Why do they allow all the tear downs in Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county LOVES these hideous monstrosities as the county does get more in taxes. Bethesda gets nothing but reduced quality of life.

Also benefitting - local realtors and builders getting rich off of these high priced sales and pocketing it all. Other Nethesda residents , again, get nothing but a reduced quality of life.

Now when people, especially older residents, are looking for a small house there aren’t any because the builders have bought them all.

Please explain how a larger house on your street gives you a "reduced quality of life."

Well, if you have a house that's built almost entirely over the lot (which many of these McMansions do), it reduces privacy for all involved because your neighbor is literally on top of you. Plus it looks ugly. McMansions are often taller which changes the character of the neighborhood. McMansions shouldn't be on 5.5K lots. It's just disproportionate and ugly.

Lobby the county to change the yard setbacks. New houses have to have permits. If construction is permitted, then yard setbacks are as required.

Yard setbacks, at least in Montgomery County, are averages. That is, you can have a porch jutting out into the border of your property and if the rest of the house is further back, MoCo DPS considers that fine. But the end result is that the new McMansion is now right on top of your backyard, fishbowl style. It's easy to say "lobby the county" but these things are not easy to change and are not likely to change given the influence of developers and their campaign contribution.

Then live with it. The agency that governs the setbacks is the county's permitting office, not any one person's individual taste.

There are few homeowners who would be happy about having a neighboring home of 1500 square feet on a 6000 square foot lot torn down to be replaced with a 5000 square foot home. It's bad for the environment, green space is lost because the new McMansion covers practically the whole lot and neighbors are unhappy to have a new house on top of them.

The county is elated to be getting more tax dollars from the huge teardowns. The county council could not care less about the quality of life in Bethesda - they just want more money to improve things in Takoma Park, Silver Spring & Wheaton and tear downs help with that.
Bethesda needs to fight back by incorporating, having some rules and collecting some funds to benefit their own town (like Chevy Chase and Rockville) but that hasn’t happened yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the “they” in your question? Bethesda is just a geographic area. There is no Bethesda government. Some neighborhoods do have covenants that prohibit tear downs. But the housing stock is pretty old. Some of these houses need to be torn down.

"They" is MoCo government.

"They" have the power to impose housing regulations.

For the most part, they do not.

Hence: Teardowns, McMansions, and socioeconomic segregation.

RE old housing stock needing to be torn down, those who live in charming towns and villages in e.g. New England would beg to differ.

MoCo would either have to declare the area a historic district, or downzone the parcels to limit FAR, change setbacks, etc (since existing zoning allows mcmansion sized houses). The latter, IIUC, would require monetary compensation for lost value, and MoCo is just not going to spend money that way (and few other local jurisdictions would). An historic district would limit lots of things homeowners want to do with their houses, and is unlikely even if a case could be made for the area being historic.

The other way to prevent Mcmansions, paradoxically, would be to UPZONE to allow townhomes, which in a place close to metro would likely pencil out better for developers than Mcmansions do Iand better at countering SES segregation, put more households close to transit, etc) , but AFAICT the very neighbors who don't like the mcmansions, often do not like TH's either.

McMansions are going to be totally useless for the next generation - even if millennial had millions of extra dollars they most likely would want to live in one of those huge, energy and time sucking (howcdo you clean that??) monstrosities. What they should be building are duplexes. And not McMansion sized duplexes but something reasonably sized - people live in houses to have a yard for the kids and the dog to play in and, yes, a tomato garden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the “they” in your question? Bethesda is just a geographic area. There is no Bethesda government. Some neighborhoods do have covenants that prohibit tear downs. But the housing stock is pretty old. Some of these houses need to be torn down.

"They" is MoCo government.

"They" have the power to impose housing regulations.

For the most part, they do not.

Hence: Teardowns, McMansions, and socioeconomic segregation.

RE old housing stock needing to be torn down, those who live in charming towns and villages in e.g. New England would beg to differ.

MoCo would either have to declare the area a historic district, or downzone the parcels to limit FAR, change setbacks, etc (since existing zoning allows mcmansion sized houses). The latter, IIUC, would require monetary compensation for lost value, and MoCo is just not going to spend money that way (and few other local jurisdictions would). An historic district would limit lots of things homeowners want to do with their houses, and is unlikely even if a case could be made for the area being historic.

The other way to prevent Mcmansions, paradoxically, would be to UPZONE to allow townhomes, which in a place close to metro would likely pencil out better for developers than Mcmansions do Iand better at countering SES segregation, put more households close to transit, etc) , but AFAICT the very neighbors who don't like the mcmansions, often do not like TH's either.

