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:

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.

Just to be clear here, I have been active in this thread supporting this proposal, and pointing out where I think there is hyperbole or misconception/misrepresentation by those that oppose it. I may be rare, but I do think that "both sides" should work toward a common set of facts...that we can then support or not support.

This does seem to me to potentially be a significant issue that requires attention and resolution, particularly by those municipalities impacted. That being said, I'm not sure that legally it can be solved by the County if the restriction comes from state law...

[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"?

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.

Why do you think the staff report has an error? The staff report says zoning authority. It's the PP who said planning authority. Zoning authority is different from planning authority. That's why, when the County Council adopts a master plan, it then has to separately and additionally adopt the zoning changes recommended by the master plan.

[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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

[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:

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.

Just to be clear here, I have been active in this thread supporting this proposal, and pointing out where I think there is hyperbole or misconception/misrepresentation by those that oppose it. I may be rare, but I do think that "both sides" should work toward a common set of facts...that we can then support or not support.

This does seem to me to potentially be a significant issue that requires attention and resolution, particularly by those municipalities impacted. That being said, I'm not sure that legally it can be solved by the County if the restriction comes from state law...

I just think the county needs to be more thoughtful about this than pass a very comprehensive zoning change that on increases the zoned density of most residential areas by a minimum of 4-8x. They could do a special use permit process with an annual numerical cap like Arlington. This would give MOCO a way out if it ends up being a mistake. If they do a zoning text amendment for the entire area it is more difficult for the county claw back some of most problematic elements of the policy if there are unintended consequences.

[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:

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.

Just to be clear here, I have been active in this thread supporting this proposal, and pointing out where I think there is hyperbole or misconception/misrepresentation by those that oppose it. I may be rare, but I do think that "both sides" should work toward a common set of facts...that we can then support or not support.

This does seem to me to potentially be a significant issue that requires attention and resolution, particularly by those municipalities impacted. That being said, I'm not sure that legally it can be solved by the County if the restriction comes from state law...

I just think the county needs to be more thoughtful about this than pass a very comprehensive zoning change that on increases the zoned density of most residential areas by a minimum of 4-8x. They could do a special use permit process with an annual numerical cap like Arlington. This would give MOCO a way out if it ends up being a mistake. If they do a zoning text amendment for the entire area it is more difficult for the county claw back some of most problematic elements of the policy if there are unintended consequences.

A special use permit with a numerical cap and a sunset date for the policy would allow more flexibility. They can issue 100 permits a year for a trial period that ends in 2030 and vote to to renew the policy or not after this date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

If the zoning text amendment allows for multifamily housing then it is technically no longer zoned single family residential. This will be challenged by someone to avoid development standards.

[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:

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.

Just to be clear here, I have been active in this thread supporting this proposal, and pointing out where I think there is hyperbole or misconception/misrepresentation by those that oppose it. I may be rare, but I do think that "both sides" should work toward a common set of facts...that we can then support or not support.

This does seem to me to potentially be a significant issue that requires attention and resolution, particularly by those municipalities impacted. That being said, I'm not sure that legally it can be solved by the County if the restriction comes from state law...

I just think the county needs to be more thoughtful about this than pass a very comprehensive zoning change that on increases the zoned density of most residential areas by a minimum of 4-8x. They could do a special use permit process with an annual numerical cap like Arlington. This would give MOCO a way out if it ends up being a mistake. If they do a zoning text amendment for the entire area it is more difficult for the county claw back some of most problematic elements of the policy if there are unintended consequences.

I don't think you mean thoughtful, I think you mean restrictive.

[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:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

The question that you answered "no" to was this: "So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?"

Chevy Chase does not have zoning authority. This means that CC only has authority to impose setback requirements in areas zoned as SF. I gather you are saying that they are still zoned as SF even though other uses are permitted, therefore setback rules imposed by CC on SFH would also apply to multiplexes?

If that were an accurate reading, what would be the purpose of the state law OR the reference in the County report? What do you think actually IS the distinction being drawn?

[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:

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.

