MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

"that amounts to a de facto denial"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

Why would anybody donate to any campaign if the goal was not to affect public policy?

Why would a representative have a “land use” guy speak for her at a virtual meeting?

[Anonymous]

Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

Eh? Do you want local jurisdictions to be able to impose unreasonable limitations or requirements on projects? Why would you want that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

"that amounts to a de facto denial"

Yes and setbacks and lot coverage maximums, parking minimums will amount to a de facto denial for undersized lots. The building code interacts with setbacks to make many of these projects financially infeasible. So they will just request waivers due to financial "viability" and county will be obligated to approve them under most circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

The eligibility criteria also does not have a time limit for the look back period. So a property that was owned by the state of Maryland or the Federal government 200 years ago will create eligibility for this provision that allows exemptions from normal zoning rules. The MOCO planning department is also suggesting that they will allow Mixed use development in some for some of the zoning overlay areas, which will cause another component of this state law to apply to "non-profit" and give them a exemptions.

I am willing to believe that you sincerely believe this, but I can't take your sincere belief seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

And what is the definition of a "qualified project"?

Oh right, it is extremely narrow. It is limited to property owned by the state, that already has more than one building, has at least one building that is at least 50 years old, contains 25% deed restricted affordable units

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

Eh? Do you want local jurisdictions to be able to impose unreasonable limitations or requirements on projects? Why would you want that?

Jesus ... you are being intentionally dense or evasive, there is no concrete definition of what unreasonable is in this law. It is also a very subjective standard that is ripe for abuse by developers. It will be abused and county will strong-armed into approving unreasonable waiver requests by developers threatening lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

"that amounts to a de facto denial"

Yes and setbacks and lot coverage maximums, parking minimums will amount to a de facto denial for undersized lots. The building code interacts with setbacks to make many of these projects financially infeasible. So they will just request waivers due to financial "viability" and county will be obligated to approve them under most circumstances.

This just isn't how this works even now in places already zoned for multi-unit. It is an enormous leap you are making, particularly in light of existing rules and indications by both the county and the state that setbacks and other development standards are not being eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

Eh? Do you want local jurisdictions to be able to impose unreasonable limitations or requirements on projects? Why would you want that?

Jesus ... you are being intentionally dense or evasive, there is no concrete definition of what unreasonable is in this law. It is also a very subjective standard that is ripe for abuse by developers. It will be abused and county will strong-armed into approving unreasonable waiver requests by developers threatening lawsuits.

I am not a lawyer, and even I know that "reasonable" and "unreasonable" show up all over the place in all kinds of laws, and people who deal with those laws know how to deal with it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

And what is the definition of a "qualified project"?

Oh right, it is extremely narrow. It is limited to property owned by the state, that already has more than one building, has at least one building that is at least 50 years old, contains 25% deed restricted affordable units

It is not narrow, there are also provisions that apply to land previously owned by the federal government or nonprofits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

Eh? Do you want local jurisdictions to be able to impose unreasonable limitations or requirements on projects? Why would you want that?

Jesus ... you are being intentionally dense or evasive, there is no concrete definition of what unreasonable is in this law. It is also a very subjective standard that is ripe for abuse by developers. It will be abused and county will strong-armed into approving unreasonable waiver requests by developers threatening lawsuits.

I am not a lawyer, and even I know that "reasonable" and "unreasonable" show up all over the place in all kinds of laws, and people who deal with those laws know how to deal with it.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable

There are a lot of lawsuits over the word "reasonable" it's subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

"that amounts to a de facto denial"

Yes and setbacks and lot coverage maximums, parking minimums will amount to a de facto denial for undersized lots. The building code interacts with setbacks to make many of these projects financially infeasible. So they will just request waivers due to financial "viability" and county will be obligated to approve them under most circumstances.

This just isn't how this works even now in places already zoned for multi-unit. It is an enormous leap you are making, particularly in light of existing rules and indications by both the county and the state that setbacks and other development standards are not being eliminated.

This law was passed this year and became effective on June 1st. There is not a single instance where a development under this new law has been completed yet. It is not an enormous leap you are making assumptions based on how things currently work when this law changes that. The old rules don't apply anymore and we have not seen the full impact of these state level zoning reforms yet.

[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:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

"that amounts to a de facto denial"

Yes and setbacks and lot coverage maximums, parking minimums will amount to a de facto denial for undersized lots. The building code interacts with setbacks to make many of these projects financially infeasible. So they will just request waivers due to financial "viability" and county will be obligated to approve them under most circumstances.

This just isn't how this works even now in places already zoned for multi-unit. It is an enormous leap you are making, particularly in light of existing rules and indications by both the county and the state that setbacks and other development standards are not being eliminated.

This law was passed this year and became effective on June 1st. There is not a single instance where a development under this new law has been completed yet. It is not an enormous leap you are making assumptions based on how things currently work when this law changes that. The old rules don't apply anymore and we have not seen the full impact of these state level zoning reforms yet.

The original bill language did not include the "amounts to a defacto denial" language. It was added in order for the bill to pass. Therefore, it means something. It means something MORE than simply having a setback requirement. Plain reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the backdoor change to local zoning authority that the MM housing proposal will provide for any land owned by non-profits

A LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY UNREASONABLE LIMITATION
OR REQUIREMENTS ON A QUALIFIED PROJECT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS ON OR REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING:
(1) HEIGHT; (2) SETBACK; (3) BULK;

Eh? Do you want local jurisdictions to be able to impose unreasonable limitations or requirements on projects? Why would you want that?

Jesus ... you are being intentionally dense or evasive, there is no concrete definition of what unreasonable is in this law. It is also a very subjective standard that is ripe for abuse by developers. It will be abused and county will strong-armed into approving unreasonable waiver requests by developers threatening lawsuits.

I am not a lawyer, and even I know that "reasonable" and "unreasonable" show up all over the place in all kinds of laws, and people who deal with those laws know how to deal with it.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable

There are a lot of lawsuits over the word "reasonable" it's subjective.

Everything is subjective, as has been established by countless discussions among college freshmen in dorm rooms at 3 am. Nevertheless we persist using the generally-accepted meanings of words in laws.