McMansions are going to be totally useless for the next generation - even if millennials had millions of extra dollars they most likely would NOT want to live in one of those huge, energy and time sucking (howcdo you clean that??) monstrosities. What they should be building are duplexes. And not McMansion sized duplexes but something reasonably sized - people live in houses to have a yard for the kids and the dog to play in and, yes, a tomato garden.

[Anonymous]

Bethesda resident who bought a house and tore it down. Lots of misinformation in this thread.

Development is BY RIGHT, like in DC and most other parts of the country. What this means is the County doesn't arbitarily enforce regulations like denying a permit because it doesn't "fit" into the neighborhood.

MC DPS (permitting office) enforces the existing regulations down to the inch. In Bethesda, they almost never grant variances (exceptions) either. You'll know when one is granted because you'll see a huge white sign posted about the hearing date, and notice you very rarely see those. I think they still have one hanging in front of the house by the Exxon on Goldbsboro Road (the house where some famous actress used to live). Notice that's been sitting there for years empty -- they need a variance to build and they can't get it.

Most parts of Bethesda are zoned R-90 (90 foot setback) and MC DPS won't let you violate that. They will check. Same with side and rear lot line setbacks. It may seem close, but it's within the zoning.

Also the new houses increase taxes because property taxes are based on assessed value, and the new houses assess higher.

We have an 8,000 sq/ft house and our energy bills are about the same as my friend's house who lives a few blocks away in a 1950's house of 2,000 sq/ft, depending on the month. New houses are much more energy effiicient since we've learned a lot more about energy efficiency in the past 60 years.

The reason houses are built so big is economics. The land in Bethesda is so expensive, so a lot along is going to be $800k+ (see the link to the house on Radnor Road posted earlier in the thread). So if you buy a lot for $800k, and spend $500k on a new house, you'll be building a small house of 2,000 sq/ft and low-end finishes. Not many people want to pay $1.3mln for a small house with cheap finishes. Instead, they'll pay $1.8mln for a larger house with better finishes. If the lot costs were only $200k, the situation would be much different.

As for trends, I don't see Bethesda going downhill any time soon price-wise. All this development is being done due to demand. The location is good in terms of being near Metro, highways, airports, and major population centers. The schools are some of the best in MoCo also.

Regarding environmental impact, the new houses, unlike old houses grandfathered in, are faced with strict stormwater rules such that no stormwater can be fed into the sewer system -- it goes into dry wells instead. There's also a rain tax based on non-permeable property area, and a tree tax if fewer than X trees (based on lot size) are there. I believe the tree tax is used to plant trees elsewhere for those who want them, but not sure what happens to the rain tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda resident who bought a house and tore it down. Lots of misinformation in this thread.

Development is BY RIGHT, like in DC and most other parts of the country. What this means is the County doesn't arbitarily enforce regulations like denying a permit because it doesn't "fit" into the neighborhood.

MC DPS (permitting office) enforces the existing regulations down to the inch. In Bethesda, they almost never grant variances (exceptions) either. You'll know when one is granted because you'll see a huge white sign posted about the hearing date, and notice you very rarely see those. I think they still have one hanging in front of the house by the Exxon on Goldbsboro Road (the house where some famous actress used to live). Notice that's been sitting there for years empty -- they need a variance to build and they can't get it.

Most parts of Bethesda are zoned R-90 (90 foot setback) and MC DPS won't let you violate that. They will check. Same with side and rear lot line setbacks. It may seem close, but it's within the zoning.

Also the new houses increase taxes because property taxes are based on assessed value, and the new houses assess higher.

We have an 8,000 sq/ft house and our energy bills are about the same as my friend's house who lives a few blocks away in a 1950's house of 2,000 sq/ft, depending on the month. New houses are much more energy effiicient since we've learned a lot more about energy efficiency in the past 60 years.

The reason houses are built so big is economics. The land in Bethesda is so expensive, so a lot along is going to be $800k+ (see the link to the house on Radnor Road posted earlier in the thread). So if you buy a lot for $800k, and spend $500k on a new house, you'll be building a small house of 2,000 sq/ft and low-end finishes. Not many people want to pay $1.3mln for a small house with cheap finishes. Instead, they'll pay $1.8mln for a larger house with better finishes. If the lot costs were only $200k, the situation would be much different.

As for trends, I don't see Bethesda going downhill any time soon price-wise. All this development is being done due to demand. The location is good in terms of being near Metro, highways, airports, and major population centers. The schools are some of the best in MoCo also.

Regarding environmental impact, the new houses, unlike old houses grandfathered in, are faced with strict stormwater rules such that no stormwater can be fed into the sewer system -- it goes into dry wells instead. There's also a rain tax based on non-permeable property area, and a tree tax if fewer than X trees (based on lot size) are there. I believe the tree tax is used to plant trees elsewhere for those who want them, but not sure what happens to the rain tax.

