Good afternoon. It is March 31st. We're here for a planning housing and parks committee work session to discuss zoning text amendment 2502 workforce housing development standards. This is part of the more housing now new options for workers initiative that is being introduced and has been introduced by myself customer funding and Zollas as well as co-sponsored by council members, Lukey, council president Stewart, and council members, welcome. And... being introduced and has been introduced by myself, the Council for Funding and Zolles, as well as co-sponsored by Council members, Luki, Council President Stewart, and Council members, Thalcom, and sales. It was introduced on February 4th. We have gone through public hearing. We have a very robust packet that we're going to go through. I want to note that we are not here today to take votes. We're going to go through all the various items as part of the thoughtful and methodical approach that we have committed to. So votes will not be taken today. There won't be a recommendation that comes out of the committee after today, but we will begin the discussion and the conversation of the opportunity to ask questions to get follow-up from the various departments and agencies to follow-up with Council staff. Should there be questions and issues that we need to work our way through? I'll just note briefly, since we have talked quite a bit about this Zoning Text Amendment and this proposal, this was an effort to take a more focused and more targeted approach to weigh the various viewpoints that we had heard on recommendations that came from the planning department on conversations and community input as part of the unprecedented outreach that we did prior to any legislation being before us with listening sessions around the county, with a virtual listening session, with various meetings that several of us had within our own districts and our own communities and also throughout the county as well in conversations with our housing experts, including our non-profit housing providers who noted the emphasis and the opportunity along the quarters for really addressing the lack of housing. And this aspect of the proposal in particular really focuses and targets the who and the why, the why being that we have a housing crisis, that we have fewer housing options than we have needs in the community for housing, and particularly a complete dearth of housing for our workforce, for those who don't qualify for government subsidized affordable housing of which we've made huge huge strides, and I'm very proud of the work that the council, and the county has undertaken, particularly over the last seven years, to address affordable housing. But those are government subsidized programs at the federal, the state, and the county level. And we couldn't possibly subsidize our way out of these challenges. And those who can afford market rate housing, which today is far too expensive for the overwhelming majority, the vast majority of our county residents and of people who we need to grow our county. And we see report after report economic and moral dynamics of this challenge that we face, where we are losing people who otherwise should be moving here, where businesses are telling us that they can't recruit and retain their employees because of a lack of housing and because of a lack of housing options. We've seen it from the governor in the governor's reports. We've seen it in public data. We've seen it in the state of the economy report by the Comptroller and the Comptroller's Office. We've seen it in the Office of Legislative Oversight that demonstrates the loss of middle-income residents in Montgomery County and the loss of working-age residents throughout the State of Maryland. So this is an attempt to address it. It's one tool in the toolkit. It's one aspect of a broader proposal. And today is part of a methodical process that we're taking in order to address it, to go through the issues, to weigh the various viewpoints and to make our way through this effort. Let me turn it over to Councilmember Fonding Gonzales, who is the other co-lead on this. I'll open it up to Councilmember Jawanda, who's joined us virtually if he has any comments, and then turned over to Council staff. Miss Nidu, to walk us through a very robust packet with a lot for us to work through today. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Natalie Funningh on Solace. I'm very excited to be here today, talking about housing. It's an issue that we cannot avoid. We cannot follow the fear, tactics, that some people are pushing. It's if you're really a progressive, if you really love this county, if you really love this nation, you need to understand that we must be building more housing, especially homes for people who are in the lower bracket, right? And talking about homes that are due-plexes, triple-exes that get feed and actually meet the income level, the many people who are really living this county, especially homes near transit. And that's one of the amazing things that we have in this proposal. I want to thank my friend and chair Andrew Fittson for leading this effort with me. It has not been easy, but we're doing the right thing. Let me just remind you of that. And it has been a compromise. There things in this bill that I wish, you know, what a little different. I am all about making things by right, but it's a compromise. It's not my way or the highway. And we're taking, this is not a baby step. This is a big step. And I also want to thank the different departments that I see here, as CDPS, as the Department of Housing and Community Affairs. It takes a village to accomplish this and I want to thank before I forget, because you know I'm going to forget at the end. I want to thank our legal team and our economic analysis folks for helping us put this proposal together. Odoa, I think I have a lot of experience in these issues. I don't know at all. And if he had not been for you guys, there's no way we'll be here today. So I really mean it. Thank you. With that, I'm going to pass it back to Chair Fritz. Thank you very much. Not sure if Councillor Juano, if you wanted to make any comments, if you want, just put your hand up in text. Yeah. I would say a few words. Can you hear me okay? We can go ahead. Right. Appreciate that we're here today and I think one thing that is 100% clear is that all of us want more housing options in our community for individuals, for families, for young people that are just starting out the careers for our seniors. We want people to have safe, dignified, and affordable housing. I believe that is a consensus on the council and in our community. The questions, the many questions are, is how do we best get there? What's the most efficient and effective use of our resources? What are the best ways to produce that place that we want where everyone can afford to live here? Zoning is certainly a big part of that. I'll remind everyone that's watching and this committee that I was the first person on any council ever to come up with a housing zoning package. Back in 2020, as part of a more housing for more people package, back in 2020, that was rent stabilization paired with the zoning targeted zoning reforms near transit to allow for small impact, duplexes and triplexes near transit corridors. So conceptually, that does have a role to play in the many, many things that we need to do. But I also want to be clear that we're not, you know, I wish that would have gone forward. We would have had a lot of, a lot more data right now to talk about and we would have had more information but we are where we are. And the many residents from around the county who have pled with us and the council to provide a transparent process in decisions related to housing, including this CTA, to be deliberate, be very open in the work sessions. So I appreciate the approach to going through many of the items today. I think that's going to be really important and not rushing this we obviously Art, you know, mere days away from public hearings on the budget. We've got a lot going on We've got the attacks at the federal level So it's going to be important to be deliberate as we move through this very important process I want to thank LeVouou and for her work and working to answer a lot of questions from a lot of people. And Lisa planning and their team as well as Pam and Belou and Jim. And everyone's been working hard on this and many other issues. And so I just think that as I close here, I'm going to stay away from the, if you're progressive in one house that you got to do it my way, kind of language that I just heard. I just have a different approach on some of these things, and that's what we want. That's what we're here to do. We're here to talk about how do we get the housing for our community? And people can disagree on that. And I think that's what we need to talk about. And that's what we're here to do. And this is a piece of the puzzle for sure. But it's also something that's going to be important to be deliberate and transparent. And make sure it's really going to deliver the affordability and not have displacement and gentrification as that does an outweigh potential for the new housing. And so we're going to have to go through all those things and look forward to doing so over the next several sessions. So with that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Let me turn it over to Mr. Dough, express my appreciation for all of her hard work and efforts, not easy to be the zoning attorney here at the Council. So thank you for all of your work. And we turn it over to you to walk us through the packet. And thank you as quite a robust packet with a lot of issues that we will work through at the beginning today. Thank you, everyone. So the way the packet is set up, I divided, I've been collecting all the questions we've been receiving over time and divided them into eight big categories. So my recommendation is we just start going through it in order. I tried to start big and hit some of the bigger topics first. See what we get through as we approach end time. I can let you know if there's a more natural stopping point. But otherwise, I'll just go through the packet in order. Be fine. OK. So first, what the ZTA will do. So this CTA is noted by the sponsors. We'll allow duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and apartment buildings in four zones. It's the R40, R60, R90, and 200, along what are our major corridors. So Boulevard, downtown Boulevard, downtown Street, town center Boulevard, and controlled major highway. The way properties would be eligible for this CTA is if they front lot line, but the applicable corridor, but does have a very specific definition. I mean, you are right up against that corridor, that front lot line. Also the corridor has to be at least 100 feet wide and have three existing travel lanes. The maximum density is 1.25 FAR, and maximum height is 40 feet. We've heard a lot about affordability. The way that works for this CTA is 15% of the units with the minimum of 1 if it's a triplex must meet our workforce housing requirement which is at or below 120% average median income. There are many development standards those are all the tables you see there in the CTA. The goal of those development standards is to make sure that you're allowing these bigger building types but sticking to the existing lot coverages in that zone. This is what we mean when we say in fill development. And then also noting that this CTA is part of a large package. If you see the planning staff report, it puts all those pieces together. The council staff reports did not do that. If you'd like to look at the staff reports for the other pieces, there's a link to the website and you can pull up each CTA bill and SRA that is part of this package. As noted, we had a public hearing. It was technically two public hearings. We did a daytime and an evening public hearing on March 11th. I believe we had over 100 speakers. I think it was 112, so I said over 100. And then we've received