How is allowing a wider variety of buildings in our area “cookie cutter”? Seems
to me that only allowing single-family detached houses to exist (with the few
exceptions grandfathered in) is cutting cookies with only a single cutter.
There are a number of houses in the historic district that, if they had two
front doors instead of one (because they are large and have deep porches), it
would be hard to notice.
I have rented a floor in a 2-family house. I am interested in hearing what
damage I did to my neighborhood then. Please tell me how I harmed the people in
my neighborhood then who lived in single-family houses there.
I know language is directed at “slumlords”, but I assume it’s the people who we
are trying to exclude. Are they “slumlords” if higher-income people live there?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 5, 2021, at 4:29 PM, George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Henry,
The Thrive 2050 plan and the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative do not
only propose changes for Takoma Park, or only for east of Rock Creek Park.
They are proposed to be adopted countywide, with greater densities proposed
close to all Metro, Purple Line, and MARC stations, including those on the
west leg of the Red Line.
Regards,
George Leventhal
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Henry Allen <hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:08 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: [PEN] TAKOMA AWAKE: PLANNING BOARD PROPOSES MAJOR
DENSITY INCREASES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Why is it that when the county wants to increase density and diversity it
looks east of Rock Creek Park?
Could it be that the county sees east-of-the park Montgomery as
unfashionably middle-class, lacking in political power and poor by
comparison?
That’s why Takoma Park was once plagued by illegal apartments — we were
nobodies and the county didn’t think it had to enforce its own zoning here.
That’s why the federal government wanted to put the proposed Northeast
Expressway through my back yard. That’s why the county wanted to tear down
the big school on Piney Branch Road until we fought them off.
Is the county looking to increase density and diversity in Chevy Chase or
Potomac? Is there any thought of condemning one of the many exclusive
private golf courses that attract the rich to west-of-the-park Montgomery?
Of course not. Those people are rich. They spend their money precisely
to escape diversity and density. And we dare not infringe on them.
You say we’re a “transit-rich” environment. But wait — west-of-the-park
Montgomery is even more transit rich! Count up the Metrorail stations.
As it happens, I agree with Frances Phipps’s recommendation that we
build on the old Adventist hospital campus, and on the properties near New
Hampshire Ave. that our tax dollars have purchased.
I’ve lived here for 44 years. I thought I was safe by now from these
depredations. Only one problem: we live east of the park. So we may have to
fight yet again.
Henry Allen
New York Ave.
On Oct 5, 2021, at 3:08 PM, Dvidutis ("dvidutis")<image001.jpg>
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks to Frances on Holly for this very thoughtful analysis.
Many of us remember when most of the larger homes in Takoma Park were
divided into rental units and owners were not required to live in them.
It was the era of slum lords, property neglect, and exploitation by
unscrupulous landlords and their get-rich-quick-and-lazily via Section 8
housing opportunities.
TP code enforcement was done by previous appointment. Many was the time my
scumbag neighbor moved the stove out of his basement in time for inspection
and then back again into an illegal apartment.
I don't believe we want to return to that.
I believe it's a mistake to think that people without means today don't
aspire to a single family home. They do. Many don't want apartments. So
why are we bent on eliminating that housing stock?
There is lots of dense housing one stop away at the Silver Spring metro
stop. Lots and lots. Plenty. And still building.
We have high rise apartments on Maple Avenue within walking distance of the
Takoma metro. That allows for density with a bit of breathing room. And
greenery.
We are not Fort Totten. Close-in residential development definitely
improved that station, and now it looks neighborly and welcoming.
We don't need that. We already have it.
Do not force cookie-cutter solutions on Takoma Park. It's lazy and
irresponsible. There are solutions, but this focus is wrong. Frances on
Holly is right.
Diana Vidutis
Piney Branch Road
-----Original Message-----
From: Lorraine Pearsall <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 2:37 pm
Subject: [north-takoma] Fwd: [PEN] TAKOMA AWAKE: PLANNING BOARD PROPOSES
MAJOR DENSITY INCREASES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Dear Neighbors,
I am forwarding a very detailed analysis of this issue by Frances Phipps. I
thought some of you may be interested.
