Reply to MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed.  This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes.  This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached.  So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive.  We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes.  Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity.  Everything else is catastrophizing.[/quote]
There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks. [/quote]

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements.  You know....have a conversation.[/quote]

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements. [/quote]
Where have you seen this?  I haven't.  Genuinely curious.[/quote]

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy. [/quote]

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives.  Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.[/quote]

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes.  One example:  "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?[/quote]

Not today.  But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots.  Now, this will.    It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.[/quote]

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks.  It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example.  There are others.  Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments.  It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.[/quote]

This is true if you are talking about any property anywhere.  But I thought we were talking about changes to SF zoning?  The section you cite very explicitly excludes any property that was zoned for SF as of 1/12024.[/quote]

That only applies to the 3/4 mile from a rail staion bit.  The other two categories, nonprofit-owned land and land formerly owned by the government don't have that zoned-as-of-1/1/24 exclusion.  As the law is vaguely written in some areas, including those, one could make arguments that 7-502 covers any land that [i]ever[/i] was government owned (courts may strike that if allowed to divine intent, but that could take legal action against an aggressive development effort), and that under 7-504, one could create a nonprofit whose purpose was to "create housing opportunity" and use that as a straw-buyer/front to purchase whichever property on which a developer wanted to effect extra-extra density (using both the planned MoCo allowance and the state law plus-up, along with the injunctions against setback restrictions and the like), and that's not even necessary for the church and other nonprofit properties being eyed currently.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics