Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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). 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.
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 off-site 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.

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.

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.

I didn't mention it because the word setback wasn't used and it does not impact setbacks.
Again, I would have an issue if setbacks were changed. I am LOOKING for evidence that indicates they will be. I don't see it.

I hear you on parking. I'm not saying it shouldn't be an issue that anybody cares about. I'm just focused here on setbacks. (I am a person who lives in an area where the additional use of existing street parking would be a burden, though in a municipality. I personally just think it is worth the burden. But that is another point of discussion.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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). 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.
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 off-site 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.

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.

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.

It is too long post. Where are they building?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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). 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.
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 off-site 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.

I do agree with you that they went through a lot of information very fast. At several points Friedson acknowledged that and asked for clarification for the public- creating a few maps, tables to say what applied to what etc. I also expected more discussion.

That being said the purpose of the meeting was not to be the final decision, nor was it a presentation specifically aimed at the public. It was for the committee members who HAVE read the report and the packet for that meeting. There have been and will continue to be targeted outreach sessions.

Friedson said as much in the first work session, but if the disingenuous response of Planning to the committee superficially asking if there had been public engagement is to be any indicator, those targeted outreach sessions, and any pro forma public testimony opportunity will be minimal and brushed aside. The public engagement that Planning referenced was limited, without the breadth of public notice to inform all the potentially affected residents/stakeholders, and well before any of the massive breadth and depth of change they then put in the plan they laid on the table in June. Their claim that they had gathered public comment was a farce.

Does anyone know where this initiative came from? Is it a campaign promise of some sort? Who is pushing this agenda or what prompted it?
Friedson has been quite open to his constituents, connecting well and being an active listener. This plan seems to be quite tone deaf on so many levels.
It will not do what it wants, and will devalue key corridors for tax payers who really build the county coffers, providing funding for county development. It’s like he is shooting himself on the foot and dragging the county down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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). 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.
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 off-site 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.

I do agree with you that they went through a lot of information very fast. At several points Friedson acknowledged that and asked for clarification for the public- creating a few maps, tables to say what applied to what etc. I also expected more discussion.

That being said the purpose of the meeting was not to be the final decision, nor was it a presentation specifically aimed at the public. It was for the committee members who HAVE read the report and the packet for that meeting. There have been and will continue to be targeted outreach sessions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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). 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.
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 off-site 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

The Council has lost its mind!

There are neighborhoods in Chevy Chase that are already working with Lawyers to create protective covenants for their homes in response to this zoning proposal. Good luck everyone else.

Do you know which neighborhoods?

our neighborhood has a covenant, many in the area had them and that were rooting in racism, homophobia etc. However, if you have a covenant that hasnt been updated to reflect current times or try to create a new one, that could be problematic as MOCO is definitely going to sue to void.

however, if you neighborhood has a covenant, that has been updated to remove the 'isms AND you all can show that you have been living according to it, maybe you can beat the MOCO lawsuits.

That is not how covenants usually works. The rest of the covenant is still enforceable event if portions of it are no longer legal. Maryland literally passed a law about this in 2023. https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/real-property/title-3/subtitle-1/part-i/section-3-112/ The law only allows people to strike invalid portions of a covenant, but the rest of it must remain. That being said it would be wise to have an attorney further review existing covenants and see if there is any room to enhance protections for your neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

The Council has lost its mind!

The Council knows exactly what it is doing. Fani-Gonzalez was on a prior Planning Board. Jawondo had put forth Zoning Text Amendments as a means of end-arounding the more typical zoning change/exception processes. Friedson set the table for Planning's delivery of the report in June, noting large changes were in play and claiming the need to have them. That interleaved perfectly with Planning's introductory comments (including the straw man of "nobody is forcing you to turn your home into an apartment") when laying out the breathtakingly large scope of the proposal, strikingly different in depth and breadth from those ideas previously suggested while the public had a chance to review/provide input in a meaningful way.

The Council placed Harris and others on the Planning Board with clear intent to push this to the maximal extent possible when they threw out the old board. That prior board was no foe of development, but this one is more clearly pushing much more, and at a quicker pace. Planning takes its direction from the board, and, consequently, has not worked toward alternatives to compare/consider potential effect, much less to place in front of the Council.

The Council and Board want this to be the only game in town. They couch it in the thought of its just being one of several upcoming policy initiatives towards densification/additional housing. They start with this, though, rushing to get it done before opposition might have a chance to set up or weigh in at the ballot box, knowing that it would be the biggest fight. Meanwhile, they dismiss related concerns with straw man arguments and hand waiving about far future (and rather uncertain, if not definitively unlikely) action in separate processes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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). 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.
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 off-site 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

The Council has lost its mind!

There are neighborhoods in Chevy Chase that are already working with Lawyers to create protective covenants for their homes in response to this zoning proposal. Good luck everyone else.

Do you know which neighborhoods?

our neighborhood has a covenant, many in the area had them and that were rooting in racism, homophobia etc. However, if you have a covenant that hasnt been updated to reflect current times or try to create a new one, that could be problematic as MOCO is definitely going to sue to void.

however, if you neighborhood has a covenant, that has been updated to remove the 'isms AND you all can show that you have been living according to it, maybe you can beat the MOCO lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

The Council has lost its mind!

There are neighborhoods in Chevy Chase that are already working with Lawyers to create protective covenants for their homes in response to this zoning proposal. Good luck everyone else.

Do you know which neighborhoods?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

The wording says everything we need to know “similar” means that there will be a reduction in setbacks. The word choice is very intentional and it indicates that they have a plan to allow reduction in setbacks. If they intended to maintain setbacks they would have used wording like identical or equal to emphasize that they are keeping existing setbacks. However, they chose not to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What do you find troubling?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

The Council has lost its mind!

There are neighborhoods in Chevy Chase that are already working with Lawyers to create protective covenants for their homes in response to this zoning proposal. Good luck everyone else.