Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

It says "includes any limitation or requirement" which would include development standards like setback requirements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

Why would anybody donate to any campaign if the goal was not to affect public policy?

There is a difference between donating in support of and donating to influence, the latter is kind of frowned upon. It’s fine, there will inevitably be a lawsuit and there will be a discovery process.

I guess that I shouldn’t be shocked that the YIMBYs are fine with bribery and other unethical behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

Why would anybody donate to any campaign if the goal was not to affect public policy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

1. Want to cite the whole context regarding where the above applies and under what (limited) circumstances?
2. Want to explain how a rule that prevents a "de facto denial" is tantamount to waiving any and all design standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

Why would anybody donate to any campaign if the goal was not to affect public policy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Yes that is how it will work. The law is written very broadly and it provides developers with the ability to request carte blanche waivers of almost anything if they claim impacts "viability" or reduces "affordability". Aggressive developers will use their attorneys to steamroll local communities with the very nebulous provisions that create eligibility for this law. Read page 9 of this document

“UNREASONABLE LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT” INCLUDES ANY LIMITATION OR REQUIREMENT THAT HAS AMOUNTS TO A DE FACTO DENIAL BY
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON:
(1) THE VIABILITY OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A
(2) THE DEGREE OF AFFORDABILITY OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING
UNITS IN A QUALIFIED PROJECT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone point to the state law changes. I am not sure why I didn't hear about these as much.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/chapters_noln/Ch_122_hb0538E.pdf

Page 13 shows the exemption from mandatory waivers of development standards only applies if it was zoned Single family before the cutoff date and it continues to maintain single family zoning. If MOCO eliminate single family zoning this state law that allows waivers of setbacks and lot coverage requirements will apply.

(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
AN AREA ZONED FOR SINGLE–FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE:
(1) (I) ON JANUARY 1, 2024; AND
(2) (II) DURING ANY PROCESS TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE DENSITY
UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION

I don't think that says what you think it says.

Alright well, it seems like you are trying to change the topic now that I am showing you a law that proves my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone point to the state law changes. I am not sure why I didn't hear about these as much.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/chapters_noln/Ch_122_hb0538E.pdf

Page 13 shows the exemption from mandatory waivers of development standards only applies if it was zoned Single family before the cutoff date and it continues to maintain single family zoning. If MOCO eliminate single family zoning this state law that allows waivers of setbacks and lot coverage requirements will apply.

(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
AN AREA ZONED FOR SINGLE–FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE:
(1) (I) ON JANUARY 1, 2024; AND
(2) (II) DURING ANY PROCESS TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE DENSITY
UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION

I don't think that says what you think it says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone point to the state law changes. I am not sure why I didn't hear about these as much.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/chapters_noln/Ch_122_hb0538E.pdf

Page 13 shows the exemption from mandatory waivers of development standards only applies if it was zoned Single family before the cutoff date and it continues to maintain single family zoning. If MOCO eliminate single family zoning this state law that allows waivers of setbacks and lot coverage requirements will apply.

(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
AN AREA ZONED FOR SINGLE–FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE:
(1) (I) ON JANUARY 1, 2024; AND
(2) (II) DURING ANY PROCESS TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE DENSITY
UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION

Alright well, it seems like you are trying to change the topic now that I am showing you a law that proves my point.

I don't think that says what you think it says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.

Do they know that is not how it will actually work, though? Do you know that is not how it will actually work? How do you know?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone point to the state law changes. I am not sure why I didn't hear about these as much.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/chapters_noln/Ch_122_hb0538E.pdf

Page 13 shows the exemption from mandatory waivers of development standards only applies if it was zoned Single family before the cutoff date and it continues to maintain single family zoning. If MOCO eliminate single family zoning this state law that allows waivers of setbacks and lot coverage requirements will apply.

(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
AN AREA ZONED FOR SINGLE–FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE:
(1) (I) ON JANUARY 1, 2024; AND
(2) (II) DURING ANY PROCESS TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE DENSITY
UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION

Anonymous wrote:Could someone point to the state law changes. I am not sure why I didn't hear about these as much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.