2021.06.23 CSG Testimony on Planning Dept Preliminary Middle Housing Recommendations - Final

June 23, 2021 Montgomery County Planning Board 2425 Reedie Dr, 14th Floor Wheaton, MD 20902 Item 7 - Attainable Housing Strategies (Support) Testimony for June 24, 2021 Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager Thank you, Chair Anderson and Planning Commissioners. My name is Jane Lyons and I’m testifying on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.

We strongly support the direction of the Planning Department’s recommendations for more diverse housing typologies in Montgomery County, especially in places near transit, amenities, and jobs.

Inequitable, unsustainable land use patterns are a systemic problem at the root of some of our most difficult social issues. Montgomery County should not be a place where your zip code can predict your future income, health, or other life outcomes.

Middle housing zoning reform will not change neighborhoods overnight or solve all our housing challenges. Rather, smart land use decisions will lay the foundation for a better, more just society where people can find a place to live that fits their needs, their income, and provides access to opportunities. It will help Montgomery County become a place where more people can choose to live car-lite or car-free and drive less; a place where more people can start a family or age-in-place.

Please see below for our suggestions to make the staff’s recommendations even stronger: Ensure market feasibility: We need to make sure that these housing types can actually get built.

Thus, we are concerned that without modest changes to setbacks, height allowances, and lot coverage requirements, middle housing types will not be feasible and desirable to build.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether the Attainable Housing Optional Method (AHOM) will actually result in medium scale middle housing being built due to lot assemblage requirements.

Geographic targeting: We support by-right duplexes and triplexes in R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, but believe that R-200 zones are more often too far from activity centers and located in the Agricultural Reserve to allow for more dense housing types.

It is also unclear to us from the staff report where fourplexes and the new optional method are applicable. We support the optional method being allowed on properties within the Priority Housing

District that have frontage along one of the growth corridors, but it is unclear what is meant by “adjacent to certain Thrive identified Centers of Activity.” The optional method should be allowed within and around activity centers, not just on properties that are directly adjacent.

For example, the optional method should be applicable in the “adjacent communities” identified in the ongoing Silver Spring sector plan, not only the adjacent communities properties that are literally adjacent to the central business district. East Silver Spring is a great example of how large- and medium-scale middle housing can exist alongside single family detached homes.

We also have several critiques of the draft Thrive growth map upon which the Priority Housing District and other recommendations are based. These suggestions were previously included in our written Thrive 2050 testimony submitted to the County Council: ●

●

●

We are concerned about listing VIVA White Oak / FDA as a large activity center, given the absence of high-capacity transit access. All other large activity centers are supported by a Metrorail station.

We were surprised not to see Takoma Park listed as an activity center. Given Takoma Park’s high quality transit infrastructure and central location next to Washington, DC, Takoma Park should be listed as a large activity center.

Similarly, Long Branch, Takoma-Langley Crossroads, Lyttonsville, and the Connecticut Avenue Purple Line station area should all be listed as medium activity centers, given their proximity to jobs, transit, and amenities.

Limits on average unit size: Although we understand the good intention behind it, we are opposed to unit size maximums. It will be incredibly difficult to select the right maximum square footage, and will make development of middle housing types more complicated than necessary. If we want homes with more bedrooms, it will be important to not place a cap on square footage that makes this impossible. It is not clear that requiring an average unit size in the AHOM would actually allow for more three-bedroom units.

Parking: We support reduced parking minimums, especially near transit, although we believe that all parking minimums in the county should be eliminated. This would not mean that no parking would be built — instead, developers would be allowed to decide how much parking to provide based on market considerations.

New terminology: The staff report recommends creating a new building type called a Multiplex, defined as a building that contains three or four units of multi-unit living. However, if the proposal is to allow triplexes in most residential zones and fourplexes only in the Priority Housing District, then there should be a distinction between those housing types in the zoning code.

Subdivision: We strongly support making it easier to subdivide properties in order to encourage homeownership opportunities in middle housing types.

In closing, we appreciate the work that has been done on the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative regarding zoning recommendations, as well as the important homeowner- and community-focused catalyst policy and program recommendations. Many policies are needed to ensure housing attainability for all residents. Our housing crisis is multi-faceted and requires a range of solutions on the local, state, and federal levels, but Montgomery County must do all it can.

Thank you.