hundreds of pieces of written testimony. The date was kept up until March 24th to make sure we received all those letters. All the testimony is summarized on page two of the staff report. Next is the impact statements, the planning board, unanimously recommended approval with some amendments. The way I handled the staff report is I discuss each amendment as we get to the relevant topic. We also received a climate assessment that noted minor to moderate negative and positive local impacts. And then lastly, the RESJ impact statement noted a small positive impact because it could benefit the replacement of market rate units with workforce housing. But the OLO did note two amendments related to racial equity and social justice, which I will address later in the report as well. So on page four, you have your list of categories that the staff reports divided into. It's general corridors, consolidation, affordability, development standards, state and federal law impacts, and then technical and other amendments. So starting right at the top with general, the first question was how much housing supply is needed based on what data. I'll be quick here. This is data taken from the Metropolitan, Washington, Council of Governments, what we call COG, and also looked into the planning department. We're about 422,000, 300 units needed by 2040. I know that there have been many fluctuations in this number, many corrections in this number. This committee has met with planning about local housing targets over the last year or two. Either way, whether the number goes up a little or down a little 2040 seems very far, but in terms of development, we'll come very fast just because of how long it takes to approve projects. Similarly, because we have this number, a question we're often asked is, okay, well then how many units will this CTA get you? I really, really wish that I could tell you every time I wrote the CTA how many projects we would get, we cannot. The hope here is that we change the zoning and you'll be able to get more units. Even if we can't tell you the exact number, the reason being most of these units are not built by the county, they are built by the private sector. Question three, another question we get a lot is the development pipeline. So the pipeline refers to projects that have been approved by the board but have not been fully built out yet. Since 2018, planning found about half of these have been constructed six years or later in 2024. And so I guess backing up a little to explain why projects were in the pipeline, because one question is often just build what's in the pipeline. The pipeline is based on validity periods, which is the time it takes to record a record flat. So some of the projects in the pipeline predate having expiration dates on those projects. So they might never be built but they're still in there because they just haven't expired yet. Second, the validity period's changed because the council has actually changed. I think since I've actually started the council has changed at least two or three times. The council will change it for many reasons including influences from the market. In addition to that, there are forces outside the county's control in terms of the pipeline, financing issues, market conditions, changes in property ownership. So all the numbers are very large, and of course there's a desire for all those to be built. There are many reasons that those projects might just have not gone through yet, which is why the sponsors introduce ZTAs and zoning changes to move other projects along. And most importantly, the planning department is now working on an analysis of what is in the pipeline so we can get a more detailed look and see if there's more ways to get some of those projects moving. Strangely not until question four is what is the ZTA process? I am not going to read this to you, but the important highlights here are that we always get a racial equity and social justice statement. The council always gets a climate assessment. There are no fiscal or economic impact statements for ZTAs and that a public hearing must be held 30 to 60 days after introduction and there's public hearing notice via newspaper on the website related to notice. There's been requests to send notices to everyone affected by the ZTA. That is not a council process for very many reasons. First we don't always know exactly what properties, what we did for this ZTA. There's a map and a table so you can see all the parcels that would be eligible. What does happen though is as soon as somebody files an application, both DPS and planning have notice requirements. So while the map and the table will show which parcels are eligible, if someone were to file an application, there would be additional notice sent to the neighbors as soon as they are thinking of doing that project. So that's where the notice would be triggered. It's just later on in the process, not at the zoning law stage. Okay, so moving to page seven, how these days are enforced. The zoning ordinance is enforced by DPS and then the planning board also has the authority to suspend and revoke site plan approvals. Next is the difference between a master plan and a ZTA because this is another question we have received. So a master plan provides detailed recommendations for a specific area. We also have functional and sector plans but I'll focus on master plans for this. And they do have a long public process, a lot of outreach. But what a ZTA does is it changes the specifics of a zone or the zones. So it can be more county-wide. And for example, if you were to do a master plan that did what this ZTA tried to do, you'd have to still do a ZTA to change what is actually allowed in an R40, R60, R90, R200. So often when you have a master plan you do end up with the ZTA as well. So those are the differences for why we do master plans for some things, but ZTA is for others. Okay, and now we are in section 2, corridors. So number eight is which corridors are included. So this is ETA is boulevards, downtown boulevards, downtown street, town center boulevard, and controlled major highway. You will see on page eight a definition for each of those. These definitions come from chapter 49, which is the street and roads chapter of the county code. And again, as noted, there's a link to a map online as well as a table. That lists different roadway segments that could be impacted by the CTA. And I believe this brings us to our very first proposed amendment, which is from the planning board asking about the removal of controlled highways. So, a controlled major highway is a road meant exclusively for through-movement of vehicles at a lower speed than a freeway. So, as noted in the staff report, a planning argument was that with the limited access to roadways to the control major highway designed for vehicle mobility, that these roadways may not be conducive for new or moderate density residential developments. There's about 27 of the 2,470 parcels that would be affected by this removal. Planning staff, sorry, Council staff included a table. It's a cut of the table that's attached to the staff report that shows all the controlled major highway segments The one council staff wants to draw your attention to is particularly here with the Maryland 355 on Frederick Road So looking at some maps. There's a few parcels particularly in like the German town area There are some parts of these roadways where there isn't like a driveway in house on a corridor, but there are some that do, particularly on this in this German town area, where there is a single family house with a driveway and a curb cut still on the major highway. So the question here for the committee is whether you want to take major highways in or out. I believe at the time the ZTA is being developed, there's a couple of state roads as well. So that's the first recommendation or the first proposed amendment for the committee to consider. We're not voting today. Any questions from colleagues for council staff or from planning who recommended this councilmember Juanda? Yeah I appreciate the clarification that we're not voting. I did have some questions about some of the earlier things that you ran through, but so I don't know if that's appropriate now or if we wanted to talk about this first or. Why don't we dispose of this then we can go back if you had. Okay, so the controlled highways. So yeah, I had a question one question here. That's 27 parcels. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. Okay. And the amendment would remove controlled major court. That's the proposed amendment right to remove those. Yes, it would remove the entire category of controlled major highway from the ZTA. The effect of which would be to remove those 27. Those 27 parts was right. Right, okay. And the obviously we need to be cognizant of roadway and pedestrian safety issues and all that. But could it would be great just to hear from the planning board. They're ration now here, and that's that's the only question I would have. Good afternoon, David Ansbacher, Countywide Planning and Policy Division Chief for the record. As was noted, there are about 30 parcels that front controlled major highways. That's really purposeful. Control major highways are both wide, oftentimes four or five, six lane roads. They're very high speed, 45, 50, 50 miles per hour. And so the reason that the planning board is recommending to remove this classification is that we really want to limit the additional trips in and out of these dryways on these high speed roads. You can imagine a motor vehicle trying to back up onto a high speed road and it leads to a lot of safety challenges. The name of the road spells it out. It's controlled major highway. We're really trying to control access on these roads Thank you Okay, no other comments. It doesn't seem from colleagues on this item Councilmember John any want to go back to other Questions that you have on the other items that were mentioned and including the packet by council staff staff. Yeah, that would be great. And Mr. Dune, you went through, I know you put a lot of work into that. You went through it fast. I just want to highlight and maybe ask a couple of questions related to the first items that you went through. on the additional units, you know, that's something that came up. I think that was item two. Council staff notes that we, there are approximately 200 single family tear downs per year give or take. And I know there was some analysis done by planning, so I maybe asked them to come up that these single family tear downs, which again are, if you have an older home in these corridors, what has, what we've been trying to get away from because it's just incentivizing single family tear downs because less people live there, it's worse for the environment, et cetera. How many of those have been done over the last 10 years? That's a similar market to what we're probably talking about here. Lisa Gavani, for the record, could you repeat the question? Sure. How many single family tear downs have there been along the corridors in the last 10 years? I did not do that now. From when I understand they spent about eight. So eight over 10 years. And all right. So it's impossible to project, but so what do you agree with the statement that this is a similar part of the market, like that's where this would happen? I think it's impossible to say what the future holds. I think the tear down market is pretty interesting. It used to be a phenomenon that just occurred in the western part of the county, but we're slowly seeing transformation of neighborhoods and places like outside, so we're spraying. So I think that even if it's not likely in the near term, it's quite possible that in the future, we will see more. I think it's impossible to understand where the market will go right now. Yeah, well, there's obviously another bill that I'm supporting with that would address the tenant on mark from a different way by making more expensive to hopefully disincentivize that but I certainly understand that. On