Reply to More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor. 
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

[/quote]

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.[/quote]

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading.  Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland).  Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies".   This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that.  There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development.  The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile?  a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).[/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