MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

[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.

Even then, the fact that they are eliminating single family zoning creates a risk that many additional properties will be subject to carve outs using the new state law

[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.

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

PP here. What you say may or may not be true. We'll find out when the Council votes on it, and then when the people vote for or against those council members.

But it is also not the point that I am specifically disputing. What they are doing now is making final recommendations that were requested by the Council and have been in development for three years. What they are doing, from a process and authority standpoint, is not unusual or inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even then, the fact that they are eliminating single family zoning creates a risk that many additional properties will be subject to carve outs using the new state law

Your "fact" is not a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even then, the fact that they are eliminating single family zoning creates a risk that many additional properties will be subject to carve outs using the new state law

Your "fact" is not a fact.

You are making blatantly false assertions to support your agenda. It is a fact that they are planning on eliminating single family zoning. The zoning changes will also interact with the state level laws passed this year and expand the number of properties eligible for the provisions under this law. These are two indisputable statements and anyone denying them is either incredibly stupid or intentionally misleading people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

This is also a 100% boldfaced lie. No surprising from YIMBYs at this point. Yes, these project will no longer be subject to a rezoning request that requires approval from the County Board. They would need rezoning approval to build a quadplex or triplex because it is not currently permitted in these zoning areas. So it transfers control of land use to a by-right process established by the planning department. This is undemocratic power grab by the planning department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

This is also a 100% boldfaced lie. No surprising from YIMBYs at this point. Yes, these project will no longer be subject to a rezoning request that requires approval from the County Board. They would need rezoning approval to build a quadplex or triplex because it is not currently permitted in these zoning areas. So it transfers control of land use to a by-right process established by the planning department. This is undemocratic power grab by the planning department.

Where is the lie?

This proposal itself amounts to a rezoning....which is going to the Council for approval as it should. The rezoning is happening through this proposal....and going through all the appropriate channels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

I missed the part where the County itself is doing anything that may impede on local municipal authority. Sincere question, where is that?
I know that the state legislation may, but not this proposal by the county?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

This is also a 100% boldfaced lie. No surprising from YIMBYs at this point. Yes, these project will no longer be subject to a rezoning request that requires approval from the County Board. They would need rezoning approval to build a quadplex or triplex because it is not currently permitted in these zoning areas. So it transfers control of land use to a by-right process established by the planning department. This is undemocratic power grab by the planning department.

Help me understand this. This proposal is a rezoning proposal to change the approved uses on certain land. It describes the categories of land it applies to. It requires Council approval.

That is what should happen, and has always happened.

The only way your contention makes sense is if you believe that each zoning change should happen parcel by parcel and require full individual approval. Is that what you are saying? So the county should not be able to rezone a group of lots as mixed-use, SFH, agricultural preserve, or place any commercial use restrictions on any group. It must happen lot by lot?

That has never been how it works, here, or anywhere...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

I missed the part where the County itself is doing anything that may impede on local municipal authority. Sincere question, where is that?
I know that the state legislation may, but not this proposal by the county?

It’s in the report. The state only allows municipalities without their own planning authority to regulate massing for single family homes. If multifamily is allowed by right on what are currently single family lots, then municipal setback requirements may not apply to new multifamily dwellings. The simple fix, if you want to protect the discretion of local elected officials, is to make clear in the ZTA that any local massing regulations for SFH apply to multifamily. Otherwise, it would require the state legislature to amend the authorities of municipal governments. If the municipal authority is re-established after the ZTA takes effect, it may not be enforceable for three years because state law enjoins enforcement of massing regulations for three years after the effective date.

[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: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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

I missed the part where the County itself is doing anything that may impede on local municipal authority. Sincere question, where is that?
I know that the state legislation may, but not this proposal by the county?

It’s in the report. The state only allows municipalities without their own planning authority to regulate massing for single family homes. If multifamily is allowed by right on what are currently single family lots, then municipal setback requirements may not apply to new multifamily dwellings. The simple fix, if you want to protect the discretion of local elected officials, is to make clear in the ZTA that any local massing regulations for SFH apply to multifamily. Otherwise, it would require the state legislature to amend the authorities of municipal governments. If the municipal authority is re-established after the ZTA takes effect, it may not be enforceable for three years because state law enjoins enforcement of massing regulations for three years after the effective date.

Huh? I know for a fact that municipalities in MoCo have the authority to set and enforce lot size/massing/setback requirements for multi-family development....in fact every type of development including commercial.