Just to be clear here, I have been active in this thread supporting this proposal, and pointing out where I think there is hyperbole or misconception/misrepresentation by those that oppose it. I may be rare, but I do think that "both sides" should work toward a common set of facts...that we can then support or not support.

This does seem to me to potentially be a significant issue that requires attention and resolution, particularly by those municipalities impacted. That being said, I'm not sure that legally it can be solved by the County if the restriction comes from state law...

I just think the county needs to be more thoughtful about this than pass a very comprehensive zoning change that on increases the zoned density of most residential areas by a minimum of 4-8x. They could do a special use permit process with an annual numerical cap like Arlington. This would give MOCO a way out if it ends up being a mistake. If they do a zoning text amendment for the entire area it is more difficult for the county claw back some of most problematic elements of the policy if there are unintended consequences.

I don't think you mean thoughtful, I think you mean restrictive.

At least for a short period of time to see whether it works as intended. It would be more prudent than changing the existing zoning rules in a potentially irreversible say that increases allowable density by 4-8x. Changing the zoning text risks creating vested property rights that provide property owners standing to sue. This can be very problematic if there are unintended loopholes in the ZTA that need to be closed. There is substantial legal uncertainty with how state laws will stack with the proposed zoning changes in MOCO.

[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:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

The question that you answered "no" to was this: "So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?"

Chevy Chase does not have zoning authority. This means that CC only has authority to impose setback requirements in areas zoned as SF. I gather you are saying that they are still zoned as SF even though other uses are permitted, therefore setback rules imposed by CC on SFH would also apply to multiplexes?

If that were an accurate reading, what would be the purpose of the state law OR the reference in the County report? What do you think actually IS the distinction being drawn?

That is possible you are correct. However, I don’t think this question can be answered with a high level of certainty unless there is existing state legal precedent to support this statement or until the state courts rule on this specific question. There will definite

[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:

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.

Just to be clear here, I have been active in this thread supporting this proposal, and pointing out where I think there is hyperbole or misconception/misrepresentation by those that oppose it. I may be rare, but I do think that "both sides" should work toward a common set of facts...that we can then support or not support.

This does seem to me to potentially be a significant issue that requires attention and resolution, particularly by those municipalities impacted. That being said, I'm not sure that legally it can be solved by the County if the restriction comes from state law...

I just think the county needs to be more thoughtful about this than pass a very comprehensive zoning change that on increases the zoned density of most residential areas by a minimum of 4-8x. They could do a special use permit process with an annual numerical cap like Arlington. This would give MOCO a way out if it ends up being a mistake. If they do a zoning text amendment for the entire area it is more difficult for the county claw back some of most problematic elements of the policy if there are unintended consequences.

I don't think you mean thoughtful, I think you mean restrictive.

At least for a short period of time to see whether it works as intended. It would be more prudent than changing the existing zoning rules in a potentially irreversible say that increases allowable density by 4-8x. Changing the zoning text risks creating vested property rights that provide property owners standing to sue. This can be very problematic if there are unintended loopholes in the ZTA that need to be closed. There is substantial legal uncertainty with how state laws will stack with the proposed zoning changes in MOCO.

Meh. Properties can be upzoned. Properties can be downzoned.

And since the whole point is for the county to do it comprehensively, it won't work as intended by definition if the county instead does it restrictively.

[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:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

The question that you answered "no" to was this: "So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?"

Chevy Chase does not have zoning authority. This means that CC only has authority to impose setback requirements in areas zoned as SF. I gather you are saying that they are still zoned as SF even though other uses are permitted, therefore setback rules imposed by CC on SFH would also apply to multiplexes?

If that were an accurate reading, what would be the purpose of the state law OR the reference in the County report? What do you think actually IS the distinction being drawn?

That is possible you are correct. However, I don’t think this question can be answered with a high level of certainty unless there is existing state legal precedent to support this statement or until the state courts rule on this specific question. There will definite

Can't they write it with contingencies to be clearer so people actually know what the impact would be?

Separately, this is one of the reasons people are suggesting the process is rushed. Why do this now? Why not wait until we learn more about the state law? Waiting would also reveal more about the impacts of policies like this in Arlington and Alexandria.