the development pipeline since I have you, Ms. Devoney, you're here. I know we've had a lot of conversations about this. We get a lot of questions from the public and I'm working on legislation around this issue. I know you all are working on an analysis. Could you talk a little bit more about where you are with that and what you hope to find out? I think it's really important because when you hear, when people hear that there's 30,000 plus in the pipeline, obviously there's a lot of reasons they could be. But that's a big number. And, you know, back in 2019, I don't know if you, you know, I know you were still around. I was around. There was when the COG goals were developed, there was some discussion about whether current comprehensive plans and existing zoning could produce the level of housing that was required to meet our target goals. Do you remember this conversation? Yes. And the COG said yes. You know, that it could. There could be enough if the, with the place in the zoning and the, what we have approved in our comprehensive plans. But obviously that there's a lot of details in there, right? About why things do or do not move forward, and what are the puts and takes, and what are the incentives, what are the carrots and sticks that I've been saying a lot. So I'd love to hear just your thought. If you could just talk about that, I think it's something we hear a lot about. And it's a really important question, one that I have of, We want to understand what's going on with with that given that so much of our housing that we need is affordable. Sure so the development pipeline analysis project it really has two goals. The first is to really look at our data. We want to be able to better track a project's progress to the development pipeline through the amendment process. Our things converting from office to residential or things going from mixed use to 100% residential to better understand really how a project has been moving forward and how long is it taking for these projects to get built. The second part of the project is really understanding project specific impediments to why these projects are not being built. So what we're doing right now is we're working on a questionnaire that we've developed that send out to every residential or mixed used property owner on the pipeline to better understand what are the reasons for this project not moving forward. And we hope to create a report that really graphically shows the output of the reasons these projects aren't moving forward. And what are some potential recommendations that we could have to help these projects move forward? I think the development pipeline is a really important part of achieving our housing goals. But I think that we've shown, you know, only 50% of these are being built in a six-year period that we can't rely on the development pipeline. We need to look at, you know, the zoning changes, the financial tools, all of the above, because a pipeline unit is not a guarantee that a housing unit will be built and we need housing right now. I think I'm going to talk to you about on that project. I'm sure all of us are. And it's just an important piece of the puzzle, as you said. There's not one thing that's going to solve our challenge, but it's a big part of it. With that, Mr. Chair, I think I'm okay for now. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Councilor Fonding-Zels. I love the tear down conversation. At the end of the day, this ZTA is about creating opportunity about creating choices. If you have a single family home, your only choice should not be create a big Mac mansion. You should have more choices choices and that's what we're trying to do here having the opportunity of having two places in triplexes being legalized in Montgomery County bringing them back because there were legal many years ago before I was born. So thank you for your comments. Ms. Lisa Yuvani, and thank you for also saying that you're seeing more tear downs coming from places that are outside Western Montgomery County because the need is there. And so this is about opportunity. So I just wanted to remind people that thank you. While you're up here, just let me follow up. One of the things that has come up is how many of the single family homes currently on the quarters are being used for things other than owner occupancy, single family residences. Do you have that data available? Yes, so we look at it two ways. So first, the S.Dat, the State Department of Assessment and Taxation has an indicator of that properties being occupied by the principal owner. About 20% are not, they could be used as rentals but also businesses. I also looked at the number of special exceptions and conditional uses along. These are the 2400 applicable properties and there's about 300. And is that additive or the 300 is included in the 20%? Included. So about 20% of these units these units one in five or not used as principal owner occupied residences correct So some of these are businesses some of them are rental units correct Thank you. All right. Let's continue to the packet please Okay, I believe we are at the top of page 10 as the Council on the Public might know. The planning board is currently reviewing a technical update to the master plan of highways and transitways. So there's a question of whether the corridors in this CTA will be affected by those changes to rewind a little bit. The master plan of highways and transitways is our functional master plan that has all the provisions for transportation in the county. It will be reviewed by the Transportation Environment Committee later this year. Going through the public hearing draft, a council staff found is the biggest effect is it will propose adding a growth corridor area type and then a growth corridor boulevard street type. So council staffs recommended change here is to refer to the entire category of boulevard since so far all the existing boulevard are eligible under the ZTA. So instead of saying boulevard town center boulevard and downtown boulevard you could just say the Boulevard category. So when the changes are made, they're reflected back. I will note that the committee did agree to this amendment last week when they were reviewing ZTA 2501. So this would not only make it a little bit clearer in general, but also be consistent with the previous decision that was made. Okay, great. I don't see any comments or questions from colleagues. Let's continue. Next, since the way that the ZTA works, is you must front on a corridor. This is your explanation of what fronting on a corridor means. So that just means that the property's front lot line is on the applicable corridor. In talking to DPS, there is a very specific way they determine the front lot line. They first actually determine the rear lot line and wherever there's space for rear yard, the opposite becomes the front yard. If it's the same or both sides have enough room, then the property owner gets to decide. Usually, although not always, I would never say 100% that usually ends up being what the street address is. If anybody has a question about where a front lot line is, there's something called a wall check survey where they basically check the perimeter of the lots and the buildings and you can call DPS up for that if you have a specific parcel that you have a question about. So that's what Fronting means. Okay, any questions on Fronting, Councillor O'Reilly. Do have there been any, and I think we have DPS or whoever would get these calls? Have we heard, and it's early days of this, you know, what the people digesting the proposal, but are anyone contended they are court or are they they are in or are they are court or facing or not court or facing? Has there been any disagreement on that? Is there do we have any? Anything that's happened on that yet, just since this has been out there as part of the discussion, like what, what funding, has there been any disagreement on what funding court or means or doesn't mean? Well, we were we're just gonna ask you everybody who comes up to the microphone since people are moving in and out Say your name and title, please. This is Amy. So I'm with DPS Tony Nick. Yeah, it's on name name and title, please my name is Amy., I'm with DPS Zone. It's on. Name entitled, please. My name is Amy Zo, I'm a permitting specialist at Montgomery County Department permitting service zone division. I do the zone review for building permit applications. When we read, determine where is the frontage is, when we say we first locate where the rear property, rear yard is, that's when it comes to like corner lots. Corner lots like especially in older divisions, subdivisions they have you have two streets and two side properties. And in old subdivisions they have like smaller houses, a lot of times they have enough from both sides to meet the rear setback requirements. In that situation, the owner, when they apply for permits, they have the option to determine which is their rear, which side is their rear. But in some situations, the building is so located on one side, they only meet side setback. On that side, they don't meet the rear setback. So in that situation, the other side where they meet the rear setback become the rear yard. The rear yard, where the opposite of that rear yard, where the street right away is, that's the front. So that's how we determine where the rear yard is and where the front is. And that's like when it comes to corner lots. And the interior lots, that's easy. Where the street right away is, that's your front. Right, okay, thank you. That's helpful. Thank you. All right, we're gonna, corner lots is a related, but separate issue and we'll take that up as well. Let's, we'll make sure. Corner lots is next. Yeah, exactly. I used to stay at the table because there may be some follow- questions with your own corner lots since that's again related but a bit of a different dynamic. Yeah so question 12 was should corner lots be included. So the way the as introduced the way it works under the ZTA if there is a corner lot it would only be eligible if the front lot line is on the applicable corridor. So you might have, and this is on page 10, sorry, so you might have a corner lot that looks like it's on the corridor, but actually it's the side lot that's on the corridor, and so it would not be eligible for this ETA. So another proposed amendment is for the committee to consider whether corner lots should be included as well. One benefit to corner lots is they're often larger and it's possible you might not need additional curb cuts. So right now a corner lot is only included in the ZTA if it's front lot line, not side lot line is on the corridor. Any questions or comments on that councilor of funding and sales?ves? It's not a comment. It's a quite no. I want a vote. It's so obvious, but I'm not going to vote because we need to hold it. But it's not a share thought. I mean, if people want to share a thought, welcome to it. We're not taking for no. Oh, I love that. I think this makes total sense. And it should be I will accept the staff recommendation to include them. That's all for our Navori, so now how I feel, that's all. All right, any questions on what constitutes a corner lot and the dynamics of a corner lot? Okay, let's continue. Thank you. Thank you very much. And again, I just want to reiterate, any staff member who is coming off from planning and from the executive branch, please just state name and title because there's a lot of moving parts and the public and the record doesn't always know who you are and what role you are playing. And so it's important that you stay your name and department at the very least for the record. Thank you. So next is whether service roads are included. So service roads do front on the applicable corridor. So the way the ZTAs drafted without amendment service roads would be included. Something to note here though is that the service road does not count in the vehicle lane count because as we'll get to later that's a travel lane and service roads aren't included in