Lorraine
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
Dear Neighbors: The following discussion is long, for which I apologize,
but it directly affects you, your neighborhood, and your property.
Montgomery County is presenting the issue of “Attainable Housing” as a
simple issue. It is not. It has many components and ramifications which I
have tried to identify and explain below.
OVERVIEW:
The Montgomery County Council and its Planning Board are in agreement that
major density increases are needed for residential zones – including the
single family zone. There are three zoning initiatives underway currently
which share this goal of increasing density and housing types. They are:
Thrive Montgomery 2050; Downtown Silver Spring and Adjacent Communities
Plan; and, The Attainable Housing Strategy Initiative. While proposals are
still in draft and may change this autumn, their essence is clear:
“to spur development of more diverse types of housing in Montgomery” by
encouraging greater density “by right”. Specifically that includes
allowing duplexes and triplexes by right in R-40, R-60, and R-200 zones and
quadplexes in Priority Housing Districts. The owner is not required to
reside on the property. Much of Takoma Park is zoned R-60, single family
zoning.
Additionally, for those areas near transit, i.e. Priority Housing
Districts, there will be a new “optional method of development” to
facilitate the changes above as well as larger multifamily such as cottage
courts and apartment buildings through lot consolidation and the reduction
or elimination of current parking requirements. Takoma Park is designated
as a Priority Housing District.
Since 1928 when zoning was adopted in Montgomery County and revised in
1958, the goal of single family zoning has been the careful creation of
individual dwelling units subject to regulations designed to ensure
compatibility and character of the neighborhood, with public input and
review. The Attainable Housing Strategy’s goal is to induce construction of
differing housing types with greater density by decreasing development
standards, reducing constraints, eliminating the requirement for
compatibility and character, and eliminating public review and comment.
THE COMPONENTS OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY:
The major components of this strategy are:
- Owners of lots zoned for single family homes will be allowed to
build duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes “by right.” This means that there
is no Planning Board review or opportunity for community comment. You are
not even required to inform your neighbors.
- There is a desire, but no commitment, that new buildings will be
“house scale” or compatible to the existing neighborhood.
- A “Pattern Book” is being developed for the design of certain
multi-family units. This would replace the current system that requires
Planning staff review and approval of proposed new housing. It is not yet
clear if the Planning Board will approve the use of the proposed Pattern
Book. The Pattern Book, if adopted, deals only with the volume and mass of
the proposed development within an increased footprint. It does not deal
with issues of style or compatibility but rather how to accomplish as much
density in the differing housing types.
- There will be a new approval process for the development of
“middle density housing” that is more than four units, including small
apartment buildings of 3-4 stories, and assemblage of multiple lots in
Priority Housing Districts. It has not been decided if Planning Board
approval will be required or if community input is going to be allowed.
- There is encouragement of large-scale developments on major
corridors as part of an area’s Master Plan process.
- Properties within 300 feet of any parcel zoned CR (Commercial
Residential) may be rezoned to allow dense development such as apartments
and stacked units of 4 stories.
- On-site parking requirement for newly constructed multi-family
homes is reduced.
Finally, “by right” means there is no need to inform your neighbor of your
intent to rebuild. Just as there is no need for a developer to tell you he
intends to buy and tear down your house. He may even be in the process of
assembling several properties for construction of an apartment building.
WHY THIS EFFORT?
The justification may vary, but most agree that more housing will be
needed in the future and that much of the current housing stock is far too
expensive for large segments of the community. This is a fact and the
situation we find ourselves in today. The goal is to diversify housing
types in the hopes of increasing diversity in the neighborhoods.
