Zoning Rewrite Changes Threaten the Integrity of Small-Lot Neighborhoods
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Meredith Wellington
Oct 19, 2012, 4:07:26 PM10/19/12
to neighborhood montgomery
Dear Neighbors,
I am sending you Julie Davis’ statement to the Planning Board about the Zoning Rewrite’s adverse impact on the small lot zones (R-90 and R-60). Julie’s statement was submitted for the Planning Board’s hearing on October 4th on new residential zones, and it makes for important reading. Here’s a brief summary of her major points:
1. No one—not the Board, developers, zoning lawyers, or community representatives-- can currently grasp the scope of the changes in the new draft code. There must be a comparison document—comparing the current code to the new draft code—given to the public so that people can understand what is proposed.
2. While an expanded, more flexible, zoning “tool kit” is certainly a desirable goal, the more changes there are to the existing code, the less likely a County-wide sectional map amendment will survive judicial scrutiny unless extraordinary steps are taken to provide property owners throughout the County with clearly presented notices of the proposed changes to their property rights and expectations, as well as meaningful opportunities to be heard on those changes.
3. Numerous changes in uses in the R-90 and R-60 zones--Julie points out that there are numerous changes in the uses that are allowed in the small lot zones. Currently, there are approximately 67 uses that are either Permitted or Special Exceptions in these zones. The draft rewrite proposes to delete over 60 of those Permitted and Special Exception uses, and to add at least 25 new Permitted, Limited (new category) or Conditional (replaces Special Exception) uses to the R-60 and R-90 zones. The sheer volume of changes in uses in the R-90 and R-60 zones will complicate the conversion process as both a practical and legal matter.
4. The draft proposes Incompatible new Agriculture-related uses, as well as Incompatible new “General Building” uses.
5. There are changes to the methodology for Measuring Heights in Small-Lot Zones. The current code contains provisions for the measurement of height that reflect careful craftsmanship to address the “mansionization” problems in down-County areas such as Bethesda and Chevy Chase. Why create uncertainty and reopen an old controversy?
6. There are insufficient “Neighborhood Compatibility” Protections for Small-Lot Zones.
7. There are insufficient protections in the new “Floating Zones” for Small-Lot Neighborhoods.
8. The proposed code includes a provision that allows the Planning Board to Ignore Master and Sector Plan Recommendations when circumstances allegedly change.
The bottom line is that citizens need to be concerned about the proposed new code in terms of how it will impact their neighborhoods, and, more importantly, how it will impact their own property. We need to make sure that citizens have a meaningful way to participate as the Rewrite moves forward.
Meredith
Neighborhood Montgomery
A Neighborhood Network for Sensible Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/neighborhood-montgomery
I am sending you Julie Davis’ statement to the Planning Board about the Zoning Rewrite’s adverse impact on the small lot zones (R-90 and R-60). Julie’s statement was submitted for the Planning Board’s hearing on October 4th on new residential zones, and it makes for important reading. Here’s a brief summary of her major points:
1. No one—not the Board, developers, zoning lawyers, or community representatives-- can currently grasp the scope of the changes in the new draft code. There must be a comparison document—comparing the current code to the new draft code—given to the public so that people can understand what is proposed.
2. While an expanded, more flexible, zoning “tool kit” is certainly a desirable goal, the more changes there are to the existing code, the less likely a County-wide sectional map amendment will survive judicial scrutiny unless extraordinary steps are taken to provide property owners throughout the County with clearly presented notices of the proposed changes to their property rights and expectations, as well as meaningful opportunities to be heard on those changes.
3. Numerous changes in uses in the R-90 and R-60 zones--Julie points out that there are numerous changes in the uses that are allowed in the small lot zones. Currently, there are approximately 67 uses that are either Permitted or Special Exceptions in these zones. The draft rewrite proposes to delete over 60 of those Permitted and Special Exception uses, and to add at least 25 new Permitted, Limited (new category) or Conditional (replaces Special Exception) uses to the R-60 and R-90 zones. The sheer volume of changes in uses in the R-90 and R-60 zones will complicate the conversion process as both a practical and legal matter.
4. The draft proposes Incompatible new Agriculture-related uses, as well as Incompatible new “General Building” uses.
5. There are changes to the methodology for Measuring Heights in Small-Lot Zones. The current code contains provisions for the measurement of height that reflect careful craftsmanship to address the “mansionization” problems in down-County areas such as Bethesda and Chevy Chase. Why create uncertainty and reopen an old controversy?
6. There are insufficient “Neighborhood Compatibility” Protections for Small-Lot Zones.
7. There are insufficient protections in the new “Floating Zones” for Small-Lot Neighborhoods.
8. The proposed code includes a provision that allows the Planning Board to Ignore Master and Sector Plan Recommendations when circumstances allegedly change.
The bottom line is that citizens need to be concerned about the proposed new code in terms of how it will impact their neighborhoods, and, more importantly, how it will impact their own property. We need to make sure that citizens have a meaningful way to participate as the Rewrite moves forward.
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