There are many neighborhoods where you can’t build anything without running your plans by the neighborhoods architectural review committee and nope- you don’t be allowed to build some hideous lot line hugging gabled monstrosity. I’ve never been a fan of homeowners associations until now.

Parts of Bethesda could go downhill because of hideous homes and lots of traffic. Perhaps people will head out to Potomac again.


8000 square feet? What are you, Al Gore? What do you need all that space for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda resident who bought a house and tore it down. Lots of misinformation in this thread.

Development is BY RIGHT, like in DC and most other parts of the country. What this means is the County doesn't arbitarily enforce regulations like denying a permit because it doesn't "fit" into the neighborhood.

MC DPS (permitting office) enforces the existing regulations down to the inch. In Bethesda, they almost never grant variances (exceptions) either. You'll know when one is granted because you'll see a huge white sign posted about the hearing date, and notice you very rarely see those. I think they still have one hanging in front of the house by the Exxon on Goldbsboro Road (the house where some famous actress used to live). Notice that's been sitting there for years empty -- they need a variance to build and they can't get it.

Most parts of Bethesda are zoned R-90 (90 foot setback) and MC DPS won't let you violate that. They will check. Same with side and rear lot line setbacks. It may seem close, but it's within the zoning.

Also the new houses increase taxes because property taxes are based on assessed value, and the new houses assess higher.

We have an 8,000 sq/ft house and our energy bills are about the same as my friend's house who lives a few blocks away in a 1950's house of 2,000 sq/ft, depending on the month. New houses are much more energy effiicient since we've learned a lot more about energy efficiency in the past 60 years.

The reason houses are built so big is economics. The land in Bethesda is so expensive, so a lot along is going to be $800k+ (see the link to the house on Radnor Road posted earlier in the thread). So if you buy a lot for $800k, and spend $500k on a new house, you'll be building a small house of 2,000 sq/ft and low-end finishes. Not many people want to pay $1.3mln for a small house with cheap finishes. Instead, they'll pay $1.8mln for a larger house with better finishes. If the lot costs were only $200k, the situation would be much different.

As for trends, I don't see Bethesda going downhill any time soon price-wise. All this development is being done due to demand. The location is good in terms of being near Metro, highways, airports, and major population centers. The schools are some of the best in MoCo also.

Regarding environmental impact, the new houses, unlike old houses grandfathered in, are faced with strict stormwater rules such that no stormwater can be fed into the sewer system -- it goes into dry wells instead. There's also a rain tax based on non-permeable property area, and a tree tax if fewer than X trees (based on lot size) are there. I believe the tree tax is used to plant trees elsewhere for those who want them, but not sure what happens to the rain tax.

There are many neighborhoods where you can’t build anything without running your plans by the neighborhoods architectural review committee and nope- you don’t be allowed to build some hideous lot line hugging gabled monstrosity. I’ve never been a fan of homeowners associations until now.

Parts of Bethesda could go downhill because of hideous homes and lots of traffic. Perhaps people will head out to Potomac again.


8000 square feet? What are you, Al Gore? What do you need all that space for?

I hope that you opted for the whole house sprinkler system as homes like yours burn quickly.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.capitalgazette.com/news/annapolis/ph-ac-cn-mansion-fire-anniversary-0119-20160118-story,amp.html

[Anonymous]

In Bethesda this monster houses are a hot mess. Legally you can build a huge box and annoy your neighbors.

But for most part like buying a rare work of art and letting your five year old draw on it with crayons and then being suprised no one likes it. Legally it's your right.

Other thing I noted is front lawns are disappearing as well as parents in Bethesda. The new houses eat up whole property.

If you drive in section behind Wisconsin and Eastwest highway in morning behind Catholic Church I see McMansion constructions and sidewalks blocked off. Kids standing in street waiting for bus with "the help" chatting with each other and few actual parents frazzled watching whole mess

[Anonymous]

When I complain about McMansions on tiny lots I am not talking about places with 90 foot setbacks on all sides.

I'd post pics if I know how but i would be surprised if there is 15 feet between my neighbor's new house and my property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I complain about McMansions on tiny lots I am not talking about places with 90 foot setbacks on all sides.

I'd post pics if I know how but i would be surprised if there is 15 feet between my neighbor's new house and my property.

I would count myself lucky to have a 90 foot setback on all sides. My neighborhood is zoned R60 and the person from DPS is an setback is an average of 20 feet. So a part of the house (ex: screened porch) can be as close as 10 feet as long as the other parts of the house are further away. Your neighbor's McMansion can be right on top of you and DPS is fine with that.

https://permittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/pdf/DevelopmentStandardsForR60Zone.pdf

[Anonymous]

Maybe we need to get over the fact that inner ring “suburbs” are not suburbs anymore, but are getting incorporated into the cities. This means this land is much more valuable, and new housing types will be built to reflect this value. In fact, there is no reason that these 8000 sf houses could not be converted to apartments at some point!

