More news about the Zoning Rewrite. Are residents' stockings being filled with coal?
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Meredith Wellington
Dec 11, 2012, 4:05:46 PM12/11/12
to neighborhood montgomery
Dear Neighbors,
I am sending you a letter that Andy Leon Harney, the town manager of Chevy Chase, Section 3, emailed on December 7th to the County Council with a copy to the Planning Board Chair, Francoise Carrier. Andy’s letter captures the confusion, concern and frustration that many of us feel about the County’s monumental effort to rewrite the entire zoning code—including our residential zones, R-60 and R-90.
And next week I will be bringing you up to date on all that Julie, Pat, Jenny Sue and I are doing to follow and affect the zoning rewrite as it impacts our residential neighborhoods, and the quality of life that we value in Montgomery County. More on that next week--
For now, I hope that you will read Andy’s letter. When you do, at least you will know some of the problems, if not the solutions. And, just to be a true Grinch, I will point out some other issues that are not included in Andy’s letter:
There are two more major threats to our "small lot" neighborhoods: Planning Board staff proposes (1) to permit by-right "General Buildings" with heights up to 35 feet and FARs of 0.5 (originally proposed as 0.75 FAR) in all residential zones, including R-60 and R-90 (with some minimum lot requirements); and (2) to include in the draft rewrite new floating zones for all residential properties including those now in R-60 and R-90 zones with substantially higher densities than currently permitted. A general building is a new building type “typically containing nonresidential uses including office, employment, industrial, civic, institutional, or public uses.” As currently drafted, these general buildings can be located in the middle of single-family neighborhoods. Although it's unclear what the Planning Board will ultimately decide with respect to these staff proposals, you and the people living in your neighborhoods should be aware that these proposals are currently on the table.
Without further ceremony, here is Andy’s letter:
Dear Members of the County Council:
I am writing to you all to reflect Section 3's frustration with the documents that have been presented on line for the general public vis-a-vis the zoning rewrite. Although I have taken some planning courses, and sat in on some of the ZAP sessions with virtual duct tape over my mouth, I find the materials available to the public both confusing and misleading. There are so many footnotes, requiring constant cross referencing that no one can adequately understand what is a change and what was code prior to the change.
I have only taken the time to review the R-60 materials in the 254 plus pages on line and still have no idea about overlay zones and other aspects of the overall zoning re-write that might well affect our community and the larger down-county area. I have noted some confusing inconsistencies--guesthouses are to be phased out but apparently "tenant farm residences" remain (in the R-60 zone???) Residential Living Units may or may not be linked to accessory apartments...also not clear. If existing legal accessory apartments or guesthouses are to be grandfathered in, I couldn't tell.
There seems to be a feeling that we should only have accessory apartments ever 300 feet according to the proposed ZTA12-11, but we can have cheek by jowl a home for adults with disabilities, a daycare center, etc., all under a certain number of occupants as a "by right" use with no spacing requirements. I also don't see any prohibition against having a home with an accessory apartment and renting rooms to two boarders in the main home as well. I haven't seen a change in ZTA 12-11 that specifically states that..maybe it's there, but I couldn't find it. In densely populated areas like Section 3, this "by right" use of a home could end up attracting additional cars on our streets and create an even greater burden on our schools and services provided to our residents.
In the zoning rewrite, we can have certain animals but not others and there are clear requirements for their housing, but not for fencing as we have in the case of pools...nor is there a requirement as to how many square feet each type of animal is required to have, only the distance their shelter should be from neighbors. No one is policing this from what I can see as its now written and no consequences for having too many or the wrong kind of animal are indicated.
So, if my neighbor has a large enough back yard, they can have a mini-menagerie that might attract more than Charlotte's web--rats, coyotes, foxes in suburban backyards, coming to prey on little chickens. It's already happened in my neighborhood!
