NOW IS THE TIME--As Soon As We've Enjoyed Thanksgiving and Hanukkah
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Meredith Wellington
Nov 27, 2013, 3:11:13 PM11/27/13
to neighborhood montgomery
Dear Neighbors,
Now is the time—as soon as we finish our turkey and say goodbye to our relatives and friends who shared our Thanksgiving/Hanukkah celebrations—to let the County Council know the changes that are needed in the proposed new code, so that the new code stands up for, and protects our single-family neighborhoods, instead of undermining them.
The time is right, because the PHED Committee is almost finished, and the full Council will hold worksessions on the proposed code and rezoning in January with a Council vote likely to be soon after the worksessions. The PHED will meet next Monday, December 2nd at 1:00 pm to discuss the zoning rewrite, and the massive rezoning of the County’s commercial areas. Their final work session is scheduled for the following Monday, December 9. The full Council will then hold 3 work sessions on January 14, 15, and 16, starting each day at 9:30 am. And then the Council vote will follow.
Please send your emails to the Council president, Nancy Navarro, and she will distribute the emails to the Council members. Her email address is Councilmem...@montgomerycountymd.gov. Don’t worry if you’ve already written—please write again—so that the Council knows that we are paying attention, and that our neighborhoods are very important to us.
Neighbors, we are making progress--thank you for your help--and we need to keep going. At the full Council’s recent hearings on November 12 and 14 about the zoning rewrite, out of over 80 speakers, I only heard 2 or 3 who wholeheartedly supported the proposed new code and district map amendment. Most speakers voiced serious objections to the new code, as well as deep reservations, if not outright opposition, to the rezoning. (And there were also many adamant chicken supporters!)
I am attaching the document that Julie Davis and I submitted to the Council as a supplement to our testimony at the hearings. Our submission has a discussion of all of the issues that are outlined below. It also points out omissions, exaggerations, and “straw man” arguments that are in the County’s November 6th “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) sheet found on the Council’s website. Here are the changes that we believe the Council needs to remedy:
1. The zones in the proposed code should not be immediately applied County-wide in one fell swoop to all existing commercial properties by a single district map amendment.
2. The Council should raise the bar for public amenities to be provided by developers in the Commercial/Residential (CR) zones, before it applies the CR zones to other commercial property.
3. The Council should retain the historic role of master plans throughout the zoning and development process.
4. The Council has a policy decision with respect to the new “non-residential” building type proposed for the R-60 and R-90 zones. Will the County allow non-residential, office-like structures, to be constructed by standard method throughout single-family neighborhoods? We ask the Council to say no to non-residential buildings, and reaffirm the County’s policy of protecting single-family neighborhoods.
5. The Council should retain the current, stricter special exception standards rather than those contained in the proposed code in order to provide needed protection to single-family neighborhoods.
6. The Council should only allow Residential Detached Floating (RDF) zones in single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed Townhouse (TF) and Apartment (AF) Floating zones, as well as the proposed Commercial/Residential, Industrial and Employment Floating zones are incompatible with the County’s R-60 and R-90 single-family neighborhoods.
7. The Council should delete Sec. 5.1.2.C.2.a.i of the proposed code, because it allows a developer to apply for the TF zone with no prerequisites, and, if approved, the developer can build duplexes and townhouses next door to single-family homes in the middle of a single-family neighborhood.
8. Farm Markets, On-site--The County should not permit agricultural produce to be sold at Farm Market stands in the front yards of small lot residential neighborhoods.
9. Animal Husbandry—Please delete the loophole for barnyard animals as Household Pets. In warning of the risk of salmonella, the County health officer made no distinction between barnyard chickens and chickens as household pets.
10. Please make changes to Sec. 3.1.2.E.1 in order to give the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) appropriate standards for evaluating uses, by making it clear that uses that are not allowed as permitted, limited or conditional are prohibited.
11. Please require site plan review of any project in a Commercial/Residential, Industrial or Employment zone, where the project abuts or confronts R-60 or R-90 properties.
12. Please require that the Planning Board, in approving a site plan, find that that the proposed development will conform to [not “substantially conform with”] the applicable master plan, will be compatible with existing and approved development, and will be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
13. Please require that all informational notices and signs re site plan meetings and/or hearings be posted or mailed, respectively, at least 30 days prior to the meeting or hearing.
