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!
21 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.
@2:04 Pay attention as your own premise favors increased density so arguing that the special exception permission would be the same as asking for a larger SF structure means you forgot what you said in your 5:55 lecture. The council along with the rubber stamps in park and planning are predisposed to grant the type of social engineering that profits those " hiigher density" developers who in turn contribute to those in power. You guys are in charge and as in the real current crime wave in BCC, be honest and own it.
Own what? I rent an apartment, and would like to have more options for me and others to rent close to a walkable downtown. I would like my rent to be reasonable for what it offers. Allowing a slight increase in multifamily duplex, triplex and even townhouses, row houses and even small apartments in a very small subset of the county in very specific single family zoning, with frontage on wide three or more lane roads seems like a good first step. My earlier posts described how these multifamily homes can be no closer and no taller than existing adjacent single family homes can be to each other. Whether this creates more affordable housing is yet to be seen, but I disagree with Robert’s suggestion that these changes substantially increase previous lot coverage and induce storm water and flooding problems. It’s just another scare tactic by folks that do to want to see anything but single family homes in their backyards, side yards or even across the street.
8:00: I would say that many people make the biggest investment of their lives in a home, in a particular neighborhood they chose, with the full and reasonable expectation that they would never have to see anything but single family homes in their backyards, side yards, or even across the street. If people want an urban, dense environment, which can absolutely be a positive and outstanding choice, they can choose to live in such an area like downtown Bethesda or Silver Spring. But having such an environment forced upon people who chose otherwise, by developers and government for the sole purpose of profit, is a gross violation of the social contract.
Interesting that someone like 8:00 with no skin in the game so to speak as a renter backs higher density through zoning when it simply favors developers and won't address any affordability issues. Like the moron who said that nobody needs parking in their building logic escapes their grasp.
Nobody needs parking in their building if there is a nearly empty county parking deck 66’ away. People who live in these tiny apartments should not have to bear the added cost that the developer would likely charge, to have extremely expensive underground onsite parking. This is one simple way to increase the amount of more affordable housing in Bethesda.
Hollow arguments from someone who doesn't even own property in Bethesda yet prays at the altar of the council for zoning changes. Affordable housing in Bethesda/Chevy Chase is an oxymoron.
Ask anyone who owns a condo in a building where HOC owns even one unit to see where the problems are. You and your council masters aren't qualified to be dog catcher. Parking blindness aside, saying that a multifamily build replacing a single family structure will occupy the same envelope thereby not increasing non-permiable surfaces displays total ignorance to reality.
When you grow up and take on some mortgage responsibility, get back to us.
Once again, there is nothing in the ZTA that decreases building setbacks, increases allowable building height, or decreases lot coverage in any way. The only thing that changes is the number of allowable residences on a given lot in a very small subset of the county. I guess you don’t fully understand geometry and math, and believe that three 1000 SF triplex units are somehow larger than two 1500 SF duplex units or a 3000 SF single family detached home. It’s all a 3000 SF volume of living space, just more or less front doors.
Alas, I spent 40 years paying off mortgages, so I am well aware that it is an excellent way to build wealth. Especially if you do much of the sweat equity of massive home remodeling oneself. I also fully understand how expensive single family homes are to own or rent in this area. That’s why at this time in my life, I choose to rent. Having done the math, I can live in a walkable downtown for less than buying a condo in the same area of the same quality. I also enjoy the much more social lifestyle of living in a multifamily building and sharing a wide variety of common areas, lounges, fitness centers, and roof terraces compared to the isolation of a single family home, on a large lot, located far from a walkable downtown. I bet your residence does not have a fitness center with 20 pieces of equipment, two story high lobby and lounges, and a roof terrace with multiple grills, an outdoor fireplace and a fire pit. I bet your residence doesn’t have two restaurants on the ground level either.
Don’t assume someone who rents is some form of a second class citizen. Even folks that utilize the MPDU program, live perfectly along side of folks in market-rate apartments.You seem to believe that affordable housing in B/CC is an oxymoron, but apparently offer no possible ideas to make things more equitable.
At the current price of rents in Bethesda, apartment dwellers can hardly be called second-class! In my reading of the ZTA text, and it is in largely-incomprehensible gibberish like most legislation, there are a number of loopholes presented in the form of "if," "unless," etc. That's before we even consider consolidated lots. Having said that, my suspicion is we will mostly see $2.5 million duplexes, as they will be exempt from the MPDU requirement. It really depends on who the specific developers behind the curtain are on this, and you can be assured they are there and directing this push - and the ZTA language - to permit the product(s) they intend to build.
Because you're a mouthpiece for the council AND a renter simply implies you have nothing to lose by parroting zoning changes that will never affect your equity that many have been paying into for years. Nothing more. You never addressed how your bosses will likely push for approval of special exceptions of setbacks, in particular rear setbacks for ADU's, instead you say it's the same as asking for a larger single family dwelling. Strawman argument but hey if nobody challenges a lie, the equivalence is justified.
BTW, the MPDU program is not the same thing as an HOC tenant. Go back to school. People with no skin in the game, (like you), could care less about property values which many people use as their retirement but I get it, not your problem.
3:13 uses the word equitable because they have no idea what hard work looks like. There is equal opportunity and there's equal outcomes, learn the difference.
In my 40 years of home ownership, the value of my 2 single family detached homes appreciated by about nine times my initial investment. Of course I poured a ton of sweat equity and refinancing in those houses to see that gain. As I commented earlier, it’s one of the best ways to build wealth, assuming at some point, you are willing to cash in your equity, invest the proceeds and rent a nice apartment. I am frustrated that so many in MoCo can not easily do the same as the cost of housing and renting are so high. My comments here are only intended to add to the discussion of how housing in all forms can be made more affordable to all.
So you got yours, so now everyone else can go fish? It's so hypocritical to speak about affordability when your answer to rising prices, (that your side caused), is to raise the minimum wage. In your years on this planet, basic economics is something that the left has never understood as everything is a zero-sum-gain and keeping the poor on the drug of entitlements helps you, (and the idiots in charge of this county/state), sleep at night. A sad and selfish commentary.
Still haven't explained your contention that developers can get a special exception for expansion of a single family build just as easily as the developer building a higher density project on a standard lot, (like R200/100). Were you on leave when they discussed this subject at the council meeting?
Post a Comment