that. And then of course the width of this lanes must also meet the requirements. So assuming there are three lanes besides the service road and the road is 100 feet wide, then a service road being on a service road, fronting on a corridor would not exclude the property from the ZTA. We received a lot of testimony about this, about traffic and parking on service roads. So council staff, that with planning staff to find what the universe is that we would be talking about here. It's about 630 eligible parcels or along service roads, which is about 25% of the ZTA. Any questions on that, Councillor Drawanda? I just wanna make sure I understand because I think I know what this means and whoever's from planning can come up. So for example, Connecticut Avenue has these service roads where what I would think is a service road in my mind where there's the main road, there's a road that abuts the property that are mostly 1950s single-family homes that are naturally occurring forward while housing. And is that a sort, well the first question is, is that a service road? Is that indescribed in what was just said by Mr. Duke? Yes, that is what I'm describing as a service road. Thank you. OK, got it. So that, and that, that's about, that's when I have in mind of where I'm concerned about this ETN, I've said this before, which is why when I proposed it, I did it in transit too, so everyone kind of had buy in here. So it went into the neighborhood. My issue with the frontage of just corridors, even though not conceptually against the zoning change part, and with the proper discussion and process, is that there's a lot of folks, one, the issue you described, like there's people that park on those things, like how those roads are used, but also that a lot of them, but are naturally occurring in affordable housing, where some of these rentals that we just talked about, the one in five are rentals or just homeowners that are living there that have home ownership. I think the other thing that I saw in the packet somewhere is that I'm just to do you correct me if I'm wrong is that the corridors are more affordable, you know, like I'll just a home on Connecticut Avenue and Randall and Connecticut and Randolph is going to be in you know in 4.50 to 500,000 for you know for 1200 1300 square feet as opposed and that's cheaper than if you go back into the neighborhood is that is that correct? Then we have some analysis about that. Yes later. I think it's page 17 or 18 There's a discussion about how much naturally occurring affordable housing is along corridors and what those prices are compared to houses not on corridors. So for me, I just I'm bringing that here because it's connected to this all. This is interconnected, but where I'm most concerned about displacement is on some of these corridors. and that are naturally occurring for the housing. Because if you go to the duplex there into this DTA, if you go a duplex there under this DTA, if you build two town homes, neither one of them has to be affordable. So they will cost more than the current house that's there now. And so for that reason, in this, again, we're not taking votes. I think here, I would love to hear a planning's view or anyone else's view on this, but for that reason, I kind of lean towards on this one, not including the service roads, but just wanted to explain it. I appreciate it. There's a question of planning's view. Does planning have a view on this item? Do you want to give any feedback? I see the planning director and the planning board chair are here They don't have to but you know If you want to already and I have talked about this party here is planning board chair. Yes, we believe they should be included in Along the quarter with this accessory lane. Yes, we feel that definitely they should be included. Yeah, so I'll just note, this is a challenging question because on the one hand, a service road is making the roadway that it is abutting less like a quarter. On the other hand, these are attractive places to actually create some of this housing and some of the impacts including the ingress and egress and parking and other concerns that folks have raised the ability to address those concerns are easier to handle because of the service road. So there is a give and take here. It is a large number of parcels unlike the previous dynamic that the planning board is raising with 27 properties out of approximately 2,470. This is like one in four properties. So it is a major decision, I think one that we shouldn't rush into. I think there are arguments on both sides of this question, this concern is on the one hand it is more like a neighborhood road and should it be treated that way on the other hand, some of the concerns related to the parking and other dynamics can be more easily handled and absorbed in these areas, and they make them more attractive, frankly, and give more opportunities for these properties to actually move forward. And if the goal of this is to move forward with some of these projects, then these would be some of the more attractive opportunities to do so. That is the give and take and the push and pull of some of these questions and dynamics and one that I think we should think through very carefully as we weigh this and some of the other items, including the corner lots and other dynamics of how we treat and look at these issues. Mr. Chair, I also think it's from our point of view, and Mr. Onesbacher, we can follow up on this. They're safer. It would be, it's more of a safer opportunity. And just to build on that, David Onesbacher, chief of the Countywide Planning and Policy Division, the issue that we, I spoke to previously, was about controlled major highways and not wanting to see driveways directly abutting the controlled major highways. The advantage of a service road is that the driveways would, but the service road and not the major roadway. Councillor, we're finding ourselves. To me, this is absolutely clear. There is no way I will vote to remove the service roads and eliminate 25% of the properties that we put in the ZTA. That's number one. Number two, these are exactly the places where we want to see thruiplexes, more units, more options. Because at one point, some of those homes will get redeveloped. Don't think that because we have a certain in living there They will never be touched that is not reality at some point they will get free to develop in a rather half I tryplex in a duplex than having another Mac mansion in that area so Not voting today. There's a variety of viewpoints here as as noted This is a major decision. I just, you know, it sounds like it would be a modest decision of service roads versus not. It's a major significant decision based on the fact that it impacts about a quarter of the relevant properties that we are talking about. All the decisions are significant. That's why we're going through them thoughtfully. This one in particular has quite a bit of impact on the overall zoning text amendment. So unless there are any additional comments, let's continue through the packet. So next for corridors is how vehicle lanes are counted. I alluded to this earlier. So it's the width of the master plan to right away. So you would check the master plan to see what the right away is. And make sure that the master plan itself says, it must be greater than 100 feet. I flag that because sometimes the master plan with is not always what's on the ground, because we know master plans take time to implement. And that it must have at least three existing vehicle travel lanes. The reason for that phrasing is this is intended to include bus lanes but it is not intended to include bike lanes and turning lanes. So that's how we are counting vehicle lanes. And then I think lastly for this corridor section is a question about will the number of designated corridors be allowed to increase over time and if so how? There's a few pieces to the answer here. So first the number of corridors changes if the designation of the roads changes. So roadway classifications and the width is noted are in the master plan. The classification of roads possible is in the master plan of highways and transitways and then in order to change which roads would be subject to the ZTA you'd have to do another ZTA. There's also a question of if lanes are added or removed. This would have to happen through the CIP process or local area transportation review but is very very rare and then lastly if if state highway changes a configuration of the roads, one benefit to these being optional method projects is the planning board could take that into account during site plan. So those are the questions about how the roads could change. And the answer is it would take another process. Okay. Thank you. Let's continue. Okay, section, I think three, is consolidation. Because there were lots of different specific questions asked about consolidation, there's a summary list of the different questions that were asked at the top of page 12. And then at the bottom of page 12 are exact excerpts from the code. Subdivision is not in the zoning ordinance, which is chapter 59. It's actually in chapter 50. So that's where all of these excerpts were from. But I know not everybody loves reading laws for some reason. So the actual breakdown in summary is on page 13. This is also, I included a photograph here that shows all the different kinds of lots. So you can see a corner lot and interior lot, a through lot, a flag lot. It's a little easier to visualize what it is that we're talking about here. So to answer the various questions, I'll just go bullet by bullet and pause after each one. Is first, a joining lots can be consolidated and be applicable for the ZTA if they both front on the corridor. So if you have two interior lots that both front on that downtown boulevard, then you can consolidate those and it would be eligible for the ZTA. Question two is through lots, which I believe was referred to as lot chaining during the public hearing It's also commonly called a double frontage lot This is where you have a front lot line on one road and then in the rear is also a major road and is a front lot line Through lots can only be approved under very unique circumstances The standard is it has to be unusual topography orientation or size and that you need to do this through lot to achieve subdivision. Council separately is it is very unlikely that consolidating to create a through lot in order to take advantage of the CTA would be granted by the planning board. The reason is the development standards were specifically drafted so that you'd be able to do this without subdivision. So it would be very hard to argue that you need to create a through lot in order to build your duplex. In addition, the setbacks get kind of funny with the through lot because you have a rear yard that you're now applying front setbacks to. So once you apply all the development standards, it would also be difficult to achieve what you were doing by creating a through lot. So the simple answer is very, very, very likely know for the through lot question because you have to meet that very high requirement in the subdivision chapter to even allow through lots. Council staff to meet with planning staff and they said they confirmed that very rarely are through lots approved. It's usually you're looking at something like an undeveloped vacant lot or someone wants to add a swimming pool. Like it's really just very unlikely. So that's the answer to the through lot question. And flag lots are similar. Flag lots especially because you need an additional 80 feet of separation. so it would be even harder to do development. So I'll pause there before I keep going through subdivision. Keep going. Let's keep going. We can ask questions at the end, because there's a lot of things. So the next example is if you have one lot that fronts on the corridor and the neighboring lot does not, this would be most likely if you had an interior lot and then a corner a lot and the corner lot actually fronts on the corridor and the