MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re doing a tear down you can purchase build and exit in 12 months if you know what you’re doing. MF by right would be no different until listing, and there’s of course the risk one or more will take a long time to sell. The key is sticking to by right so you don’t have to deal with planning staff who think they know better than architects, engineers, and builders.

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Planning is trying to advance an ideological agenda without concern to the impact on MOCO residents. They have not even analyzed how the proposal will interact with this state zoning reform law and are committed to pushing it through anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Look, people may not like the policy decisions being made, but there is nothing wrong with the process being used. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is no "power grab" when a group is exercising the power they were created to exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Look, people may not like the policy decisions being made, but there is nothing wrong with the process being used. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is no "power grab" when a group is exercising the power they were created to exercise.

If you say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Look, people may not like the policy decisions being made, but there is nothing wrong with the process being used. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is no "power grab" when a group is exercising the power they were created to exercise.

That is not their role. They are supposed to analyze the impact of policies and make recommendations for the county. Not create zoning ordinances that give them control over the process by removing elected officials from rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Look, people may not like the policy decisions being made, but there is nothing wrong with the process being used. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is no "power grab" when a group is exercising the power they were created to exercise.

That’s not entirely true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal control over lot coverage, height, and setback. If there were no power grab then they would recommend making lot coverage, height, and setback follow local rules for SFH.

[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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

DP. I don’t think you are familiar. You can permit and build a SFH inside of 12 months. Ask me how I know.

[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?

Because there is massive disagreement as to what constitutes "reasonable," refactoring opening up whatever the developer-backed politicians want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Look, people may not like the policy decisions being made, but there is nothing wrong with the process being used. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is no "power grab" when a group is exercising the power they were created to exercise.

That’s not entirely true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal control over lot coverage, height, and setback. If there were no power grab then they would recommend making lot coverage, height, and setback follow local rules for SFH.

That doesn't make sense. A "power grab" would be taking power/authority for them in their discretion that does not currently exist. They already have the power to make recommendations on how to handle setbacks. You don't like how they are choosing to exercise that power. That is fine, but it not a power grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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;

I can’t imagine wanting to invest in a project where I had to litigate whether a height or setback requirement was reasonable, especially in a Maryland court. There are plenty of lots (sadly, not near metro or MARC, and not even elimination of setbacks would make multifamily a better play than single family near metro) where I could build profitably and not have to litigate anything. Who wants to spend a million dollars on a lot and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating whether something is unreasonable when you could just buy something else, build right away, and exit with a nice profit within 12 months?

I don't think you're very familiar with the development process in Montgomery County.

Yes it doesn’t always take actual litigation to force the county to do something. Oftentimes the threat of litigation is enough to force the county to do what developers want.

By “force” you mean go through an exceptive process and involving planning staff. That’s deadly. Maybe even worse than litigating.

Planning will create the rules and standards for this administration process with no accountability to the voters. It is a power grab by the planning department to circumvent the will of voters and ignore their obligations to MOCO.

Look, people may not like the policy decisions being made, but there is nothing wrong with the process being used. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is no "power grab" when a group is exercising the power they were created to exercise.

Except that their "plan" is based on elements of policies that didn't pass. The majority of constituents don't want this.