MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

The "market" solving parking and traffic issues is also a comically stupid suggestion. The "market' does not ensure that our water is clean, that our air is breathable, or prevent excessive runoff and impervious surfaces either. The market will also not solve overcrowding issues for government funded public schools. Leaving things up to the "market' AKA developers profits does not help promote a well functioning county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF... The Planning Board recommends creating a new type of Minor Subdivision to allow for the subdivision of existing platted lots for duplex and multiplex building types under the standard method (small scale) of development, and a new Administrative Subdivision for creating lots for 19 or fewer dwelling units as either standard method (small scale) or smaller AHOM developments (medium scale)...This is absurd. They are recommending a development loophole that will allow by right subdivisions with less than 20 unit developments.

It appears so. Anywhere within 500 feet of one of the corridors, so pretty much 1 block left or right of Georgia, Connecticut, University, River, Wisconsin, Colesville, New Hampshire, Randolph/Montrose, etc.

Agenda item just started. 240-773-3333 to listen in.

"Were going to move forward with policy changes"

500 feet is like 3 blocks.

Depends on the block, but not usually 3. Check the map/first link from the resources page for a visual:

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative-resources/

Direct link:

https://montgomeryplans.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7f5f2305e4824e2290b635787fcb4d5d

Be sure to bring up the layers and check the box for the Attainable Housing Optional Method, with the sub-box for the 500 foot buffer. You can also check the two parcel sub-boxes to see individual parcel outlines.

Those would be where they could build 19-unit 4-story structures without going through a standard site plan/hearing (the optional "administrative" method). They could also go through a site plan process if they wanted 20 or more unutits. The "floating zones" and "local map amendments" to which they referred could up these to larger-scale buildings, as well. And these are without consideration for the stacked effects with recent state legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF... The Planning Board recommends creating a new type of Minor Subdivision to allow for the subdivision of existing platted lots for duplex and multiplex building types under the standard method (small scale) of development, and a new Administrative Subdivision for creating lots for 19 or fewer dwelling units as either standard method (small scale) or smaller AHOM developments (medium scale)...This is absurd. They are recommending a development loophole that will allow by right subdivisions with less than 20 unit developments.

It appears so. Anywhere within 500 feet of one of the corridors, so pretty much 1 block left or right of Georgia, Connecticut, University, River, Wisconsin, Colesville, New Hampshire, Randolph/Montrose, etc.

Agenda item just started. 240-773-3333 to listen in.

"Were going to move forward with policy changes"

500 feet is like 3 blocks.

Depends on the block, but not usually 3. Check the map/first link from the resources page for a visual:

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative-resources/

Direct link:

https://montgomeryplans.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7f5f2305e4824e2290b635787fcb4d5d

Be sure to bring up the layers and check the box for the Attainable Housing Optional Method, with the sub-box for the 500 foot buffer. You can also check the two parcel sub-boxes to see individual parcel outlines.

Those would be where they could build 19-unit 4-story structures without going through a standard site plan/hearing (the optional "administrative" method). They could also go through a site plan process if they wanted 20 or more unutits. The "floating zones" and "local map amendments" to which they referred could up these to larger-scale buildings, as well. And these are without consideration for the stacked effects with recent state legislation.

They did not mention the impacts of state legislation when I watched it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF... The Planning Board recommends creating a new type of Minor Subdivision to allow for the subdivision of existing platted lots for duplex and multiplex building types under the standard method (small scale) of development, and a new Administrative Subdivision for creating lots for 19 or fewer dwelling units as either standard method (small scale) or smaller AHOM developments (medium scale)...This is absurd. They are recommending a development loophole that will allow by right subdivisions with less than 20 unit developments.

It appears so. Anywhere within 500 feet of one of the corridors, so pretty much 1 block left or right of Georgia, Connecticut, University, River, Wisconsin, Colesville, New Hampshire, Randolph/Montrose, etc.

Agenda item just started. 240-773-3333 to listen in.

"Were going to move forward with policy changes"

500 feet is like 3 blocks.

Depends on the block, but not usually 3. Check the map/first link from the resources page for a visual:

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative-resources/

Direct link:

https://montgomeryplans.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7f5f2305e4824e2290b635787fcb4d5d

Be sure to bring up the layers and check the box for the Attainable Housing Optional Method, with the sub-box for the 500 foot buffer. You can also check the two parcel sub-boxes to see individual parcel outlines.

Those would be where they could build 19-unit 4-story structures without going through a standard site plan/hearing (the optional "administrative" method). They could also go through a site plan process if they wanted 20 or more unutits. The "floating zones" and "local map amendments" to which they referred could up these to larger-scale buildings, as well. And these are without consideration for the stacked effects with recent state legislation.