neighboring lot does not. This would be most likely if you had an interior lot and then a corner lot and the corner lot actually fronts on the other side. Technically, you could consolidate those lots and once consolidated, that bigger parcel would be eligible under the ZTA. Similarly, if you have individual lots and you make new larger lots, the way you would do it is you would apply, you do your consolidation first and then you'd go to the ZTA and the development standards would still apply what happens with the bigger lot is your buildable area is the same or is bigger, sorry, your buildable area is bigger, but your setbacks remain the same. So you still have to abide by all the same front rear side setback standards. It's still going to be capped at 40 feet. You just have a little more buildable area. As well as height and FAR. Yes, and height and FAR are capped as well. A couple other questions we received. No, you would not consolidate across a right of way. And then also in terms of ownership, the zoning ordinance does not get into ownership. If somebody wanted to create condo or townhouse units, they would go through subdivision to create those individual units and then get your different lot numbers, even though it's on what looks like a lot. But that would just be up to the developer if they want those to each be separate ownership. In terms of the subdivision in the process for consolidation, can you explain how that works, how a property owner who wants to consolidate two lots, what's the process that they would go through? Yes, so they have to go through the planning board. You have to do a preliminary plan. It's a pretty detailed process with a lot of various requirements. Typically, you would do that process. First, you'd go through preliminary plan and then you'd get to site plan and building permit and so on. It's before the board, so it would be open to the public. People could oppose it, testify through that regular planning board process. Could someone from the planning department or planning board just explain how that process works with the public notice requirements or how that would work for Consolidant? I mean, this is a major question that a number of people have. I think it warrants us talking about it for a minute and making sure that folks understand what we're talking about. So there's what would be allowed on an individual lot currently, and then what possibility there would be of whether or not lots can be consolidated. The primary concern that we heard is whether or not you could take two lots that back up against each other where the rear setback touches the rear setback. So this is the most common dynamic where you have one property that fronts one road and then backs up to another property and then the other property backs up to that property and then fronts a separate road. The council staff has shared, planning has confirmed and if you could share that and confirm here that that is highly and unlikely for a myriad of reasons. And then secondly, there's the question of the adjacent lots, which is different and would be easier to do, although there is a, what was shared as a cumbersome process in order to go through. One, can you confirm what council staff has shared with us on your behalf, but I think it's important that planning share it directly since there have been some confusion about this, and I think there were some comments that were made that may have caused some of that confusion. And then secondarily, talk about the process for consolidation of law through subdivision, how that process works, what that would look like for the applicant and what that would look like for the broader public. Sure. For the record, Jason Sartori, Planning Director. I actually would just confirm what Ms. Nidu said, as accurate in terms of the cumbersome nature of the process, there could be an administrative subdivision that if underserving conditions, but if it is, we would still have to be noticed. And if there are comments that are received or opposition to that, then it would end up going through the planning board anyway. in terms of the, that there's assemblage of different lots. Yes, it's extremely rare circumstances that we would approve or recommend approval to the planning board of the subdivision that would create that through lot. However, it is more common to see potentially if someone were to be able to get two lots that were next to each other, both fronting the corridors that are applicable to the ZTA, that those could be combined to be able to do something that you couldn't do on the individual lots themselves. And what would that process look like? It would be the process that Ms. Newton described, that I'm having to go through that preliminary plan, the subdivision plan process. But I'm asking you to explain those processes in terms of what it means for the applicant and what it means for the public. That's the question. Good afternoon for the record. A tool, Charma. I work in the director's office and Montgomery planning. So when an applicant decides to subdivide, they have to file a preliminary plan application that has 120-day clock, just like a site plan application does. It starts with them notifying the application following our procedures. There is a development review committee where all the agencies including planning, DPS, DOT, DACA all get to see the application provide comments to the applicant. The applicant then takes those comments and revises their application to satisfy the various agency's needs and criteria. There's usually two to three turns of the application that goes back and forth until we get to a point where all the development standards have been met sufficiently. At that point, a planning board hearing is scheduled, which is a public hearing. Anybody can sign up to testify or provide comments in writing to the board. And then the planning would finally adicates whether the preliminary plan application is approval or not. Often times people do these in sequence so somebody will go through and do the preliminary plan portion of the development application first and then they will file a site plan. Sometimes they do it concurrently where they do a preliminary plan and a site plan concurrently. But even in that scenario there's at least 120 days of review that goes through starting with the public noticing and then the DRC and then revisions and then finally the planning board reviews the application. Okay, thank you. Councilor Mordranda, did you have a comment? Question? Yeah. Appreciate those questions. I think one of the reasons this is so important we get a lot of questions on is because there's kind of like the threshold question, okay, what can be built and how much can be built and what are we encouraging with consolidation so Mr. Do you mention that the one is less likely planning confirmed it the kind of frontage and the abutting one I might be using the terms incorrectly so correct me from wrong, but But the ones that are next to each other that could be more likely to happen And I see Mr. Sartori nodding something, well, I got that right. And so talk about what that could mean. So if you consolidate, are there limits to the consolidation? Could someone, could three homes be sold? And you build a many apartment building. And what would the, what would the FAR, what would it allow? I think we just need to say that out loud and people need to grapple with that and you can understand that. Yes. So yes, you could consolidate more than two lots. I know we've talked about two lots, but you could consolidate more than that based on if it was eligible. What would you- any limit? Is there any limit on the consolidation? I do not believe so, no. But for the right of where I think that was meant. Right, you eventually will hit the right of where. Well, you'll hit the road, obviously, but yeah, I mean, but yeah, okay, but okay. The FAR would remain the same. So it is still going to be 1.25 FAR, and the height is still going to be 40 feet. So if you have a, now you have a bigger lot, yes, you could get more units, but the side, the rear and front setbacks, meaning that buffer with the neighbors would still be in place, that would stay the same, and the FAR and the height would stay the same. So you'd get more units by consolidating lots, but the goal with the development standards is that in scale, it should still be compatible with the neighborhood. Right. And so let's just take my example of three lots being consolidated. And again, obviously, it depends on whether you're talking about our 60 or 90 or our 200, but let's just take the typical R60 with 1.2 FAR in the 40 foot height. What could be built in that spot? So, for 3,000, 6,000 square feet lots, if you consolidate them, the overall site area becomes 18,000 square feet. And if you multiply that by 1.25, which is the FAR, you get 22,500 square feet of maximum developer area. Now, the next answer as to how many units can be put in that is I think really dependent on the unit type you decide to pick. So for example, if you do a townhouse, currently in the county most townhouses are averaging, I'm just using this as a middle of the road here, about 2000 square feet, right, on an average, usually they're bigger. So if that's the case, you're looking at 10 to 11 units on a three-larth consolidation. If you do apartments, if they're townhomes. If they're townhomes. If they're all duplexes. In fact, duplexes probably are a little bit on the bigger side. So you probably get a fewer duplexes because they have more separation between the building. So you probably can fit as many as you can when you're building townhouses. If you're doing an apartment building, I think a good rule of thumb here is when you're doing some very preliminary site loading, you think of 1,000 to 1,200 square feet being an average apartment size. So if you have about 20,000 square feet of of the apartment, yes- Yeah, you're looking at 18 to 20 to 22 to 24, that range of apartments. And I think if you're doing vertically stack units, where you have a staircase and you're putting buildings on top of each other, eventually you're going to run up against the building height, so you're not gonna be able to just keep stacking units. So there are many, many development controls that are baked into this ZTA. The lot coverage is a really important development control. 35% usually give or take. The setbacks are a really important control. There's been very, very, very little reprieve on the setbacks in the ZTA from what a single family house would have to do. The height is still 40 feet. So that's a very important development control. And then the very realistic development control of parking. There's only so much parking you can fit on these lots. And you're selling them as market competitive units You can only build so many units. So I think there's a really there's some really good controls here Even when consolidation occurs that would limit the Number of units and the size of a building you can put on these lots in a a positive way, I think they'll still fit well with single family homes that maybe exist nearby or to the side of a lot. So hopefully that provides some level of scale, because I think this is an important consideration. And I think anytime you go beyond three lots, it's highly unrealistic that somebody is going to purchase four lots, perfectly sitting side by side from four different homeowners and then try to build a bigger building. And even that building, we are talking about 24 units at the most, 25, 26. It's not, you're not getting to a scale that is in order. Yeah, let me, let me ask, I appreciate that. And I think it's just so important for people to hear, understand, you know, what could be possible. Again, you don't know what exactly is going to happen. I do agree with you when I introduced my ZTA in 2020, it was form base that you had the height limit, same height limit, same setback limit. That's an important feature and something to get out there. I think the last thing you said is something that is also important to talk about here that, you know, if you're looking to do this as a developer and build this, you could buy them the 15% and we haven't gotten to the four-villia yet But I'll just preview this here. It doesn't kick in unless you do a triplex or more So if you if you buy three lots individually and develop through some subsidiary or whatever You know, and there's a million ways to do that and you develop two town homes That are you know whatever the whatever the size, average size or more, there's no affordability requirement there. And if they're going to be more expensive, just then the homes that they're replacing. I think it's something that on these corridors, that's it's concerning. And when you, especially when you're talking about the displacement of communities, when you look at Minneapolis, and I know this from the data and from talking to friends who are on the city council there, they were, one of the things they've been most concerned about is that they haven't gotten triplexes in other types of units when they did the zoning change. And so I think that's just one of the things we have to be concerned about is not encouraging or just being aware that people are going to do what's most financially feasible for them as far as the development. And could mean, you know, the what replaces it being much more costly than what's there and that's an issue for folks that live in those corridors. But I appreciate the analysis. I think it's really important to give a sense of what people, what the size of things could be. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, appreciate it. I just want a point of clarification. And we'll talk about the affordability later. But if someone was going to consolidate lots, I just want to clarify because I think there was a statement that may have created some misunderstandings. I want to clarify. If someone consolidates lots, they're not going to consolidate lots for the purpose of doing multiple duplexes. Because by definition, that would trigger the affordability standard. Because if you consolidate and then you do three duplexes on three separate lots, it would make much more sense not to consolidate those lots. Because you would build three duplexes and in that case. Now, I'll note that under prior proposals, including I believe yours, the duplex idea would have been allowed by right. Well, we're saying is nothing here is allowed by right, including the duplexes, which we've been, you know, received quite a bit of interest and support in saying at least the duplexes allowed that to happen by right. We have said nothing in this proposal is allowed by right. Everything has to go through the optional method development review process because that helps us to address some of the dynamics. But there's no scenario that would make any sense for anybody to consolidate lots for the purpose of building duplexes where they could get fewer units and would trigger affordability requirements that wouldn't allow them to rent for market rates. I just wanted to clarify that. I think it's an important dynamic. It is true that if you build a duplex, you're not triggering the affordability requirements because at that point it would be a 50% affordability requirement which would render no duplex to work. And already the duplex is the challenge of a duplex because you have to go through quite a bit of a process. Building a duplex is more expensive than building a single family home. So if part of the goal is to make duplexes happen at all, increasing the affordability challenges make it harder and harder. You need two water and sewer hookups. You need to build out two kitchens, which is one of the most expensive parts of building the house. You need to create two different structures and two different foundations. The economies of scale of that are challenging in a duplex. So it's not like two duplexes are 50% of the cost of a house, two duplexes are more than 50% of the cost of the house, depending on where it is and how it is. It's probably in what type of construction it is. It's probably two thirds of the cost of building that house. So I just think I think it's important to note that on terms of the consolidation. In terms of the, you mentioned the 18 to 22 units. If someone were to do multi-unit here, just based on numbers, is that reflective of average lot with setback requirements and lot coverage requirements and others if you were to consolidate three lots? Is that reflective of that or is that just a straight square footage? Is that include where you would put the parking for those 18 to 22 units? Because we have not I just we have not changed the parking there was there a recommendation from planning, there were recommendations originally from planning to significantly reduce parking. We heard lots of feedback on that particular idea and proposal that is not included in this. I just want to clarify on that point. When you say 18 to 22 units, that is the maximum FAR permitted on that building site, theoretically, on a piece of paper. I think when you go to layout the site, you have site constraints, you have parking requirements, you have stormwater requirements, tree canopy requirements, you probably are looking at a lower number than that pure math number But I suggest, I mean, if we're going to use hypotheticals that are just based on square footage and not reality, could we do a scenario of consolidate a lot and do, you know, pick the different zones or pick the most common zones, but I think, you know, doing are 60 certainly doing our 90 I think would make the most sense those you know, pick the different zones or pick the most common zones, but I think, you know, doing our 60s, certainly, doing our 90, I think would make the most sense, those, you know, probably the most likely to see consolidation just given that dynamics include our 40 if you like and our 200 as well. I don't think it would hurt. Consolidate as a two unit consolidation and a three unit consolidation. And with all the requirements, with the FAR, with the setback requirements, with the lock-overage requirements, with the parking as introduced, what that would look like as duplexes, what that would look like as triplexes, and what that would look like as two over twos or other unit types. I'm assuming with the typical minimum lot size, so 6,000 square feet in the R60, put two of them together, three of them together. So just to make sure I got everything right, R60, R90, two lot consolidation and a three lot consolidation and show what a duplex looks like, what a triplex looks like, and what four unit onwards apartment building looks like with all the regulations in this. And you might as well do, R4D and R200 as well if you're going to do it. I don't, I think those are sort of R200 less, less common, but, you know, not totally practical, but you might as well look at what it looks like. Yeah, we can do that and we can do some three-dimensional images that really show it so that it's very clear what we are talking about here. Okay I think that would be helpful. Yep. All right. I think we're ready to continue. That was actually it for the consolidation section other than one quick note from Council staff here that I realize was not in the staff report to make any changes regarding how subdivision works would actually not be a ZTA amendment. You would need a separate RSA, which is a subdivision regulation amendment to make those changes. I just wanted to note that here as we continue to work through this. Okay, so the next section in the staff report begins on page 14 and this is affordability. So first was what are the workforce housing requirements and how are they enforced? So the ZTA requires at least 15% workforce housing units with a minimum of one for construction of three or more. This section of the code, it's chapter 25b, housing policy. It is both administered and enforced by our Department of Housing and Community Affairs, DHCA. A workforce housing unit must be affordable and at or below 120% area median income. This is not a new program, this program currently exists in code. The original intent was housing for public employees and employees who can't support the high cost of housing near their employment. It is a complement too, but wholly separate from the MPDU program are moderately priced dwelling units. At the bottom of page 14 there's a table of the income levels based on household size. For two people it's 148,500 and for four, it's 185,500,000. So DPS cannot issue a building permit. If workforce housing units were approved until that agreement has been signed, the agreement does run with the land, not the property owner, and violation is a class A violation, which is the highest in our code. In addition, the DHA director can take legal action to stop or cancel the transfer of a workforce housing unit if it does not comply. We have another proposed amendment here from OLO in their RSJ impact statement. They discussed both increasing, or sorry, lowering the AMI and increasing the number of workforce housing units that are required. Council staff's note here would be that of course we want more affordable units but we also want to make sure that they are affordable for a developer to build. So just making sure as we have discussions about moving thresholds either way and I talked about this a lot last week with parts of the rest of the package that you keep in mind the feasibility studies as well. So that was the OLO proposed amendment. Councilor Reffani-Gazalz. I think it's also very important for people to realize, to recognize that there is a supply issue that we're facing as a county, as a nation. The point is not just to say we're going to create more homes under the workforce housing or MPVU program, which is being revised as we speak. The point is to increase the supply, and that will help a lot. And the fact that we're moving forward is ZTA, even if it's just two, you know, a duplex that will not trigger the, that workforce housing requirement, is a positive thing. So let's please now lose sight of that. In the affordability conversation, we must increase supply. This ZTA will help with that. It's not the only solution on the housing crisis that we're facing, but it's a very important step forward. And I wanted to say that, that's all. Thank you, Councillor O'Connor. Councillor O'Connor. Thank you, yes. DHH, I guess first starting with DHH, C-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A know, and it was mentioned, it doesn't change, it runs with the land. Could you just explain that and walk us through how that would work? And so I see, I think summer coming up. Good afternoon, summer cross, Chief of Housing, DHCA. So workforce housing units are priced differently than the MPDU that everybody might be familiar with. They're based on affordability. So under 25b, there are three price points, but more often than not, we just averaged them to affordable to a 90% of AMI household. So for a three-bedroom unit, we would look what a four-person household can afford, consider interest rates, HOA fees, taxes, realtor fees, so on and so forth, that goes into a calculation, and that's how we determine the initial price. For the run with the land point means that even if it's sold, it would still be in lace, correct? Correct. It's a 20 year control period for workforce housing. Okay. So it's 20 years and then it's no longer under control. Correct. And MPD users are tend to be what now? They're 30 and they're also renewing. So if you sell before the 30, it starts again. That's not in the workforce housing. So in this case, that it's 20 years and it doesn't renew. Correct. Okay, so it's and it's at a higher level of AMI. Correct. Right, okay, just want people to be clear about that. One of the reasons I've been concerned again, for post-microposal and didn't your transit, it hit everybody, right? And some people like that, some people didn't. It was, you know, if you're half mile from transit, it's gonna go in neighborhoods, it's gonna go