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it's mathematically impossible for a house to have 90 foot setbacks on all sides on a 6,000 sq ft lot (80 x 80 is 6400 sq ft)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county LOVES these hideous monstrosities as the county does get more in taxes. Bethesda gets nothing but reduced quality of life.

Also benefitting - local realtors and builders getting rich off of these high priced sales and pocketing it all. Other Nethesda residents , again, get nothing but a reduced quality of life.

Now when people, especially older residents, are looking for a small house there aren’t any because the builders have bought them all.

Please explain how a larger house on your street gives you a "reduced quality of life."

Well, if you have a house that's built almost entirely over the lot (which many of these McMansions do), it reduces privacy for all involved because your neighbor is literally on top of you. Plus it looks ugly. McMansions are often taller which changes the character of the neighborhood. McMansions shouldn't be on 5.5K lots. It's just disproportionate and ugly.

Lobby the county to change the yard setbacks. New houses have to have permits. If construction is permitted, then yard setbacks are as required.

Yard setbacks, at least in Montgomery County, are averages. That is, you can have a porch jutting out into the border of your property and if the rest of the house is further back, MoCo DPS considers that fine. But the end result is that the new McMansion is now right on top of your backyard, fishbowl style. It's easy to say "lobby the county" but these things are not easy to change and are not likely to change given the influence of developers and their campaign contribution.

Then live with it. The agency that governs the setbacks is the county's permitting office, not any one person's individual taste.

This, exactly. A shorter version of this conversation:

Person A: "I really don't like the new houses, they're too big and ugly!"
Person B: "Well, they're permitted by the current zoning laws, so if you really want to do something about them, you need to lobby the county to change those laws."
Person A: "But it's too hard to change the county laws! I want people to stop because I say so. I also would really like it if people ran their aesthetic decisions by me, so I can approve them beforehand."
Person B: [Shrugs and goes to check on toddler, who displays more rational thought processes than Person A.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it's mathematically impossible for a house to have 90 foot setbacks on all sides on a 6,000 sq ft lot (80 x 80 is 6400 sq ft)

That PP's post was unclear - I don't think s/he meant to suggest that there was a 90 foot setback on all sides, but that a R-90 lot has a 90 foot setback in front, and that setbacks (whatever they are) are enforced on all sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the “they” in your question? Bethesda is just a geographic area. There is no Bethesda government. Some neighborhoods do have covenants that prohibit tear downs. But the housing stock is pretty old. Some of these houses need to be torn down.

"They" is MoCo government.

"They" have the power to impose housing regulations.

For the most part, they do not.

Hence: Teardowns, McMansions, and socioeconomic segregation.

RE old housing stock needing to be torn down, those who live in charming towns and villages in e.g. New England would beg to differ.

MoCo would either have to declare the area a historic district, or downzone the parcels to limit FAR, change setbacks, etc (since existing zoning allows mcmansion sized houses). The latter, IIUC, would require monetary compensation for lost value, and MoCo is just not going to spend money that way (and few other local jurisdictions would). An historic district would limit lots of things homeowners want to do with their houses, and is unlikely even if a case could be made for the area being historic.

The other way to prevent Mcmansions, paradoxically, would be to UPZONE to allow townhomes, which in a place close to metro would likely pencil out better for developers than Mcmansions do Iand better at countering SES segregation, put more households close to transit, etc) , but AFAICT the very neighbors who don't like the mcmansions, often do not like TH's either.

McMansions are going to be totally useless for the next generation - even if millennials had millions of extra dollars they most likely would NOT want to live in one of those huge, energy and time sucking (howcdo you clean that??) monstrosities. What they should be building are duplexes. And not McMansion sized duplexes but something reasonably sized - people live in houses to have a yard for the kids and the dog to play in and, yes, a tomato garden.

Your Freudian slip got it right the first time. Stop being such a baby and go live in Wheaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the “they” in your question? Bethesda is just a geographic area. There is no Bethesda government. Some neighborhoods do have covenants that prohibit tear downs. But the housing stock is pretty old. Some of these houses need to be torn down.

Glad places like London, Paris, Boston, Philly, etc., don't believe in this^^ kind of ignorant attitude.

And this is where you go off the rails. The PP said *some* old houses need to be torn down, not all of them. Your attitude is that every WWII era house needs to be preserved, because of whatever fever dream reason you've cooked up? Here's a tip - if you are taking an absolutist position like that, there's a decent likelihood you've got your head up your ass.