However, unfortunately many proponents of The Attainable Housing Strategy
point to single family zoning as solely responsible for this situation and
castigate these communities as “exclusionary” and racist. While that may
clearly apply to some communities, the reality is far more complex. The
role of real estate industry standards and procedures, including
appraisals, financing decisions, cost of materials and the impact of
cyclical effects play a significant role. The 2008 Recession has been and
continues to be a major force in the reduction of new housing construction.
And finally, there is to date, a century of strong public policy
establishing, endorsing and regulating single family zoning in Montgomery
County which has encouraged the construction and maintenance of single
family neighborhoods
WHAT IS ATTAINABLE HOUSING?
After struggling for months with the concept, initially including
“affordable” as a standard, the Planning Board’s current working definition
is “unsubsidized market rate housing that is appropriate and suitable for
the households that live there.” What this generic definition means is any
housing type at any price point for which there is a market demand is
“attainable.” Increased density and variety of housing types is the goal.
The hope is to create more ownership opportunities for more households and
diversifying communities by diversifying its housing stock. The goal is to
create “equity” for many who have not been able to participate in the
housing market. While this is laudable, it ignores the fact that there is a
parallel issue of “equity” for existing home owners for whom their house is
their major financial asset, bought under existing public policy, and whose
equity might be seriously impacted by this initiative. Moreover, this
Attainable Housing Strategy is not based on the lack of housing
availability, but rather on the lack of diversity in the “type” of housing
available. For example, in the Silver Spring study area, single family
housing makes up just 4% of all available units. And the most recent
residential vacancy rate (2019) in downtown Silver Spring, calculated
before many of the recently constructed apartment buildings came on line,
was 6% - a number which is considered desirable in terms of matching
turn-over with new renters.
There is the market reality. The Market Study on attainable housing which
was commissioned by the Montgomery County Planning Board this spring
concluded that land prices, particularly those in “transit rich” and “urban
in-fill areas” [Priority Housing Districts] are just too expensive to make
this initiative financially feasible in almost all cases. That fact,
combined with the cost of construction of multiple small units, makes the
proposal of generating multifamily units on a single family lot financially
unattractive. Moreover, the Study found that prices for the finished
product would be in the range of $750,000 to $850,000. This price range is
already unattainable for those who have been unable to enter the market.
This Market Study was loudly criticized by the Planning Chairman, unhappy
with these findings, for “just looking at the economics.” A remarkable
comment for a study whose sole function is to “just look at the economics.”
Lest we think the Planning Department’s market study findings are unique,
we need only to look at the recent analysis by the Terner Center for
Housing at UC Berkeley regarding the just approved California legislation
which allows construction of more than one housing unit on single family
lots. The Terner Center concluded that the extra construction wouldn’t
make financial sense in most place – with only about 5.4% of all possible
projects in the entire State penciling out. And, in Austin, Texas, for
example, Attainable or Missing Middle housing accounts for only 2% of all
home construction in the last decade. The few other examples of the
jurisdictions which have endorsed this approach in the past several years
have had a similar experience.
Finally, while attainable housing strives to create “equity” for a new
cohort of home owners, the reality is that most of what is being proposed,
such as triplexes, quadraplexes, small and large apartment buildings, will
be rental.
OTHER MARKET REALITIES:
There are other market realities which play an almost larger role in
housing development than zoning.
TThe Role of Appraisals:
a. The basic foundation of establishing value by the appraisal
process is based on “comparables”. That is – how does your house compare
with others in terms of square footage, number of beds/baths, quality of
kitchen and other amenities? It is a carefully calibrated system to locate
the value of your property and is the basis on which most lending
institutions make a loan. Introducing a distinctly different housing type
built with distinctly different development regulations into an existing
single family neighborhood will affect the valuation not only of the new
unit, but of the existing ones. Appraisers are never criticized if the
appraisal is “conservative.” If a new multifamily is judged to be
disruptive of the neighborhood, your valuation may decline.
b. Uncertainty stymies investment. Current Montgomery Real Estate
contracts require disclosure of known potential changes in a neighborhood
and of any known planning changes. If a potential buyer is concerned that
the neighborhood he likes may soon be characterized by new duplexes and
triplexes when he wants a single family neighborhood, he may be reluctant
to buy. Your home insurance may also be affected if a triplex or small
apartment building is developed next door.