Similarly, if I want to farm the "back 40" in my R-60 zone, not only can I do that, but I can set up a farm stand in the neighborhood instead of being required to use the larger, regional markets set up all over the county. I'm not talking a lemonade stand here, but an "urban farm stand." I am not certain that has a place in an R-60 zone.
I did note that the side setbacks have been reduced by 2 feet with no apparent notice..it used to be 18' combined, now it says 8' and the combined number is deemed in the chart provided by the planning staff as "redundant". Last time I looked, 8 plus 8 is 16. The charts don't even note this as a change. Centering every house 8' from the side lot line and giving only 16' between houses doesn't speak well for green space, tree canopies, etc. The explanation I got from a planning staff member is that it would give people "greater flexibility" but last time I looked, if you give a developer 8' as the minimum, that's what he'll use. Do we want all our R-60 zones to have neat houses all centered 8' from each side like so many "boxes little boxes"..."and they all look just the same?"
It seems to me that the planning commission has not done an adequate job properly informing the lay public as to what is now allowed and how that will change. This requires more than open houses where people are available for questions or online videos selling the concept. It involves a speakers' bureau, comparative charts showing what is now and what will change. Everyone can't be a zoning code geek--it's not presented in a manner that is understandable to the layman.
This affects the shape of our communities for the future, the value of our largest assets, the direction of growth in the county and if a layman needs three books, a dictionary and a chart to understand what it means to him, then the zoning rewrite is a failure--just more footnotes, only different.
Our Council wanted us to hire someone to help decipher the rewrite...so we know what this means to our community. Why should we have to do that when this is an effort for which we as taxpayers are already paying dearly? What they are proposing is equally opaque. If there is some way that the Council can mandate a more complete education process for the public, an opportunity for give and take, not a hearing with 3 minute limits, perhaps we could move forward. As it is now, the process, while worthy, does not serve us well.
Andy Leon Harney
Village Manager Section 3 of the Village of Chevy Chase
December 7, 2012
We’ll talk more next week.
Meredith
Neighborhood Montgomery
A Neighborhood Network for Sensible Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/neighborhood-montgomery
I am sending you a letter that Andy Leon Harney, the town manager of Chevy Chase, Section 3, emailed on December 7th to the County Council with a copy to the Planning Board Chair, Francoise Carrier. Andy’s letter captures the confusion, concern and frustration that many of us feel about the County’s monumental effort to rewrite the entire zoning code—including our residential zones, R-60 and R-90.
And next week I will be bringing you up to date on all that Julie, Pat, Jenny Sue and I are doing to follow and affect the zoning rewrite as it impacts our residential neighborhoods, and the quality of life that we value in Montgomery County. More on that next week--
For now, I hope that you will read Andy’s letter. When you do, at least you will know some of the problems, if not the solutions. And, just to be a true Grinch, I will point out some other issues that are not included in Andy’s letter:
There are two more major threats to our "small lot" neighborhoods: Planning Board staff proposes (1) to permit by-right "General Buildings" with heights up to 35 feet and FARs of 0.5 (originally proposed as 0.75 FAR) in all residential zones, including R-60 and R-90 (with some minimum lot requirements); and (2) to include in the draft rewrite new floating zones for all residential properties including those now in R-60 and R-90 zones with substantially higher densities than currently permitted. A general building is a new building type “typically containing nonresidential uses including office, employment, industrial, civic, institutional, or public uses.” As currently drafted, these general buildings can be located in the middle of single-family neighborhoods. Although it's unclear what the Planning Board will ultimately decide with respect to these staff proposals, you and the people living in your neighborhoods should be aware that these proposals are currently on the table.
Without further ceremony, here is Andy’s letter:
Dear Members of the County Council:
I am writing to you all to reflect Section 3's frustration with the documents that have been presented on line for the general public vis-a-vis the zoning rewrite. Although I have taken some planning courses, and sat in on some of the ZAP sessions with virtual duct tape over my mouth, I find the materials available to the public both confusing and misleading. There are so many footnotes, requiring constant cross referencing that no one can adequately understand what is a change and what was code prior to the change.