I've read the report and don't see this in there.

[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: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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

I missed the part where the County itself is doing anything that may impede on local municipal authority. Sincere question, where is that?
I know that the state legislation may, but not this proposal by the county?

It’s in the report. The state only allows municipalities without their own planning authority to regulate massing for single family homes. If multifamily is allowed by right on what are currently single family lots, then municipal setback requirements may not apply to new multifamily dwellings. The simple fix, if you want to protect the discretion of local elected officials, is to make clear in the ZTA that any local massing regulations for SFH apply to multifamily. Otherwise, it would require the state legislature to amend the authorities of municipal governments. If the municipal authority is re-established after the ZTA takes effect, it may not be enforceable for three years because state law enjoins enforcement of massing regulations for three years after the effective date.

Huh? I know for a fact that municipalities in MoCo have the authority to set and enforce lot size/massing/setback requirements for multi-family development....in fact every type of development including commercial.

I've read the report and don't see this in there.

PP of the above. I'm going to do an unexpected thing on this thread and admit I may be wrong. I misread the prior post as saying that municipalities *with* planning authority can't set requirements for anything other than SFH. If it is the case that we are talking about municipalities *without* a planning authority, I am entirely unfamiliar with that. I don't even know what those municipalities are.

[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: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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

I missed the part where the County itself is doing anything that may impede on local municipal authority. Sincere question, where is that?
I know that the state legislation may, but not this proposal by the county?

It’s in the report. The state only allows municipalities without their own planning authority to regulate massing for single family homes. If multifamily is allowed by right on what are currently single family lots, then municipal setback requirements may not apply to new multifamily dwellings. The simple fix, if you want to protect the discretion of local elected officials, is to make clear in the ZTA that any local massing regulations for SFH apply to multifamily. Otherwise, it would require the state legislature to amend the authorities of municipal governments. If the municipal authority is re-established after the ZTA takes effect, it may not be enforceable for three years because state law enjoins enforcement of massing regulations for three years after the effective date.

Huh? I know for a fact that municipalities in MoCo have the authority to set and enforce lot size/massing/setback requirements for multi-family development....in fact every type of development including commercial.

I've read the report and don't see this in there.

It’s on Page 50. The municipalities without planning authority include Somerset, Chevy Chase, Kensington, and Takoma Park. I don’t think it’s right to claim that new multifamily will fit inconspicuously in the neighborhood if you’re also gutting the massing regulations, which play a big role in defining the built environment.

[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: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.

I genuinely don't understand this.

This is the first line of the most recent press release: "Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval
The last line of that press release: "The final report will be transmitted to the Montgomery County Council for review and Planning staff members are scheduled to brief the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks (PHP) Committee on June 24. The committee will hold work sessions on the recommendations this summer.

There is no power being taken away from elected officials.

That’s not necessarily true because they acknowledge in their report the possibility that their recommendations will vitiate municipal regulation of lot coverage, height, and setback. These rules were adopted by and may be modified by local municipal council members and mayors, who are elected officials. Otherwise, I agree with you. Nothing happens unless the county council, which is directly elected, approves.

I missed the part where the County itself is doing anything that may impede on local municipal authority. Sincere question, where is that?
I know that the state legislation may, but not this proposal by the county?

It’s in the report. The state only allows municipalities without their own planning authority to regulate massing for single family homes. If multifamily is allowed by right on what are currently single family lots, then municipal setback requirements may not apply to new multifamily dwellings. The simple fix, if you want to protect the discretion of local elected officials, is to make clear in the ZTA that any local massing regulations for SFH apply to multifamily. Otherwise, it would require the state legislature to amend the authorities of municipal governments. If the municipal authority is re-established after the ZTA takes effect, it may not be enforceable for three years because state law enjoins enforcement of massing regulations for three years after the effective date.

Huh? I know for a fact that municipalities in MoCo have the authority to set and enforce lot size/massing/setback requirements for multi-family development....in fact every type of development including commercial.

I've read the report and don't see this in there.

It’s on Page 50. The municipalities without planning authority include Somerset, Chevy Chase, Kensington, and Takoma Park. I don’t think it’s right to claim that new multifamily will fit inconspicuously in the neighborhood if you’re also gutting the massing regulations, which play a big role in defining the built environment.

Chevy Chase resident will definitely try to sue over this then. This is a guarantee.