corridor, it's gonna go, but it's gonna be transit corridors. The reason that I think this, I didn't like this approach back then when Council member Rima proposed a similar version or was talking about proposing a similar version, is because it mostly, not all, but it brings in a ton of naturally occurring affordable housing. That's in pretty good condition in some ownership, some rental. And because of what's discussed later on, I think in this section, the price point of this housing is lower. So it's going to be more attractive for people to redevelop it potentially under this scenario and what's going to be built, especially if it's just corridors, it's targeting some of the most affordable housing we have where people are living now and what comes after it is not not going to affordable to most, if not many, of those folks. And it's not going to produce the scale, right? We talked about the, there's been eight tear downs in this corridor in ten years, less than one a year. You're not going to get the big units. I agree with our previous speaker that you're not going to get the big apartment buildings and all that I think that's less likely You're going to get The doplexes where there's no affordability or townhomes and They're going to be more expensive than the people that can afford to live there now and that concerns me because it's it's not, that level of supply is not gonna do anything for our supply issue, especially around affordable housing. And I'm also concerned about that displacement and at those folks having a place to go. DHCA, I guess the question would be, is there a reason? What would be the, will we have to change the workforce housing law to change the affordability requirements and length of time there? Yes, it would be a amendment of 25b. Got it. So I guess I would ask,, we talked about this offline, but if, and I think you've, in those conversations, folks admitted, like some people will be displaced, are we, I'm worried about a targeting of that with the scope of this ZTA, that it's going to target the places that are most likely Going to display spokes that have the most affordable housing. Do you need that do you what do you say to that? Okay. Lisa Gavoni,000 difference. I would highly, hardly call an average sold price of $830,000, naturally occurring affordable housing. There's no naturally occurring affordable housing as we talk about it in the traditional sense in the master plans, the rental properties, because you're not allowed to build multi-family in those homes. There's conditional use affordable housing, senior restricted that's not going anywhere, but there's not Naturally occurring affordable housing in the rental sense I would also say that 80% of these properties are owner occupied I think councilmember fanning he's also sent a great job of Recognizing that this is providing more options to those property owners to do more with their properties I'll stop there. Yeah, and so that 800,000 number, you're aggregating everywhere. Like you're including the entire area, right? Not specific. You're not breaking it down by acts by where what's community we're talking about here. I can do that if you would like. This is the $830,000 is the 2400 applicable properties. So I just looked at those and then I compared it to basically everything else that was sold in 2004. And it is a small sample size admittedly. It's 48 but it's also a small sample size of percentage of county white parcels overall too. Right. Yeah, I mean, I think the property I brought up earlier, we talked about the service roads. You know, those homes are 450,000-ish, right? And so it's a lot different than I'd be interested to see the breakdown of, you know, by where these are, you know, on the corridors. Because again, I don't think this is going to... It's kind of the... It's a double-edged sword or two sides of the coin, because it is a limited proposal to the corridors. The corridors are less expensive, you know, whatever... That's been demonstrated in the packet. We'll talk about that. And not all corridors are the same, right? right in areas of the county we know there's an east west thing here like in the in the packet. We'll talk about that. And not all corridors are the same, right? In areas of the county, we know there's an east west thing here, like in the eastern or down there, they're going to be that corridor price is going to be lower, right? And that's where I'm, you know, I'm not concerned about this isn't going to happen on, and that's why I think this is going to be most likely to happen. It's not going to happen on, We talked about both ends of Connecticut Avenue. It's not going to happen on the end of Connecticut Avenue and Bethesda and Chevy Chase as much as it will in Connecticut and Randolph. Connecticut and East West Highway and Connecticut Randolph are going to have different realities for this. And so I just think we need to understand that. And I think when OOL brings up the points of raising the affordability and lowering the AMI and raising the percentage, it's speaking to this point because I think where it's gonna be most financially and profitable for folks to do this is gonna be the exact places where there is what I would call more affordable home ownership and more affordable rentals. And so I would like to see some analysis on that, because that's one of my main concerns with this approach when you don't bring in other areas that have a chance of potentially increasing the supply even more. I think what we're going to get here is a targeting of folks who are not going to be able to come back to those homes. So that's my concern. Appreciate the concerns. I'll just note a few things. I think these are important. Number one, in the prior proposals, it was all by right, just to be very clear. In this proposal, there is nothing by right. Doing it through optional method development is the only thing that allows us to have a workforce requirement. If this was by right, by definition, you would not have a workforce housing requirement. So in the previous proposal within Metro areas, some of the most highest end areas, there was no affordability requirement, which would have provided fewer options for the very people that we're talking about. Of the 80% of the properties that we are discussing, and we don't know the standards of those who are potentially renting some of these other properties, those are homeowners. So if the value of the property and the options for those homeowners is going up and the options are increasing, then those are the very homeowners that would benefit the most. And that has been lost in this conversation. I just wanted to enter that into the conversation. I think Councilmember Fonding-Ozaz was trying to note that earlier. And I just wanted to highlight that again because I think it is important. I will reiterate what I have said many times that every community that I have been to and I have been all across the county talking about these issues. Every community feels that their community is the only community that will be impacted. That has been true in White Oak, that has been true in Germantown, that has been true in Chevy Chase and Bethesda. Every single community has told me, Andrew, why are you only doing this here? Andrew, why is the council only focused on our neighborhood and our community? And it is not accurate based on the tear down data to suggest that the likelihood that existing homes would be torn down for other options, including duplexes or town homes or any other option, only in areas that currently sell at lower prices. In fact, the opposite is true. The data is overwhelming in the case that when the improvement value is a small proportion of the land value, then the likelihood of a tear down from occurring is much higher. It doesn't mean in every property, literally today, every single homeowner, in every single single family home, all across the county could tear their house down and build it to the lot line, lot coverage, and height and setback requirements. They could most likely, the overwhelming number of homeowners of the 180,000 or so single-family homeowner residents could tear those houses down and build a much, much bigger house. They don't do that for a variety of reasons. And if you think about the cost of construction, which has gone way, way up in recent years and isn't likely to be going down any time soon. The more expensive the property, the less percentage the construction costs will overwhelm the feasibility of that property. So the likelihood given the control, the cost of building a unit, the same exact unit in one part of the county versus another is more or less the same. Because it's not like the labor market changes based on zip code in our region. The labor market is generally pretty similar. The cost of timber is generally pretty similar. The cost of copper is generally pretty similar. Those costs are not going to change. So it's important that we talk about these issues in the reality of the marketplace that they're in. We can only nurture nature in terms of what people's individual decisions are going to be, who owns a home, who owns property, what they're going to do with those properties. The question for us is what options are we providing them, what are reasonable regulations and requirements that we're going to place on them? And what's the ultimate goal that we have? And if the goal is to prevent anything from happening, then we could put in place a number of restrictions and requirements that will ensure that virtually, if not, exactly nothing happens. If the goal is to move forward with something thoughtful and reasonable, then we have to work through these issues. And there are puts and takes. There are dynamics that we have to work through, including the decision of not allowing by right, which was a decision that was made here. That decision is going to cause fewer of these projects for moving forward. That's a fact. There is no doubt about that. But it also allows us to get an affordability requirement with the workforce housing dynamics. And I'll note on the workforce housing dynamic, two things. Number one, if the county executive would like to send over changes, including the control period and others, we would welcome that. I know that there's work being done. I have lots of conversations with Director Bruton on a number of efforts that are happening. This committee has always been open to changes and dynamics to that. So I'll just note that that is always an option and opportunity that we have to work together to think through these different dynamics. The MPDU program is a program that has been built upon and approved over time. I think it gets bashed more often than it should, but it has been changed. It has been tweaked. It has been adjusted. And so should the workforce housing dynamic. The other aspect of the workforce housing dynamic and the control period, a lot is made. And the previous iteration of this committee, the Councilmember Jawondo, and I served on previously with Councilmember Remer, talked a lot about the control periods. At a certain point, the control periods aren't that important in reality, because that's what naturally occurring affordable housing that we spend so much time talking about is. The key is a certain period of control to ensure that we get a combination of production and protection on those market restricted units. But after a certain point, there really isn't much difference if any difference at all between the restricted unit and the naturally occurring affordable housing unit as long as we're building enough units. And so that's the caveat. So I just think it's important as we talk about these issues, a naturally occurring affordable housing unit by definition, is a unit that was built without a restriction, or that no longer has a restriction that is older. In order for it to be a naturally occurring affordable housing unit, it has to be more than 20 years old, generally, and it has to have been built. If neither of the things have