More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

PP here. Also, if you don't want affordable housing on church-owned property, you need to think long and hard about what you DO want there. There are a lot of religious institutions with shrinking congregations along University Boulevard that have a lot more property than they can use or afford.

[Anonymous]

It was just a bit of a shock to see the one church mentioned had a 170+ unit apartment building!
Post article — “The old church was demolished in 2017; the building that replaced it has 173 affordable apartments.” Arlington church

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

[Anonymous]

They really need to show a map illustrated with what they plan. The verbosity is not as understandable to the effects as visual would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They really need to show a map illustrated with what they plan. The verbosity is not as understandable to the effects as visual would be.

Once there are plans, there will be maps. You can't map plans that don't exist yet.

[Anonymous]

The plan won’t have our support if we cannot see a visual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plan won’t have our support if we cannot see a visual

You have the opportunity to express this opinion to Planning staff.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/corridor-planning/university-boulevard-corridor-plan/

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- driver speeding
4 deaths -- driver drunk/stoned/impaired
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/atv/motorcycle error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

Montgomery County has a whole Vision Zero website
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/
where you can find the information you're looking for.

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

Out of the 30 remaining accidents, 23 were drivers and 7 passengers.

12 of the 30 were not wearing seatbelts.

“Complete Streets” will never get anyone to wear a seatbelt and if you don’t wear a seatbelt you are putting your life at risk.

I'm old enough to remember when people were outraged by seatbelt laws, and when car manufacturers opposed a federal requirement for airbags. Now we have seatbelt laws and required airbags, and they both prevent deaths. I also remember when that guy in the Maryland legislature prevented ignition interlock laws for years, but now we have those too, and they also prevent deaths. There's also a new federal requirement for automated braking systems, and those will prevent deaths. Requirements for truck rear and side underride guards prevent deaths. Requirements for crumple zones prevent deaths. Guard rails prevent deaths. Rumble grooves on the sides of highways prevent deaths. So when you say that it's not possible to stop people from being killed when they make mistakes, you're just wrong. There are lots of things we do, which work.

So for you, there is no limit in the controls that we should place on decision-making or the cost burden that we should place on consumers, to save their lives. So were you in favor of holding people down to inject the COVID vaccine too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They really need to show a map illustrated with what they plan. The verbosity is not as understandable to the effects as visual would be.

What makes you think that they want it to be understandable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

We will, and I hope vociferously, but do you think that they will bother to listen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Alarmism? LMAO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

The Planning Department and MCPS behave very similarly in terms of transparency and achieve similar results in terms of quality of outcomes, scandals and public trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

The Planning Department and MCPS behave very similarly in terms of transparency and achieve similar results in terms of quality of outcomes, scandals and public trust.

Planning is much more transparent that MCPS.