Source: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/5760/montgomerys-zoning-issues-part-1-complicated-zoning/
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 15:25:01
Document Index: 31538926

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2']

Montgomery's zoning issues, part 1: Complicated zoning - Greater Greater Washington
ZoningMontgomery's zoning issues, part 1: Complicated zoningby Matt Johnson • May 11, 2010 3:21 pmRecently, I discussed the effort underway in Montgomery County to rewrite an aging zoning code. Over three decades, the code has grown unwieldy and hard to use. Thirty-three years of additions and amendments has left the code with a mess of outdated provisions, orphaned words, and a baffling table of permitted uses. Growth in pages of zoning code over time.Many of the problems with the code stem from shortsightedness and the simple march of time. Text amendments and new zones were added without regard to the goals and intent of the code. As older zones fell into disuse, they were not refined or removed. At the same time, planners devised new zones for many of the master plans.
Among the most well-known aspects of any zoning code is the large array of zones themselves. In 1977, the county had 41 zones. Today, we have 120 zones, including 15 overlay zones. At least 12 zones are totally unused, including six Planned Development zones which may never have been used. Some zones are similar to other zones, and thus are barely used. Furthermore, the creation of mainly single-use, special-purpose zones has contributed to the proliferation. The H-M zone, for instance, was created for hotels and motels. But hotels and motels are permitted by right in 10 other zones. In fact, only two of Montgomery County's hotels are even in the H-M zone. That zone takes up just 21 acres, well under 0.1 percent of the county's land area.
Similarly, the mixed use, commercial, and central business district zones make up only 1.3% of the county's land, but account for over 20% of the county's zones. On the other hand, the Agricultural Reserve takes up almost 38% of the county's land, but is made up of just one zone: RDT.
Several zones are almost identical in composition. R-150 and R-200 are both low density residential zones, and have very little differences between them. While R-200 makes up 13% of the county's area, R-150 makes up only 0.4%. Simplifying our zones is one step we are working on to make the code easier to use. In a future installment, I'll talk about our thoughts on zones. It is clear that development in the county will increasingly be located in infill situations where the current standards may prevent good infill development. The new zoning code will help create building and land typologies that will result in predictable infill development.
Matt Johnson works for the Montgomery County Planning Department.4 commentsTags: Maryland, Montgomery, zoning update
Related posts:Montgomery zoning solutions, part 1: Restructuring zones (Jul 13, 2010)Montgomery's zoning issues, part 2: Uses (May 12, 2010)Montgomery's zoning issues, part 3: Complexity & confusion (May 17, 2010)Montgomery zoning solutions, part 2: Mixed-use zones (Jul 14, 2010)Montgomery rewriting 33-year-old zoning code (Apr 20, 2010)Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board. CommentsAdd a comment »Is this one of the chief reasons most developers say it is difficult to build projects in MoCo? That and the intense NIMBY crowd and difficult Planning Board. Those were the chief reasons I was aware of.
by Mike on May 12, 2010 7:21 am • link • report
Wow. That is confusing just to read as presented by someone that knows the topic.
As a farce I'll say why were the last 2 generations so lazy?? What they did sounded like good ideas to them? WTG grandpa.
More seriously, I'd imagine that most land uses could be boiled down into a small number of supertypes, probably around 5 or so. Then if there were subtypes within each type the zone could be refined, but the subtypes should be defined only with clear, strict, and hard conditions. One subtype should be clearly distinct from another within its supertype and between supertypes. I hope it doesn't need to be said that no zone could be cast as a supertype.
I also think in planning documents for areas that zoning changes should only be allowed in the upward direction. If there's a plan for a city/area then each zone defined should have a default zone and 2 optional zones it could turn into, but they are only zones in the upward direction. Meaning more mixed use, more dense, and more transit. Never downward toward more single use, more isolated, and more disconnected (ala cul de sacs and dead end streets).
by James on May 12, 2010 7:56 am • link • report
Proliferation of zones and overlays is an indicator that the underlying code is not robust. I made this point before the DC Zoning Commission in 2007, when they began the process of considering what to do about the Zoning Code in light of the then new (2006) DC Comprehensive Plan.
I make the point that planning and zoning actions are supposed to produce greater quality of life. And that when they don't, which is often, we need to look back at the processes and structures of planning and zoning to determine why positive outcomes aren't generated.
There is a constant and real need to continually address process and system. It's not done very much.
by Richard Layman on May 12, 2010 8:28 am • link • report
Wow, a government office that seems to be proposing reasonable and boring things in stead of divisive and outrageous bullcrap. Fantastic. +1 for MaJo in MoCo.
by Jasper on May 12, 2010 9:31 am • link • report