Proposed Zoning Code adversely impacts our neighborhoods. PHED meets again on Sept 13.
257 views
Skip to first unread message
Meredith Wellington
Aug 20, 2013, 4:17:49 PM8/20/13
to neighborhood montgomery
Dear Neighbors,
We want to bring you up to date on the Zoning Rewrite. The Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee expedited review of the Zoning Rewrite by holding eight work sessions between June 14th and July 30th (2 on July 2nd). The Committee is now on break. The next PHED work session on the Zoning Rewrite is Friday, September 13th at 9:30 AM at the County Council. The subject is an important one: Ch. 59-8 Administration and Procedures. Please plan to attend if you possibly can.
I am attaching a detailed outline discussing the Zoning Rewrite and the many issues impacting small lot communities—that is, the single-family neighborhoods where we live. But here is our bottom line:
We object to the zoning rewrite as it is currently drafted because it contains numerous provisions that will adversely impact our neighborhoods. The adverse impacts that we have identified so far are listed below, along with our request that the Council take action to remedy these adverse impacts.
1. The Council should delete the general building and multi-use building types, and ban all non-residential buildings from the R-60 and R-90 zones where they are currently not permitted.
2. The Council should ban Commercial/Residential, Industrial and Employment floating zones from residential neighborhoods, and only permit residential floating zones with clear height, density, and use limits, as well as strict compatibility standards.
3. The Council should not enact proposed new Animal Husbandry and Farm Market uses that would allow property owners to raise barnyard animals in their backyards and sell agricultural produce from their properties in their front yards.
4. The Council should not enact a greatly expanded Seasonal Outdoor Sales use that lacks pedestrian safety, traffic and parking standards and any durational limitations, i.e., seasonal outdoor sales of some kind could be held year round.
5. The Council should retain the current standards for special exception uses, whether the uses are called “special exception” or “conditional.”
6. The Council should require a site plan for any project that abuts or confronts R-60 or R-90 properties that involves commercial, industrial or employment zones uses—regardless of the size, height or development method of the project.
7. The Council should strengthen the standards for site plan by requiring that the proposed development conform to the applicable master plan, and is compatible not only with existing and approved development but also with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
8. The Council should change the proposed procedural standards for notice to the public for site plans to at least 30 days, for informational notices, sign posting, and/or hearings.
9. The Council should not precipitously apply the proposed code to all existing commercial properties by a single, County-wide district map amendment.
10. The Council should retain some of the current commercial zones so that owners of properties in existing commercial zones can develop under current zoning or apply for a new zone.
11. The Council should retain, not bypass, existing master and sector plans as the road map for future development in Montgomery County by changing zones through master or sector plan amendment, not by one district map amendment.
12. The Council should remedy the serious flaws in the Planning Board’s proposed “translation” methodology by assuring that the requirements of the master and sector plans are accurately included in any translation; and that the commercial zones recommended for properties adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible in terms of height and density with the nearby neighborhoods.
13. The Council should direct the Planning Board to give written notice to owners of single-family properties immediately adjacent to or confronting property to be rezoned to a commercial/residential, employment or industrial zone. The notice should be the same as the notice that the Planning Board sent to commercial property owners.
14. The Council should require the Planning Board to provide outreach to the public about the proposed translation. The Planning Board’s past meetings concerned the substance of the new code—not the translation—and the public knows little, if anything, about the proposed changes in the zoning on the properties adjoining their neighborhoods.
15. In sum, the Council should take the time necessary to evaluate properly the “on the ground” impacts of the Planning Board’s proposed changes to the existing zoning code, and then decide in a considered and systematic process which, if any, of the new commercial, industrial, and employment zones should be mapped on the thousands of commercial and industrial properties throughout the County.
See you in September at the PHED Committee meeting,
Meredith
Neighborhood Montgomery
A Neighborhood Network for Sensible Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/neighborhood-montgomery
We want to bring you up to date on the Zoning Rewrite. The Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee expedited review of the Zoning Rewrite by holding eight work sessions between June 14th and July 30th (2 on July 2nd). The Committee is now on break. The next PHED work session on the Zoning Rewrite is Friday, September 13th at 9:30 AM at the County Council. The subject is an important one: Ch. 59-8 Administration and Procedures. Please plan to attend if you possibly can.
I am attaching a detailed outline discussing the Zoning Rewrite and the many issues impacting small lot communities—that is, the single-family neighborhoods where we live. But here is our bottom line:
We object to the zoning rewrite as it is currently drafted because it contains numerous provisions that will adversely impact our neighborhoods. The adverse impacts that we have identified so far are listed below, along with our request that the Council take action to remedy these adverse impacts.
1. The Council should delete the general building and multi-use building types, and ban all non-residential buildings from the R-60 and R-90 zones where they are currently not permitted.
2. The Council should ban Commercial/Residential, Industrial and Employment floating zones from residential neighborhoods, and only permit residential floating zones with clear height, density, and use limits, as well as strict compatibility standards.
3. The Council should not enact proposed new Animal Husbandry and Farm Market uses that would allow property owners to raise barnyard animals in their backyards and sell agricultural produce from their properties in their front yards.
4. The Council should not enact a greatly expanded Seasonal Outdoor Sales use that lacks pedestrian safety, traffic and parking standards and any durational limitations, i.e., seasonal outdoor sales of some kind could be held year round.
5. The Council should retain the current standards for special exception uses, whether the uses are called “special exception” or “conditional.”
6. The Council should require a site plan for any project that abuts or confronts R-60 or R-90 properties that involves commercial, industrial or employment zones uses—regardless of the size, height or development method of the project.
7. The Council should strengthen the standards for site plan by requiring that the proposed development conform to the applicable master plan, and is compatible not only with existing and approved development but also with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
8. The Council should change the proposed procedural standards for notice to the public for site plans to at least 30 days, for informational notices, sign posting, and/or hearings.
9. The Council should not precipitously apply the proposed code to all existing commercial properties by a single, County-wide district map amendment.
10. The Council should retain some of the current commercial zones so that owners of properties in existing commercial zones can develop under current zoning or apply for a new zone.
11. The Council should retain, not bypass, existing master and sector plans as the road map for future development in Montgomery County by changing zones through master or sector plan amendment, not by one district map amendment.
12. The Council should remedy the serious flaws in the Planning Board’s proposed “translation” methodology by assuring that the requirements of the master and sector plans are accurately included in any translation; and that the commercial zones recommended for properties adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible in terms of height and density with the nearby neighborhoods.
13. The Council should direct the Planning Board to give written notice to owners of single-family properties immediately adjacent to or confronting property to be rezoned to a commercial/residential, employment or industrial zone. The notice should be the same as the notice that the Planning Board sent to commercial property owners.
14. The Council should require the Planning Board to provide outreach to the public about the proposed translation. The Planning Board’s past meetings concerned the substance of the new code—not the translation—and the public knows little, if anything, about the proposed changes in the zoning on the properties adjoining their neighborhoods.
15. In sum, the Council should take the time necessary to evaluate properly the “on the ground” impacts of the Planning Board’s proposed changes to the existing zoning code, and then decide in a considered and systematic process which, if any, of the new commercial, industrial, and employment zones should be mapped on the thousands of commercial and industrial properties throughout the County.
See you in September at the PHED Committee meeting,
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