The Council takes up the Zoning Rewrite on Tuesday--It's Time to Weigh In.
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Meredith Wellington
Jan 12, 2014, 5:08:01 PM1/12/14
to neighborhood montgomery
Dear Neighbors,
This coming Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the full Council will hold work sessions on Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 13-04, the new Zoning Code, and on District Map Amendment (DMA) G-956, that applies new zones to numerous properties in Montgomery County. All work sessions are scheduled to begin at 10:00 am and finish at 5 pm. I’ll be there, and I hope that you will, too. For your perusal, here is the link to the Staff report for the upcoming sessions: http://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=1653&meta_id=58044
Once again, it is time for citizens to email the Council to ask for changes to the new Code. Please send your email to the Council President, Craig Rice, and he will distribute it to the other Council members.
Councilme...@montgomerycountymd.gov
Here are the changes that need to be made, and thanks to Councilmember Elrich, all of the changes listed below are before the Council as formal amendments contained in the Staff report:
1. Sec. 4.1.3.A--Please remove “Cultural Institution” as a Building Type in the residential zones and add language that any building and site design in a residential zone must, to the maximum extent practicable, have the exterior appearance of a detached house.
2. Please delete Sec. 6.6.3.A.2, the provision that allows the Planning Board to substitute a facility or amenity that it deems “at least as beneficial” as a facility or amenity recommended in the applicable master plan.
3. Please change Sec. 5.1.2.C.2.a, the section that gives the requirements for approving Residential Detached Floating (RDF) zones, so that the RDF requirements are the same as for all the other floating zones, i.e., the RDF zone should only be applied if the property fronts on a nonresidential street or confronts/abuts property already zoned for a transitional or non-residential zone.
4. Please retain the current zoning standards for rights-of-way. Council Staff posted an “ALERT” on p. 11 about a change in the current zoning standards that “would increase allowable density to the extent of a property’s right-of-way dedication when the zoning on the opposite side of a street is different.” This change, apparently noticed for the first time in preparing for Worksession #12, is another attempt to increase densities under the rubric of simplification and clarification. The Council should retain the current zoning standards for rights-of-way.
5. The PHED Committee “unbundled” some of the uses proposed for the residential neighborhoods—i.e., lawn care services and drive-thru restaurants. The Council should approve the PHED changes and also unbundle the uses now found under Sec. 3.3.2.E, Residential Care Facility, in order to restore the standards for the various facilities contained in the current code.
6. The zones in the proposed code should not be applied County-wide to all existing commercial properties by a single district map amendment, and we continue to urge the Council to retain those existing commercial zones that are working, and to apply any new zones gradually either by the minor master plan amendment process or by local map amendments.
7. The final decision on the proposed code should be made only after the public has had ample opportunity to review and comment on any changes proposed by the Council staff after the full Council’s work sessions. We urge the Council to hold a hearing on the version of the new code that emerges from the Council’s work sessions before taking any action on a final version of the code.
8. Farm Markets, On-site. The County should not permit agricultural produce to be sold at Farm Market stands on small lot residential properties. We strongly urge the Council to delete Sec. 3.2.11.C, the provision in the proposed code that would allow property owners in these neighborhoods to erect commercial farm stands or markets to sell farm products grown or raised on their property.
9. The Department of Permitting Services (DPS) should not be allowed to approve any uses that are not specifically listed as permitted, limited or conditional.
10. The Council should retain the current, stricter special exception standards to provide needed protection to single-family neighborhoods.
11. The proposed code should not weaken the historic role of master plans throughout the zoning and development process by requiring that critical elements of the process merely be “substantially” consistent with or “substantially” conform to the applicable master plans.
12. Site Plan requirements in the new code should be more restrictive for non-residential developments confronting or abutting single-family residential zones.
We ask the Council to require all developments in the CR, industrial or employment zones be subject to site plan approval if the development confronts or abuts a small-lot community.
13. We ask the Council to 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. As currently written, the notice period is 15 days, and this is simply not enough notice.
Because of all of our efforts, there have been important improvements to the proposed code that protect our communities. We thank the Council for these changes, and ask that the Council finish the job by making the changes set out above.
