Reply to MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values"

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]Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html[/quote]
What do you find troubling?[/quote]

I also listened in.
If there was a focus on converting commercial to multifamily homes, townhomes communities along River Road, this is ok.
But there is a disruption in established single family neighborhoods with mention of:
- Eliminating set backs and parking rules, in neighborhoods that already lack driveways
- Determining of lots to be converted to multifamily units
- Incentives for conversion of single family homes to multifamily units

I personally find this negative

[/quote]

See the lying YIMBYs were trying to confuse people and pretend that they county is not changing setbacks. They [b]definitely are planning on this[/b] and it will remove any protections mitigate community impact. [/quote]

I support this proposal and would likely qualify under your definition of "YIMBY."  I have not had a chance to watch the video, but am very curious what was actually said in the "mention" of setbacks.  Quite literally everything I have seen from the County on this, including what is written in the proposal itself is that setbacks will be retained.  If in fact setback requirements will be altered, I would agree with you that would be counter to what has been explained to date and it would upset me.

However "mentioning" setbacks is not the same as saying that the proposal would do away with setbacks. [/quote]

Watch the video. They say setbacks would be eliminated. Take note about what they say about parking, too.[/quote]

So I just watched the whole thing.

At the outset (19:55), the speaker indicated that there would be standards applied to multiplexes in residential zones, as the written proposal indicates, which are intended to retain similar massing, scale, and setbacks.
Friedson then also makes clear at (27:01) that his understanding is that "same setbacks" would apply.
There was a brief mention of the word "setback" (1:04) in a discussion of local municipalities, but it wasn't an indication of a change, but rather intersecting authorities.  Friedson indicated that there is a question about whether county could allow two units instead of one SO LONG as local/municipal setback requirements are retained.

Where did I miss any indication that there will be a reduction in setbacks?
It also says that there will be a public approval process for site plans when these 
And I am totally fine with reducing or eliminating parking requirements.[/quote]

If they were intended on making the setbacks the same, the language would say something else that clearly indicates they will be identical. “Similar” provides no assurance that they will be the same. It creates substantial leeway for reducing them through an opaque administrative using staff that are unaccountable yo voters. [/quote]

Did you see anything in the video of the meeting that indicated in any way that setbacks would be reduced?[/quote]

DP.  In the same segment of the recording, they talked about an "SRA" (basically a change to the rules for subdividing lots) to allow for the lots to be broken up without frontage for all of the resulting parcels/units (given utility access is maintained and the like).  [b]This would result in units facing to the side or to the back, but with setbacks to those faces that were consistent with the side or rear setbacks of the previously defined (now divided) parcel --much less than the front setback requirements. [/b]
The justification was plainly stated as allowing more units to be built than otherwise would be the case.

And then there were the reductions in minimum parking, with on-street and [i]off-site[/i] counting.  Properties in the "priority housing districts" with on street available would see a 75% reduction in required spaces per unit, along with being able to count any "off-site".  With PHD being defined as anything within a mile of a rail stop, Putple Line included, or within 500 feet of a growth corridor (street having or having planned BRT), that's a huge area where neighborhood parking, in many cases, is already tight.

The whole worksession was talked through incredibly quickly for the amount of change proposed, with Council staff supporting the Planning recommendations at every turn.  There was incredibly little questioning by the Council Committee that would draw out more understandable descriptions of that being proposed.  You'd need to rewatch it about three times, having had some significant exposure already (e.g., reading the full report) to pick up on all that was being suggested.

Compare that with the much greater amount of the same committee's questioning/interaction related to the following agenda item.   Camping in the agriculture reserve, a far simpler and less contentious subject, apparently is much more worthy of scrutiny.  :roll:[/quote]

I saw that part.  And it does not change setback requirements.  The same setbacks would be required as for a SFH.  It just allows for a main entrance on the sides and back.  Nothing would change about the total square footage allowed to be covered, or where that coverage should be placed on the plot of land.

I'm totally cool with the parking reductions, so that is not an issue for me.[/quote]

I see.  You saw that part, but didn't bother to mention it to the other poster in your response in your detail of the timestamps where setbacks were discussed.  Hmmm...

We already know you don't mind the parking reductions.  There are those of us living where the additional use of existing street parking that would result from the lower minimums would present a burden and/or hazard.[/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