2) The Role of Lenders:
a) Banks/lenders are, by nature, risk adverse and conservative. They are
usually reluctant to lend unless all signals are green, and even then
sometimes require additional information or impose additional conditions.
b) Residential lenders are happiest when a housing unit is comparable if
not identical to those around it. That has been a major impetus for cookie
cutter suburban development since the 1950s.
c) Commercial lenders are most comfortable with large developers with a
track record. They often regard small developers with extreme caution.
Small developers are the ones most likely to try to develop the in-fill
multifamily units being proposed.
d) Attainable Housing is a new, untested commodity. It is unlikely to
attract large developers because there is little or no profit margin, and
construction of in-fill is far more labor and cost intensive than new
construction on undeveloped land.
It is for these reasons that the Planning Board has adopted a posture of
eliminating, as far as possible, the regulatory and participatory
constraints of new development within established neighborhoods, such as
reducing set-backs, eliminating design review for compatibility and
character, allowing lot consolidation, and no longer requiring the owner to
live on the property. The issues regarding appraisal processes and lending
reluctance have not been addressed. Both these industries will need to
dramatically change their cultures if they are to participate in the
development of Attainable Housing. One of the few inducements that hasn’t
been mentioned is for jurisdictions to offer subsidies for construction of
such housing types. However, the crucial decision has been made that the
public sector’s role will be to “induce” and then stand back and let the
private market drive the process with little control. This is truly a
revolutionary approach. We’ll have to see if that works. There was one
sentence in an earlier planning staff report that caught my eye which
stated: “If we get only one multi-unit built, it will be worth the effort.”
WHAT ARE PRIORITY HOUSING DISTRICTS?
Priority Housing Districts are defined as those areas with proximity to
transit stations and to the Thrive Growth 2050 Corridors: “a straight line
buffer of 1 mile from the Red Line, Purple Line, and MARC Stations, plus
500 ft. from a BRT Corridor plus River Road and Connecticut Ave.” These
areas are the top focus of the Attainable Housing Strategy and would in
addition to duplexes and triplexes allow quadplexes and reduce parking
requirements. Takoma Park is a Priority Housing District. In general,
these districts are concentrated along Maryland’s border with the District
of Columbia and Eastern Montgomery County following the Red Line north, as
well as including Clarksburg and Germantown, as well as Bethesda and Chevy
Chase. A map of these districts is found in the draft of Thrive Montgomery
2050.
In the past, concentrating housing in transit-rich areas was planning
gospel. However, Covid may have permanently changed this equation. Is this
connection between housing and transportation as relevant when commuting to
work is no longer standard, office buildings have been emptied out, and
working from home has become the new normal? It is surprising to find that
this question has not been seriously considered. Given the focus on
transit, inducing multifamily construction in the northern and western
areas – where housing lots are generally much larger and could more easily
accommodate multi-family housing – is given no priority.
WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY?
They are many and sometimes in conflict. It is not a zero sum game. On
the plus side, the focus on Priority Housing Districts adjacent to mass
transportation corridors could, with more density, make more efficient use
of existing public transit and help reduce congestion and greenhouse gases,
carbon production and combat climate change. This is of major benefit. To
this end, Priority Districts are largely concentrated on the eastern
portion of the County and is absent in northern and western segment which
is less densely populated.
On the other hand, in terms of environmental impacts, larger lot coverage
will mean a reduction in green/open space on individual lots, will probably
require the clearing of the site, the cutting of trees, and will increase
the issues of water retention and storm water run-off. Some have
characterized this result as creating a successive series of heat sinks.
Since on-site parking requirements are reduced, there will be more
on-street parking and congestion on some of the older, narrower streets in
the districts. Some comments mention potential issues such as the need for
additional utilities to service these areas including new electrical and
water and sewer service, and the potential overcrowding of schools.
