MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Way to go with equity impact, County Council!

It's such a show...

sooner or later, the county will just tell people they can build tiny homes on the street in neighborhoods that they want to live in. The county owns most of the roads and unless your roads are private, they will exploit that at some point.

make parking on one side of the street illegal and allow all the tiny homes and campers they want. seems far fetched but so would have removing SFH zoning a decade ago....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Thank you so much. This was a very helpful and detailed response. To confirm...if I am in a neighborhood off Mass Ave (not in the defined growth corridors) in an R-60 zone; in theory, a triplex could be built in our neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Thank you so much. This was a very helpful and detailed response. To confirm...if I am in a neighborhood off Mass Ave (not in the defined growth corridors) in an R-60 zone; in theory, a triplex could be built in our neighborhood?

If this goes through and the property is not subject to a legal agreement/covenant restricting the type of development, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Thank you so much. This was a very helpful and detailed response. To confirm...if I am in a neighborhood off Mass Ave (not in the defined growth corridors) in an R-60 zone; in theory, a triplex could be built in our neighborhood?

Actually two triplexes, a lot with a single family could be subdivided into two lots and then a developer can built a triplex on each lot. Effectively upzoning the maximum density of your neighborhood to 6x what it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Thank you so much. This was a very helpful and detailed response. To confirm...if I am in a neighborhood off Mass Ave (not in the defined growth corridors) in an R-60 zone; in theory, a triplex could be built in our neighborhood?

Actually two triplexes, a lot with a single family could be subdivided into two lots and then a developer can built a triplex on each lot. Effectively upzoning the maximum density of your neighborhood to 6x what it is now.

Possibly, if the original lot was large enough to subdivide. They are facilitating subdivision/combination of lots, and will allow undersized lots to be used, but not necessarily undersized lots to be created via division in all cases. They would allow whatever building lot ends up being used to be subdivided in three for the resulting triplex to be fee simple ownership.

Of course, if there was a nonprofit entity involved, and the lot was big enough to subdivide before planning out the multiplexes, the state bonus density would allow 4 units per lot (as long as one on each lot was an MPDU), totalling 8.

Each of these likely would not be typical, but possible.

[Anonymous]

This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

[Anonymous]

How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Thank you so much. This was a very helpful and detailed response. To confirm...if I am in a neighborhood off Mass Ave (not in the defined growth corridors) in an R-60 zone; in theory, a triplex could be built in our neighborhood?

If this goes through and the property is not subject to a legal agreement/covenant restricting the type of development, yes.

is there a way to tell if you have a restrictive covenant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

“Unused”.
You’re thinking about Georgism. Ideally, you’d tax land that is not maximally efficiently used. A SFH, even when occupied is an enormous waste of land use resources. They should be taxed way higher. But the usual screechers on this thread would blow a carotid if this happened

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

it's just a selfish mentality. Enjoy the leafy neighborhood you've lived in, enjoy the appreciation from new buyers increasing your real estate values then sell out and ruin the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

“Unused”.
You’re thinking about Georgism. Ideally, you’d tax land that is not maximally efficiently used. A SFH, even when occupied is an enormous waste of land use resources. They should be taxed way higher. But the usual screechers on this thread would blow a carotid if this happened

We don't live in manhattan. the easiest solution is to have DC build up. There is already built in density there. Moco should not be concerend about this. We want wealthy residents..