda, you probably wont have an issue getting the neighborhood to vote and accept these new covenants, but i'm sure the "anti covenant" crowd will soon rear its head and try to influence these neighborhoods to vote these things down. i am sure the key to this new policy is creating this attainable housing in the Bethesda , Chevy Chase neighborhoods. |
Anonymous
Whether the seller would be around to enforce that is uncertain. There does not seem to be a way, short of creating an ownership interest in the property by neighbors, of making that enforcement likely to happen -- such an arrangement would be costly and legally fraught. It's pretty hard to create effective neighborhood covenants after development, as that likely would require the assent of every property owner, whereas the developer could make that a unilateral decision (where legal, and understanding the balancing of risk of turning off potential buyers with the additional intetest that other buyers might show in having neighborhood protection). Not requiring the buy-in of every owner might be something like pursuing historic district designation or municipal incorporation with zoning authority. The former only could apply to very few neighborhoods, and the latter almost certainly wouldn't be considered by the state for such small areas, which likely wouldn't meet the variety of associated litmus tests, anyway. In short, it's the existing zoning/zoning authority that provides the rules on which residents rely. It's clear that the current Montgomery County Council and Planning Board don't value those protections as much as they value density. |
Anonymous
Developers would take those areas if they could get them, but the cost of existing properties there is much higher than elsewhere. Few of the properties in those areas at this point have remained unimproved from the original structures such that they would present tear-down value. Many of those that would might better pencil for profit as a multi-million dollar detached vs. a multiplex. Even if neighborhood/town covenants there did not apply, the relative likelihood of legal challenge, successful or not, increases risk/expected cost. Meanwhile, many properties to the east are not improved significantly from original builds, offering low enough acquisition cost, no neighborhood covenants/town restrictions, etc. Developers will be salivating, with cheap builds offering minimal risk. |
Anonymous
| Think about how many investor-owned rental properties are waiting to take advantage of this, like landmines all over the county. |
Anonymous
| is there a way to see which specific neighborhoods are impacted in Bethesda? I am confused about if this is only impacted neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of a "growth corridor" or if it pretty much impacts all of Bethesda |
Anonymous
I agree. it does seem like east county would be ripe for these developments. |
Anonymous
This aspect is really unclear- what changes will happen where. At the meeting, Friedson specifically asked the staff to clear maps that showed the impact of each proposal. I hope these are forthcoming. - a person generally in favor of these proposals. |
Anonymous
Look at page 12, 16:46 and 16:48 posts. Anything currently zoned for single family residential under R-90, R-60 & R-40 would now allow for triplexes. The same for R-200 if within a mile of a Metro, MARC or Purple Line station (Priority Housing Districts -- note that these pretty much overlap or nearly so). Duplexes would be allowed in R-200 regardless of proximity to rail. Anything in the Priority Housing Districts (within a mile of a Metro, MARC or Purple Line station) would now allow for quadriplexes, except R-200, where triplexes would be allowed. Anything within 500 feet of River, Wisconsin and Connecticut (and other corridors, but you ask about B/CC) would now allow for six-story, 19-unit apartment structures if minimal allocation was made for moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) via the existing "Attainable Housing Optional Method" (AHOM). If it's in R-90, the 10 units/acre recommendation would require 2 acres (combined across adjacent parcels) for such a structure; if it's in R-60, the 13 units/acre recommendation would require 1.5 acres for such. Associated parking minimums associated with these builds would be considerably reduced. The reorganization/subdividing of lots, including undersized lots, would be facilitated to promote the additional density use. Pretty much all of that would be approved either by right (no contest) or via accelerated administrative approval with fewer reviews, lower requirements and much less neighborhood input than current variance processes afford. Basically, neighbors would have no real protection unless the property was subject to a covenant or municipal regulation -- and there are elements at the state level looking to alter/void the effect of those. In addition, recent state law, combined with the change in zoning category definitions, would increase the allowable densities on top of the triplex/quad/19-unit apartment maximums for certain categories of properties (those currently owned by nonprofits, those currently or previously owned by the state/government, those a bit closer to a rail station) and would lower building requirements (setbacks, massing, parking, etc.) for those. Oh, and there would be new tax refunds/incentives to promote building density that would shift overall burden to other taxpayers. Better if you read the plan, check the mapping tool (enabling various layers) linked from the Planning site, look at the state legislation and carefully review the meeting videos. |
Anonymous
That specific scenario different. We don’t know the context for this Arlington covenant whether neighbors are part of it or not. The thing that makes covenants enforceable is that a group of property owners agree to it. So this gives other property owner3 that are part of the agreement standing to enforce the terms of the covenant. If someone tries to violate the covenant neighbors will sue them. If a developer buys a house and starts building a plex unit anyway, the neighbors are very likely to prevail in court. Reasonable investors will not risk being required to tear down their investment property and pay damages to neighbors for violating a covenant. |
Anonymous
It usually will not get to this point because neighbors would sue stop development before construction even started and developers will avoid the properties with covenants in the first place. |
Anonymous
If you are concerned about your neighborhood talk to neighbors and an attorney about establishing covenants to protect your single family community now. Time is running out because MD might ban single family covenants. Washington state already did this for new covenants. However, existing covenants were grandfathered so they exempt from the ban. |
Anonymous
Real estate prices have risen so much in Bethesda that in most cases it will still be financially most profitable for developers to tear down old houses and in their place construct new build homes, which these days can fetch $3 million or more in some Bethesda neighborhoods. I think you're more likely to see duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes in places like Silver Spring, where the underlying land costs are less, and therefore the potential for profit from a multifamily home higher. |
Anonymous
Way to go with equity impact, County Council! 
It's such a show... |