Finally, if demolition is required to construct new Attainable housing,
there is the environmental impact of demolition and of sending the debris
to a landfill. This could be partially mitigated if “deconstruction” not
demolition were required. There is a growing market for recycled wood,
older lighting fixtures, tiles and hardware. Demolished concrete can be
recycled as well. If this initiative goes through, this type of approach
should be considered. This approach has not been considered.
THE PATTERN BOOK:
Staff of the Planning Department is developing a “Pattern Book” for the
design of certain multi-family units. This would replace the current
system that requires Planning staff review and approval of proposed new
housing. It is not yet clear if the Planning Board will approve the use
of the proposed Pattern Book. The Pattern Book, if adopted, deals only with
the volume and mass of the proposed development within an increased
footprint. It does not deal with issues of style or compatibility but
rather how to accomplish as much density in the differing housing types.
On the plus side, the use of such a Pattern Book may constrain some of the
potential excesses to which developers are prone.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT?
The following is based on a conversation reported to me which occurred with
the Planning Staff Director, Gwen Wright on how Attainable Housing zoning
might affect the Historic District. (I have seen nothing in writing on this
issue) It was said that while the Attainable Housing zoning will apply to
the Historic District, all additions and new development within the
Historic District will continue to be reviewed according to the established
criteria of the Historic Preservation Commission. Director Wright does not
anticipate construction of large, independent houses on the same lot
within the HD. She does see encouraging compatible ADUs on the scale of
adjacent garages.
From this, I am assuming that style, compatibility, scale and character
will continue to be applied in the Historic District as well as the process
requirements of notification and ability by neighbors to comment. This, of
course, raises the issue of those properties just outside the HD and the
rights of notification, compatibility and public participation for these
owners.
MY PERSONAL ASSESSMENT:
There is a need to create a wider diversity of housing types – one that
will meet the financial and physical needs of young/single first time
buyers and older people who are looking to stay in the neighborhood in
smaller units. In earlier times, especially in the 1930s and 40s when
“complete neighborhoods” were being constructed in new urban/suburban
areas, there was often a compatible combination of small multifamily
buildings with single family structures. In fact, Takoma Park, from its
inception, has had several scattered examples of this, especially in the
Historic District, along Maple Ave., Carroll Ave., and elsewhere. However,
it is important to emphasize that the developers of that time considered
style, scale, compatibility and character as extremely important criteria
in this development.
I believe that unfortunately this Attainable Housing approach is an
abdication of public responsibility. As a goal, it is aspirational. As a
policy, it is neither effective nor practical. As proposed, it could be
highly disruptive of established neighborhoods and will not truly generate
the sufficiency of housing or the diversity that is its goal. As a policy
and a process, it washes its hands of public responsibility for outcomes
and abruptly revolutionizes a century of housing practice. It turns all
implementation over to the private market and hopes for the best. Zoning
reform alone is simply not enough. When the public sector wishes to
accomplish a major goal, it has always needed to put money behind it. If
the Planning Board and the County Council are truly serious about this
initiative, the would attach either property tax incentives or direct
subsidies to accomplish their goal.
What should be done? Well, I suggest that the County Council and the
Planning Board stop drinking the cool aid and go back to the traditional
hard work of identifying specific areas where new housing types are both
doable and desirable and put money and tax incentives behind it. In Takoma
Park we have two significant areas come to mind where such housing would be
welcome: the Adventist Hospital site and along New Hampshire Ave.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
Well, I hope you think carefully about these issues and make up your own
mind. You should read the planning staff reports that are on-line as well
as the draft Thrive Montgomery 2050. I believe we all have a role in
creating how our community looks, functions and moves into the future. I’ve
said before, there are no accidentally beautiful and functioning
neighborhoods. You should communicate with your County and Takoma Park
elected representatives and let them know what you think. The County’s
final reports are due out in October.
Frances on Holly
<image001.jpg>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