I have only taken the time to review the R-60 materials in the 254 plus pages on line and still have no idea about overlay zones and other aspects of the overall zoning re-write that might well affect our community and the larger down-county area. I have noted some confusing inconsistencies--guesthouses are to be phased out but apparently "tenant farm residences" remain (in the R-60 zone???) Residential Living Units may or may not be linked to accessory apartments...also not clear. If existing legal accessory apartments or guesthouses are to be grandfathered in, I couldn't tell.
There seems to be a feeling that we should only have accessory apartments ever 300 feet according to the proposed ZTA12-11, but we can have cheek by jowl a home for adults with disabilities, a daycare center, etc., all under a certain number of occupants as a "by right" use with no spacing requirements. I also don't see any prohibition against having a home with an accessory apartment and renting rooms to two boarders in the main home as well. I haven't seen a change in ZTA 12-11 that specifically states that..maybe it's there, but I couldn't find it. In densely populated areas like Section 3, this "by right" use of a home could end up attracting additional cars on our streets and create an even greater burden on our schools and services provided to our residents.
In the zoning rewrite, we can have certain animals but not others and there are clear requirements for their housing, but not for fencing as we have in the case of pools...nor is there a requirement as to how many square feet each type of animal is required to have, only the distance their shelter should be from neighbors. No one is policing this from what I can see as its now written and no consequences for having too many or the wrong kind of animal are indicated.
So, if my neighbor has a large enough back yard, they can have a mini-menagerie that might attract more than Charlotte's web--rats, coyotes, foxes in suburban backyards, coming to prey on little chickens. It's already happened in my neighborhood!
Similarly, if I want to farm the "back 40" in my R-60 zone, not only can I do that, but I can set up a farm stand in the neighborhood instead of being required to use the larger, regional markets set up all over the county. I'm not talking a lemonade stand here, but an "urban farm stand." I am not certain that has a place in an R-60 zone.
I did note that the side setbacks have been reduced by 2 feet with no apparent notice..it used to be 18' combined, now it says 8' and the combined number is deemed in the chart provided by the planning staff as "redundant". Last time I looked, 8 plus 8 is 16. The charts don't even note this as a change. Centering every house 8' from the side lot line and giving only 16' between houses doesn't speak well for green space, tree canopies, etc. The explanation I got from a planning staff member is that it would give people "greater flexibility" but last time I looked, if you give a developer 8' as the minimum, that's what he'll use. Do we want all our R-60 zones to have neat houses all centered 8' from each side like so many "boxes little boxes"..."and they all look just the same?"
It seems to me that the planning commission has not done an adequate job properly informing the lay public as to what is now allowed and how that will change. This requires more than open houses where people are available for questions or online videos selling the concept. It involves a speakers' bureau, comparative charts showing what is now and what will change. Everyone can't be a zoning code geek--it's not presented in a manner that is understandable to the layman.
This affects the shape of our communities for the future, the value of our largest assets, the direction of growth in the county and if a layman needs three books, a dictionary and a chart to understand what it means to him, then the zoning rewrite is a failure--just more footnotes, only different.
Our Council wanted us to hire someone to help decipher the rewrite...so we know what this means to our community. Why should we have to do that when this is an effort for which we as taxpayers are already paying dearly? What they are proposing is equally opaque. If there is some way that the Council can mandate a more complete education process for the public, an opportunity for give and take, not a hearing with 3 minute limits, perhaps we could move forward. As it is now, the process, while worthy, does not serve us well.
Andy Leon Harney
Village Manager Section 3 of the Village of Chevy Chase
December 7, 2012
We’ll talk more next week.
Meredith
Neighborhood Montgomery
A Neighborhood Network for Sensible Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/neighborhood-montgomery
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages