MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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.

Also the new law passed this year, provides bonus density and exemptions from normal development standards for areas that have multifamily or mixed use zoning. So this will create eligibility for additional density beyond quadplexes for properties held by groups covered under the law, in R-200 and R-90 zones. Especially if they permit mixed use for some of these areas then it might create eligibility for a provisions that allows developers to use the highest maximum allowable multifamily density that’s possible anywhere in the county.

[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.

PP here. Thanks for pointing this out. I had indeed missed it, and this does seem like an issue. I'm actually curious from a legal perspective if the bolded is feasible. The state law is clearly intended to be a legal limit on the authority of municipalities without planning authority. Can the County circumvent that by their own ordinance/ZTA? I would think not. It amounts to a local override of the state statute, no? If they can do what you propose, why couldn't they just say that any municipal rule applies to anything?

The answer may unfortunately be a lobby to change the state statute...

[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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

Is this saying new multifamily will have to abide by current setbacks/lot coverage provisions, or that it will override them?

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

It's not a minor error. It's literally the law about what the municipalities can and can't do.

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?

No.

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

It's not a minor error. It's literally the law about what the municipalities can and can't do.

Let me ask the question this way- the assertion is that certain municipalities (including CC, TP, Kensington etc) without certain authority (planning/zoning) will not have the authority to create their own massing and setback requirements. Is that not true?

Or this way- if the post that you said was "just plain wrong" had used the word "Zoning" instead of "planning" would anything else about it be wrong?

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?

No.

How does it not do this. They only have planning authority for setbacks on single family. The zoning is no longer single family then what legal authority do they have to set different standards than the county.

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?

No.

Can you explain how you reach this conclusion? I'm sincerely trying to understand. The language in the report is ambiguous. But at a minimum it indicates that there is a different impact on municipalities without zoning authority than those that do. What is that difference?

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

It's not a minor error. It's literally the law about what the municipalities can and can't do.

Have a friend that is an attorney send an email to the entire planning board and commissioner pointing out this error. Also email Chevy chase to give them a warning.

[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:

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.

That's just plain wrong. The Town of Somerset (incorporated 1906), the Town of Chevy Chase (1918), the Town of Kensington (1894), and the City of Takoma Park (1890) all have their own planning authorities.

PP who admitted not knowing anything about this- if it is wrong, then the County got it wrong in their final report. The PP who referenced page 50 had it right. The report enumerates municipalities with planning authority- Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Presumably, the others, while they may have planning departments that do some stuff, they don't have legal authority on planning?

They do have legal authority on planning, though.

This is what it says on page 50: ZONING authority. Not planning authority.

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.
Under Section 20-509 of the State Land Use Article, other municipalities without their own zoning
authority may:
• Regulate only the construction, repair, or remodeling of single-family residential houses or
buildings on land zoned for single-family residential use as it relates to:
o residential parking;
o the location of structures, including setback requirements;
o the dimensions of structures, including height, bulk, massing, and design; and
o lot coverage, including impervious surfaces
Within the scope of this provision, a municipality may have more restrictive conditions under any of
these topics. For example, the Town of Chevy Chase generally has more restrictive setbacks and
height requirements than required in the county’s zoning code

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Ah, I see. So is there a practical difference for purposes of the impact? Or are you just correcting a minor error of saying "planning authority" v "zoning authority"?

So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?

No.

Can you explain how you reach this conclusion? I'm sincerely trying to understand. The language in the report is ambiguous. But at a minimum it indicates that there is a different impact on municipalities without zoning authority than those that do. What is that difference?

I think they are just saying no to reduce opposition to the zoning changes. They don’t really care about the impacts or bother to objectively analyze questions.