MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Let developers come and make money to the detriment of current residents, who not only will have more crowded environs, but will end up footing the bill for the failure of the proposed changes to address associated additional burdens on schools, public facilities & infrastructure, which already are inadequate/underfunded? |
Anonymous
As long as growth is immediately fiscally neutral (if not positive) then what’s the problem with it? |
Anonymous
I think that's the point, isn't it? The additional densities add to the infrastructure needs. There does not appear to be a part of the plan that ensures the additional densities come with the additional funding required to keep infrastructure/services at current levels. That infrastructure/those levels are already at the lowest on a per-capita basis in the places most likely to be the immediate development targets -- already-built-out neighborhoods in the southeast of the county, where the land among close-in suburbs is the cheapest for developers to obtain, where the overlapping zoning adjusments from the various initiatives (e.g., near purple line & transit corridors) allow greatest additional density and where there are not neighborhood covenants that would impede development. Those communities largely were platted out with mid-20th century allocations for public facilities such as schools, roads and parks. Upgrading those to modern/equitable standards and serve even greater community population is far more expensive than streamlined creation of new facilities/infrastructure in areas of greenfield development. Those areas also have less wealth to begin with, with relatively high URM populations. The housing currently in place, and that more likely would be replaced with denser housing (and likely more expensive, as new build) are among the more attainable in the first place, yet there does not seem to be an objection among those pushing development to that counter-attainable loss, just as there does not appear to be any development-tied funding to ensure the necessary infrastructure. The whole thing smacks of developer profit interests leading the County's voting populace by the nose, some unaware or marginally so, given the piecemeal-with-stacked-effect approach to development allowances, and others more blindly devoted to progressive rhetoric, not considering alternatives or tied-in mitigations that might better achieve community-desired ends (but that might not be as uber-friendly to developers). |
Anonymous
| Well said |
Anonymous
|
Here is the kind of joy that you can look forward to in your neighborhood.
Keep in mind, because of the lawsuit not that many are being built in Arlington. Most investors want to see the outcomes before investing. Also, Arlington distributes a limited number of permits to upzone. In MOCO they are talking about it being by right everywhere. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1211606.page |
Anonymous
|
According to that thread THIS is approved for a 6 plex:
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4610-17th-St-N-22207/home/11235360?utm_source=android_share&utm_medium=share&utm_nooverride=1&utm_content=link |
Anonymous
Are you mentally challenged or have you never been involved in building anything in the county? Stormwater runoff management has been getting stricter, easements that are hard to modify restrict ability to build as needed, tons of traffic studies to appease the boomers that complain about “more traffic”. And this is just stuff I dealt with on Thursday. |
Anonymous
DP. So should we ignore stormwater management (local flooding, water quality) or it that we have new regulations, there? Or is it that they are actually following the regulations that have been on the books? I'd prefer not to have a reshaped neighboring property suddenly dumping runoff into my yard and flooding the basement. I don't think we should be looking to undo easements, should we? They get put into place as a voluntary thing, except where eminent domain or the like (e.g., for utility lines) comes in, no? Perhaps purchased by one neighbor from another to ensure property access, etc.? Or are you talking about an easement where all the involved parties agree to dissolve the easement, but the county/planning makes it hard to get that on the books? I can see that as being something they should facilitate instead of obstruct. I don't think we get traffic studies for by-right housing, do we? Especially SFH construction. I don't think the community should lose its ability to ensure some controls when a developer seeks to go beyond the bounds of by-right (i.e., outside existing zoning/regulation -- requesting a variance). I could be wrong about all of that, but the kinds of things I hear about where environmental studies are involved are large developments that require variances. |
Anonymous
The traffic studies are the biggest waste of time. The developers claim their projects won’t generate many trips while simultaneously asking for ingress and egress every 100 yards. Nothing ever gets killed for a traffic study. |
Anonymous
What traffic? Everyone is going to park their cars out in the street and take the bus! lol! |
Anonymous
They're not going to have cars remember. That's why parking requirements were removed. |
Anonymous
|
Remember that the Planning Board is supposed to brief the Attainable Housing Report to the County Council PHP Committee at 1:30 PM today. One of the last opportunities, along with the committee working sessions in July, before the rubbber stamp that tends to be given when in front of the full Council, whatever grandstanding they might do prior to a vote.
3rd Floor Council Hearing Room (3CHR) 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=16197 The report to be briefed: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024--AHS-Final-Report.pdf Info website: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative-resources/ The map (once one adds the layers for AHOM & PHD; those properties along corridors would allow densities up to apartment buildings) is informative, as is the recommendations matrix. The first entry, there, that the planned Zoning Text Amendments will not be part of the transmitted report indicates that there will not be full discussion of the combined effects, while the report, itself, indicates that Planning also has not evaluated the stacked impact of the recent state legislation, so that, too, will not be part of the discussion. |
Anonymous
The development is not fiscally neutral or positive. The vast majority of residential development costs county more money than what it collected in tax revenue. MOCO has worsened this problem by providing property tax abatements and waivers of impact fees for certain types of development. Allowing by right development also reduces incentives to provide monetary contributions for the county. Developers will not offer any voluntary monetary contributions when they have a by-right approval process. If you remove the rezoning application process and replace it with by-right approval the county will lose millions a year from voluntary contributions. |
Anonymous
And the recommendation appears headed towards classifying the impact fees for denser housing (multiplexes) as stacked flat instead of SFH, which is lower. Apartments (stacked flat) are seen as generating fewer students, so the fees are lower. The recommendations indicate that it would be better to have the lower fee to incentivise the denser development, though the hope is to provide that "missing middle" housing for families 
|
Anonymous
Report does not load—just Error |