[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:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

The question that you answered "no" to was this: "So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?"

Chevy Chase does not have zoning authority. This means that CC only has authority to impose setback requirements in areas zoned as SF. I gather you are saying that they are still zoned as SF even though other uses are permitted, therefore setback rules imposed by CC on SFH would also apply to multiplexes?

If that were an accurate reading, what would be the purpose of the state law OR the reference in the County report? What do you think actually IS the distinction being drawn?

That is possible you are correct. However, I don’t think this question can be answered with a high level of certainty unless there is existing state legal precedent to support this statement or until the state courts rule on this specific question. There will definite

From 1950-2019. It was the norm for MD county’s and Localities to have exclusively single family zoning for large portions of their jurisdiction. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the default assumption for legislators writing this law is that places outside of densely populated urban areas would have mostly(if not entirely) single family zoning. MM zoning proposal are something that rose to prominence in the past 10 years.

[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:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

The question that you answered "no" to was this: "So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?"

Chevy Chase does not have zoning authority. This means that CC only has authority to impose setback requirements in areas zoned as SF. I gather you are saying that they are still zoned as SF even though other uses are permitted, therefore setback rules imposed by CC on SFH would also apply to multiplexes?

If that were an accurate reading, what would be the purpose of the state law OR the reference in the County report? What do you think actually IS the distinction being drawn?

That is possible you are correct. However, I don’t think this question can be answered with a high level of certainty unless there is existing state legal precedent to support this statement or until the state courts rule on this specific question. There will definite

Can't they write it with contingencies to be clearer so people actually know what the impact would be?

Separately, this is one of the reasons people are suggesting the process is rushed. Why do this now? Why not wait until we learn more about the state law? Waiting would also reveal more about the impacts of policies like this in Arlington and Alexandria.

It's been going on since March 2021. Also, generally, people who complain about the process are actually complaining about the outcome of the process - or possible outcome of the process, in this case. It seems to me like that's what you're doing. You don't want a comprehensive change to the zoning code.

[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:

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?

The difference is that Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over municipalities that have their own zoning authority. Whatever changes the County Council decides to make to the zoning code will not apply to municipalities that have their own zoning authority, because they have their own zoning authority.

Plus, if the county changes the zoning to allow for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, the land will still be zoned for single-family residential use. As far as I know, single-family residential use is allowed everywhere with residential zoning.

The question that you answered "no" to was this: "So if MOCO eliminates single family zoning wouldn’t Chevy Chase lose the authority to create different setbacks?"

Chevy Chase does not have zoning authority. This means that CC only has authority to impose setback requirements in areas zoned as SF. I gather you are saying that they are still zoned as SF even though other uses are permitted, therefore setback rules imposed by CC on SFH would also apply to multiplexes?

If that were an accurate reading, what would be the purpose of the state law OR the reference in the County report? What do you think actually IS the distinction being drawn?

That is possible you are correct. However, I don’t think this question can be answered with a high level of certainty unless there is existing state legal precedent to support this statement or until the state courts rule on this specific question. There will definite

Can't they write it with contingencies to be clearer so people actually know what the impact would be?

Separately, this is one of the reasons people are suggesting the process is rushed. Why do this now? Why not wait until we learn more about the state law? Waiting would also reveal more about the impacts of policies like this in Arlington and Alexandria.

I agree we need clarity on this issue. I do not think that the County has the authority to resolve the issue in what they write, but they do have the ability to work with the state to do the legal analysis and clarify the impact.

I disagree that anything about this is "rushed." It isn't a done deal and there have been years of development and engagement and will continue to be at least months before any version of this goes into effect. The entire point of what is happening now is for people to review the recommendations and provide feedback that can be incorporated, or not before it goes to the Council for approval.

By analogy- last year Gov Moore introduced his "housing package" of legislation to make housing more attainable. What came out the other end at the close of the legislative session was significantly different from the package. Certain language and sections were tweaked and certain initiatives simply didn't pass. That is where we are....