See you on Tuesday,
Meredith
Neighborhood Montgomery
A Neighborhood Network for Sensible Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/neighborhood-montgomery
This coming Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the full Council will hold work sessions on Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 13-04, the new Zoning Code, and on District Map Amendment (DMA) G-956, that applies new zones to numerous properties in Montgomery County. All work sessions are scheduled to begin at 10:00 am and finish at 5 pm. I’ll be there, and I hope that you will, too. For your perusal, here is the link to the Staff report for the upcoming sessions: http://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=1653&meta_id=58044
Once again, it is time for citizens to email the Council to ask for changes to the new Code. Please send your email to the Council President, Craig Rice, and he will distribute it to the other Council members.
Councilme...@montgomerycountymd.gov
Here are the changes that need to be made, and thanks to Councilmember Elrich, all of the changes listed below are before the Council as formal amendments contained in the Staff report:
1. Sec. 4.1.3.A--Please remove “Cultural Institution” as a Building Type in the residential zones and add language that any building and site design in a residential zone must, to the maximum extent practicable, have the exterior appearance of a detached house.
2. Please delete Sec. 6.6.3.A.2, the provision that allows the Planning Board to substitute a facility or amenity that it deems “at least as beneficial” as a facility or amenity recommended in the applicable master plan.
3. Please change Sec. 5.1.2.C.2.a, the section that gives the requirements for approving Residential Detached Floating (RDF) zones, so that the RDF requirements are the same as for all the other floating zones, i.e., the RDF zone should only be applied if the property fronts on a nonresidential street or confronts/abuts property already zoned for a transitional or non-residential zone.
4. Please retain the current zoning standards for rights-of-way. Council Staff posted an “ALERT” on p. 11 about a change in the current zoning standards that “would increase allowable density to the extent of a property’s right-of-way dedication when the zoning on the opposite side of a street is different.” This change, apparently noticed for the first time in preparing for Worksession #12, is another attempt to increase densities under the rubric of simplification and clarification. The Council should retain the current zoning standards for rights-of-way.
5. The PHED Committee “unbundled” some of the uses proposed for the residential neighborhoods—i.e., lawn care services and drive-thru restaurants. The Council should approve the PHED changes and also unbundle the uses now found under Sec. 3.3.2.E, Residential Care Facility, in order to restore the standards for the various facilities contained in the current code.
6. The zones in the proposed code should not be applied County-wide to all existing commercial properties by a single district map amendment, and we continue to urge the Council to retain those existing commercial zones that are working, and to apply any new zones gradually either by the minor master plan amendment process or by local map amendments.
7. The final decision on the proposed code should be made only after the public has had ample opportunity to review and comment on any changes proposed by the Council staff after the full Council’s work sessions. We urge the Council to hold a hearing on the version of the new code that emerges from the Council’s work sessions before taking any action on a final version of the code.
8. Farm Markets, On-site. The County should not permit agricultural produce to be sold at Farm Market stands on small lot residential properties. We strongly urge the Council to delete Sec. 3.2.11.C, the provision in the proposed code that would allow property owners in these neighborhoods to erect commercial farm stands or markets to sell farm products grown or raised on their property.
9. The Department of Permitting Services (DPS) should not be allowed to approve any uses that are not specifically listed as permitted, limited or conditional.
10. The Council should retain the current, stricter special exception standards to provide needed protection to single-family neighborhoods.
11. The proposed code should not weaken the historic role of master plans throughout the zoning and development process by requiring that critical elements of the process merely be “substantially” consistent with or “substantially” conform to the applicable master plans.
12. Site Plan requirements in the new code should be more restrictive for non-residential developments confronting or abutting single-family residential zones.
We ask the Council to require all developments in the CR, industrial or employment zones be subject to site plan approval if the development confronts or abuts a small-lot community.
13. We ask the Council to 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. As currently written, the notice period is 15 days, and this is simply not enough notice.
Because of all of our efforts, there have been important improvements to the proposed code that protect our communities. We thank the Council for these changes, and ask that the Council finish the job by making the changes set out above.
See you on Tuesday,
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