Let’s keep up the good work. Our message is being heard—and will be again after Thanksgiving and Hanukkah!
Hope you all have wonderful celebrations,
Meredith
Now is the time—as soon as we finish our turkey and say goodbye to our relatives and friends who shared our Thanksgiving/Hanukkah celebrations—to let the County Council know the changes that are needed in the proposed new code, so that the new code stands up for, and protects our single-family neighborhoods, instead of undermining them.
The time is right, because the PHED Committee is almost finished, and the full Council will hold worksessions on the proposed code and rezoning in January with a Council vote likely to be soon after the worksessions. The PHED will meet next Monday, December 2nd at 1:00 pm to discuss the zoning rewrite, and the massive rezoning of the County’s commercial areas. Their final work session is scheduled for the following Monday, December 9. The full Council will then hold 3 work sessions on January 14, 15, and 16, starting each day at 9:30 am. And then the Council vote will follow.
Please send your emails to the Council president, Nancy Navarro, and she will distribute the emails to the Council members. Her email address is Councilmem...@montgomerycountymd.gov. Don’t worry if you’ve already written—please write again—so that the Council knows that we are paying attention, and that our neighborhoods are very important to us.
Neighbors, we are making progress--thank you for your help--and we need to keep going. At the full Council’s recent hearings on November 12 and 14 about the zoning rewrite, out of over 80 speakers, I only heard 2 or 3 who wholeheartedly supported the proposed new code and district map amendment. Most speakers voiced serious objections to the new code, as well as deep reservations, if not outright opposition, to the rezoning. (And there were also many adamant chicken supporters!)
I am attaching the document that Julie Davis and I submitted to the Council as a supplement to our testimony at the hearings. Our submission has a discussion of all of the issues that are outlined below. It also points out omissions, exaggerations, and “straw man” arguments that are in the County’s November 6th “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) sheet found on the Council’s website. Here are the changes that we believe the Council needs to remedy:
1. The zones in the proposed code should not be immediately applied County-wide in one fell swoop to all existing commercial properties by a single district map amendment.
2. The Council should raise the bar for public amenities to be provided by developers in the Commercial/Residential (CR) zones, before it applies the CR zones to other commercial property.
3. The Council should retain the historic role of master plans throughout the zoning and development process.
4. The Council has a policy decision with respect to the new “non-residential” building type proposed for the R-60 and R-90 zones. Will the County allow non-residential, office-like structures, to be constructed by standard method throughout single-family neighborhoods? We ask the Council to say no to non-residential buildings, and reaffirm the County’s policy of protecting single-family neighborhoods.
5. The Council should retain the current, stricter special exception standards rather than those contained in the proposed code in order to provide needed protection to single-family neighborhoods.
6. The Council should only allow Residential Detached Floating (RDF) zones in single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed Townhouse (TF) and Apartment (AF) Floating zones, as well as the proposed Commercial/Residential, Industrial and Employment Floating zones are incompatible with the County’s R-60 and R-90 single-family neighborhoods.
7. The Council should delete Sec. 5.1.2.C.2.a.i of the proposed code, because it allows a developer to apply for the TF zone with no prerequisites, and, if approved, the developer can build duplexes and townhouses next door to single-family homes in the middle of a single-family neighborhood.
8. Farm Markets, On-site--The County should not permit agricultural produce to be sold at Farm Market stands in the front yards of small lot residential neighborhoods.
9. Animal Husbandry—Please delete the loophole for barnyard animals as Household Pets. In warning of the risk of salmonella, the County health officer made no distinction between barnyard chickens and chickens as household pets.
10. Please make changes to Sec. 3.1.2.E.1 in order to give the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) appropriate standards for evaluating uses, by making it clear that uses that are not allowed as permitted, limited or conditional are prohibited.
11. Please require site plan review of any project in a Commercial/Residential, Industrial or Employment zone, where the project abuts or confronts R-60 or R-90 properties.
12. Please require that the Planning Board, in approving a site plan, find that that the proposed development will conform to [not “substantially conform with”] the applicable master plan, will be compatible with existing and approved development, and will be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
13. Please require that all informational notices and signs re site plan meetings and/or hearings be posted or mailed, respectively, at least 30 days prior to the meeting or hearing.
Let’s keep up the good work. Our message is being heard—and will be again after Thanksgiving and Hanukkah!
Hope you all have wonderful celebrations,
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