The Montgomery County Council speaks loudly and often about climate change and the environment, but their warmed-over Reaganomics policies betray their true values. This has been revealed once again as the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has commissioned new flood zone maps that show much more of Montgomery County's land area to be at risk of flash flooding than the standard U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. Several of the areas highlighted on the new maps experienced significant flooding during an unusually-heavy rain event last month. But just four days after MWCOG released its new flood danger maps to elected officials in MoCo and elsewhere in the region, the Montgomery County Council went ahead and approved new zoning rules that will increase the amount of impervious surface area in many of the very neighborhoods identified as now being at high risk of flash flooding.
Under the Reaganesque Thrive 2050/"More Housing N.O.W." zoning text amendment approved by a majority of the Council on July 22, 2025, the allowed increase in impervious surfaces are almost entirely permitted in the downcounty areas like Bethesda and Silver Spring. That is where the greatest flooding risks are located. Despite having access to this new flood danger report and maps on four days earlier on July 18, our "green" County Council bulldozed ahead, and voted to approve a massive increase in impervious surfaces in the very areas at highest risk. Single-family home neighborhoods where houses are currently surrounded by soil and grass lawns will now be open to four-story apartment buildings.
Just in the River Road corridor of Bethesda alone, the properties where the greater impervious surfaces will be allowed are within the flood zones of at least three major streams. Of course, the increased flooding we have already been experiencing in Montgomery County over the last decade is in large part due to the massive development approved this century by the County Council. This is the same reason we have an overpopulation of deer and even wandering bears in the downcounty, as these animals have been forced out of their forests that have fallen to the chainsaws and bulldozers of our supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics County Council. The same Council that swears by the Laffer Curve - but only when it applies to their developer sugar daddies.
The reckless decision by the Council could have ramifications in the 2026 elections. Councilmembers Evan Glass and Andrew Friedson voted for the ZTA to increase impervious surfaces in flood danger zones, and they are both running for County Executive. One of their opponents in the Democratic primary is their colleague, Councilmember Will Jawando, who did not vote for the ZTA. Jawando could now use this scandal as another point to differentiate himself from his Reagan Democrat rivals. And Councilmembers running for reelection will have to answer to voters who might raise the topic on the campaign trail, to explain why they voted to put their current and future constituents at greater risk of flood damage and death. Heckuva job, Brownie!
9 comments:
I don’t believe that recent zoning changes increase the allowable lot coverage on any single family zoned lot. Required front, side and rear setbacks and minimum open space requirements have not been decreased. Yes, more living units on a given lot may increase, but not the amount of lot coverage and hence impervious surfaces. Also the allowable massing and height also have not been increased. So physically no increase in size in any way. Yes, perhaps a few more front doors and covered porches are allowed, within the existing an unchanged allowable building envelope.
🤮🤮🤮
5:47: If you look at the size of the townhomes and apartment buildings shown in the ZTA, these are way bigger than a single-family house. The apartment building renderings show extensive paved driveways that conflict with the existing law on paved surfaces.
If you look at the actual ZTA on pages 13 and 14, you will see that all the setbacks, allowable heights and lot coverages are the same for detached single family housing, duplexes, triplexes and apartments on impacts zones are exactly the same. No more massing is allowed on any given single lot. Of course if multiple adjacent lots are combined, the interior side lots would not be required, and a larger structure could be entitled, but it could be no closer or taller to existing adjacent remains single family detached houses.
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Attachment-A_-ZTA-25-02-Intro-Packet.pdf
8:39: I would look at pages 7-10 of the final ZTA, which shows structures much larger than SFHs and large accessory structures.
You’ve got MCCDS - MoCo Cartel Derangement Syndrome.
Yes, as I have stated, the building massing might grow if multiple adjacent lots are combined. This is even true for a builder who buys two smaller homes, and replaces them with a single larger home. My point was the distance between the newly enabled projects and adjacent single family homes will not decrease, nor will the height of any new project increase beyond what was already permitted.
One can argue that four existing single family homes replaced with a series of attached townhouses will change the character of neighborhood, which some folks might not like. Others, like myself, might like the variety and believe density to be appropriate if it means more folks can live close to walkable downtowns and transit.
5:55 living in a liberal fantasy world as building townhouses on a single-family detached lot is all about increasing the price per square foot. Do you actually believe developers won't apply for, and get easily, special exceptions from MC planning, (and council for that matter), regarding setbacks?
FYI, Star Wars was a movie, not a documentary.
Why wouldn’t that same builder apply for and (according to 7:22 AM) easily get a special exception from MC planning (and council) to get reduced setbacks to greatly expand or build a new single family McMansion on the same lot? If all they want to do is increase the price per square foot, why not just go nuts and build a huge single family home that I suspect you would believe would also destroy the fabric of your quaint bit of suburban sprawl.
Post a Comment