What does the priority housing districts mean? Will that be treated the same as the attainable buffer zones for upzoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTF... The Planning Board recommends creating a new type of Minor Subdivision to allow for the subdivision of existing platted lots for duplex and multiplex building types under the standard method (small scale) of development, and a new Administrative Subdivision for creating lots for 19 or fewer dwelling units as either standard method (small scale) or smaller AHOM developments (medium scale)...This is absurd. They are recommending a development loophole that will allow by right subdivisions with less than 20 unit developments.

It’s just going to be so freakishly unattractive and ruin a few neighborhoods!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They also were very condescending to resident concerns by referring to them as "misconceptions". Many residents disagree with this proposal and think it goes too far. They don't misunderstand it, they just think it is a bad policy decision.

They’ve consistently been condescending. They don’t live here within these boundaries so they do not care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF... The Planning Board recommends creating a new type of Minor Subdivision to allow for the subdivision of existing platted lots for duplex and multiplex building types under the standard method (small scale) of development, and a new Administrative Subdivision for creating lots for 19 or fewer dwelling units as either standard method (small scale) or smaller AHOM developments (medium scale)...This is absurd. They are recommending a development loophole that will allow by right subdivisions with less than 20 unit developments.

It’s just going to be so freakishly unattractive and ruin a few neighborhoods!

The crazy thing is that not a single CM will be personally affected. They have purposefully designed a policy change that somehow doesn’t affect their homes.

[Anonymous]

Is it possible for someone to distill what they are planning to do? This is all very technical and hard to understand for the average citizen (maybe by design)? Is it that developers can build 19-unit buildings in all of the highlighted areas of that map? Or more than that? Are the areas marked "parks" on the map also up for development, or will they remain parka? What is the state legislation they are talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for someone to distill what they are planning to do? This is all very technical and hard to understand for the average citizen (maybe by design)? Is it that developers can build 19-unit buildings in all of the highlighted areas of that map? Or more than that? Are the areas marked "parks" on the map also up for development, or will they remain parka? What is the state legislation they are talking about?

They want to allow anyone to be able to build a 4-plex apartment on lots at least 5,000 sq ft within 1 mile of a Metro or Purple Line station or 500 ft of major roads anywhere in the county without parking.

They also want to allow duplexes on all lots zoned SFH anywhere in the county.

[Anonymous]

Thank you! Where is the 19-plex number coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you! Where is the 19-plex number coming from?

Not sure but there is lots of room for shenanigans. For example, most lots are 10,000 sq ft so that means two 4-plexes. There is also a state law that allows doubling density so in theory one 10,000 sq ft lot could turn into a 16-plex apartment without parking.

They are notably proposing removing lot coverage and setback requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you! Where is the 19-plex number coming from?

Not sure but there is lots of room for shenanigans. For example, most lots are 10,000 sq ft so that means two 4-plexes. There is also a state law that allows doubling density so in theory one 10,000 sq ft lot could turn into a 16-plex apartment without parking.

They are notably proposing removing lot coverage and setback requirements.

IS that accurate? I thought the 5K was a minimum for a multi-unit structure, not that you could build that one any increment of 5K.
Is it also true that most lots are 10K? I genuinely don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you! Where is the 19-plex number coming from?

Not sure but there is lots of room for shenanigans. For example, most lots are 10,000 sq ft so that means two 4-plexes. There is also a state law that allows doubling density so in theory one 10,000 sq ft lot could turn into a 16-plex apartment without parking.

They are notably proposing removing lot coverage and setback requirements.

This was covered earlier in this thread. The plan explicitly advocates for RETAINING lot coverage and setback requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you! Where is the 19-plex number coming from?

Not sure but there is lots of room for shenanigans. For example, most lots are 10,000 sq ft so that means two 4-plexes. There is also a state law that allows doubling density so in theory one 10,000 sq ft lot could turn into a 16-plex apartment without parking.

They are notably proposing removing lot coverage and setback requirements.

This was covered earlier in this thread. The plan explicitly advocates for RETAINING lot coverage and setback requirements.

False. In the latest work session Planning explicitly recommended removing set backs and lot coverage requirements.

It’s also false that 5,000 is the minimum lot size. Planning goes through a lot of effort to provide that it’s possible to build quad plexes on lots smaller than 5,000 sq ft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you! Where is the 19-plex number coming from?

Not sure but there is lots of room for shenanigans. For example, most lots are 10,000 sq ft so that means two 4-plexes. There is also a state law that allows doubling density so in theory one 10,000 sq ft lot could turn into a 16-plex apartment without parking.

They are notably proposing removing lot coverage and setback requirements.

This was covered earlier in this thread. The plan explicitly advocates for RETAINING lot coverage and setback requirements.

False. In the latest work session Planning explicitly recommended removing set backs and lot coverage requirements.

It’s also false that 5,000 is the minimum lot size. Planning goes through a lot of effort to provide that it’s possible to build quad plexes on lots smaller than 5,000 sq ft.

Planning did this despite not knowing for sure how their new regulations would interact with municipal lot coverage and setback requirements. The report suggests that planning’s regulations would trump municipal regulations for any multifamily construction, but it’s not clear what will happen.