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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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]

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.[/quote]

Nah.  My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here. 
 Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm.  But they don't, so there is some concern warranted.  And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.[/quote]

What do you want? "THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO THE ZONING AROUND WHERE YOU LIVE" in giant flashing letters on a trailer that's towed around the plan area? They've already done a ton of outreach over the past year and a half, and they're doing more outreach. Do you live in the plan area? Have you received anything in the mail from the Planning Department?[/quote]

No, again, to your strawman, there.

Mailers didn't go out in a timely fashion (see above from another poster where the postcard came too late for them to arrange to attend the live meeting), and not all who should be certain to be made aware are getting them.  For example, inside-the-blue-dotted-line study area excludes the great majority of the Woodmoor, North Four Corners, etc., neighborhoods of which, as described previously, many of the properties prone to change under this study would be considered a part.  That is, from a neighborhood perspective, even if planning recently has stripped those edges into their own, separate planning area to facilitate change/minimize the impact of potential opposition.

Alternate engagement is of the type blandly mentioned in this thread -- little or nothing about how the changes being considered might [i]impact[/i] current residents of the community that would raise the appropriate concerns to be addressed at a time when they still effectively might be, and often through organizations that fail to reach representative breadth of the directly impacted communities.  Did you see the pictures from the live meeting?  The participants, there, had a familiar look of disbelieving consternation.  I would not be surprised if all of the leadup engagement was with much more limited groupings, mostly from those involved in development/development advocacy, and that the scope of the study was determined without fullsome neighborhood input.  If the meeting followed form, many of the questions and ideas that the few able to attend might have brought could be dismissed either as water under the bridge (perhaps referencing the fait accompli of recent legislation) or out of scope, leaving the bulk of the meeting to the planners describing that scope, deflecting pointed questions about impact and fielding comments from those pro-development interests in attendance who had linked in much earlier.

As another poster noted, this is what politicians do when they want to get something through that a majority of the people most directly affected wouldn't want.[/quote]

You're posting about what you believe must have happened at a meeting you didn't even attend.[/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