happened, then it doesn't work. So I think it's important that we center these conversations and really understand what we're talking about. We obsess over the idea of naturally occurring affordable housing, but sometimes loose sight of what actually creates naturally occurring affordable housing, which is building housing and building more housing and allowing the housing to age over time that provides new opportunities. The naturally occurring affordable housing today was luxury housing 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years ago. That's what it was. And so I just think it's important to note that the workforce housing standards that we included are based on what is in the code and what is in the zoning text. We didn't change that. There are opportunities to address that including the control period and we'd be open to those, at least I can speak for myself, I would be open to those conversations. All right let's continue. So a good segue here the next question was how does workforce housing compared to MPDs I'm not going to run through the whole table but there's a table mostly on page 16 that talks about the control periods, the income thresholds, the application process, and the various requirements. And again, as noted, I know I've told the GHC that they're currently working up into this. Hopefully the committee will have some ideas to review later this summer. And also noting that any changes to those programs will of course also require legislation. And so for that reason, Council staff is actually not recommending untying this from the current program because if there's going to be improvements to the current program, we of course want those improvements to apply here. Next question is is the Workhorse Housing Requirement in addition to or combined with the MPDU requirement? So the MPDU requirement triggers at 20 units. As we said this ZTA, it's at 15%. There is no double dipping. You must provide both. So if you have enough units to require MP to use, you have to provide those, and then in addition provide the workforce housing requirements. And then of course, as we heard earlier, based on the development standards, very unlikely to get that many unless you were doing some division as well. I don't know what I'm talking about, but on this next part. This is the part that we've kind of discussed before about the naturally occurring affordable housing. So this is on page 17. These are the numbers that Mr. Voney was referring to that talk about the sales price for applicable parcels in recent years. So again, 48 sold since 2024, average sale price, 827,000, a median of 700,000, and then non-applicable single-family attached properties had an average sale price of 1,111,000, 571 within a median of 808,000, and then council staff gave a quick summary of some of our existing programs for naturally occurring affordable housing including the nonprofit preservation fund and the right of first refusal, which I believe was actually updated via bill last year. Council are drawn on. I just wanted to make sure since Miss Gavoni that I was clear about my request as part of this section and if you'll be able to not just look at the 48 homes but at the corridors and the sales price and that kind of thing. Yes, we can parse out sales data generally any which way that we need to. I can follow up with Ms. Nadoo afterwards to make sure that I have everything down and I'll be able to complete that analysis. Awesome. Thank you so much. Yes. Yes, so just to cut, as part of that, you're going to include by area. I mean, is that the thought process or by, I mean, I just want to understand what that means because one of the premises here is the introductory sales price of these different units. That's an important point. I think it's a point that Councillor Juando was making, which I understand the point. There's also the question of in an area, what is the difference between the quarter unit that would be included in the neighborhood unit and the delta? There's two sides of that. One is, okay, this is an entry point for somebody who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to live in this county or in that community or in that part of that community. On the flip side, it's the market telling us that this is a less desirable place to have a single family home because the market is paying less for it by definition. So there's a couple of different ways that I could look at it. Certainly any area I can create a geography in that GRS. I can also look at things like premise addresses. Does it have a premise on compared different quarters based on their premise address of the properties directly on that corridor? I am worried about the smaller the geography goes the less sales data that we have. We only have about, I think, you know, about 10,000 sales last year and we don't have data for every property sold, every single family property in the sold. So I'll have to look at what I'm able to do and I can follow up with the committee to make sure that I represent what we need to be represented. That seems reasonable to me, Councilor Drono, is that satisfying? And in the end of 48, so you know, where are you kind of lows? Hopefully we can find something, but yes, that I appreciate that. One other thing to add is can you compare the 20% non-owner occupied to the rest of the County Single Family Housing stock? Yes, I can do that. I think that would be helpful to understand, because that's another example of the market telling us whether or not these are more desirable, less desirable areas for units to be owner occupied single single family homes. You'll do not just averages, you'll be median for the sales. For you know, that's something that's obviously come up. So yes, I can do both averages and mediums. Okay. One big. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And as noted, average and median prices are included in the packet. All right, let's continue. Okay. So also in the affordability section is a question about short term residential rentals. I know that's the zoning ordinance code. That's what we refer to as Airbnb's. And a question about whether these would be eligible under the ZTA. The answer is yes, the ZTA does not prohibit the use of a property as a short term residential rental. Something that was heard a lot in testimonies if the county is trying to encourage ownership, it should not be allowed. So council staff just wants to note here that in order to do a short term residential rental in Montgomery County, it must be your primary residence. So you could not get a second property and just use it as an Airbnb. And then also because I know will be asked, one off-street parking space is required for those. So for those reasons, Council staff does not recommend saying that a short-term residential rental would not be allowed because it's a really good way to help people make their housing more affordable and because it has to be your primary residence. And I think that's it for the affordability section. OK, let's continue. All right, next up is development standards. Really quick up top, there was a question of which zones are in here and why. The reason for the R40, R60, R90 and R200 is those are zones that are currently predominantly single-family dwelling units and are not rural or residential estate zones. So that's the quick answer to why those were included unless the sponsor has had anything else to add there. Nope, let's continue. All right, next up is what is optional method, which now seems kind of late in the packet to talk about. But so often projects are referred to as being allowed by right. By right means it's a permitted or limited use in the zoning ordinance, and you go directly to DPS. So optional method projects go to the planning board for approval. They sometimes allow an applicant to get more density, more flexibility in development. And as noted, the board reviews all these applications in a public setting and there's an opportunity for public feedback. It also requires site plan approval. If you go to section 734E of the zoning ordinance, there's a list of things that the planning board must find to grant an application. First is meeting various parts of the code. So the zoning ordinance, the erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management chapter. We have a forest conservation chapter. The project must provide safe, well-integrated parking, circulation patterns, building, massing, open spaces, site amenities, substantial conformance with the master plan, adequate public services and facilities, and be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. So those are, it's everything that you get by going to the planning board. Proposed amendment here from the board is an administrative site plan approval process for duplexes and perhaps even triplexes. The idea here is as noted, the site plan approval process. It's a bit lengthy, there's a pretty long application list. The board recommended an administrative process that has an expedited timeline and potential for approval by the planning director. This is definitely one to talk about and think about a little bit more. First, you want to make sure you're not removing that public participation, public process piece, which is very important. So one option here could be something like with the administrative site plans that were mentioned earlier where you, if the board receives an objection or any opposition, they immediately pull it off and now you go through the regular process. We have that for other things in the zoning ordinance. Another option here is reducing the fee. I did look it up before this and it was approximately $4,775 for one denied dwelling units going to site plan. But of course, noting here that the fee is not all the costs of development. You usually need lawyers, engineers, et cetera. So those are all the things to consider with the administrative site plan process. Councilor, I'm finding it's all. Thank you for bringing this up. We'll just say a couple of things. I do think we need to spend more time on this particular issue and come back when we start voting. And looking to the fees as it was mentioned, but also the administrative option when I was on the planning board and I had to deal with subdivisions. They were some that came from the planning director and every time they had one that was controversial, even though they had the power to prove them, they would bring them to the planning board. Even if it's one letter that triggers the whole thing, they will come, which is the right thing to do. So I based on cost and making these things really doable. I think we need to explore that and always keep in mind the need of having people participate. So it has to be a way that we can do this in a reasonable way and I look forward to that conversation when we come back after the budget. That's it. Thank you. Sounds good. All right. Let's continue. So next we are on page 19 now on what are the development standards? There's a bit of a, I guess, a zoning DPS 101 on this page where I defined, I know there's a lot of words in those tables, tracked, usable areas, site coverage, lot area, a lot with density coverage set by height. These are all the different development standards. So the idea here is they're all defined here, so you can cross-check them with the tables that are in the actual ZTA. The overarching idea here is noted as the development standards were intended to keep anything developed not too much bigger than what a single family dwelling unit could be on a lot. So making sure you're still compatible with the existing neighborhood. As noted, the setbacks, the lock coverage were kept pretty minimal for that reason. One, the technical amendment here is the planning board recommended reducing the minimum lot sizes. In the ZTA, the R200 zone had a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet. Council staff agrees with the planning board here and recommends reducing that to 1,500 square feet. The largest minimum lot size for a townhouse in the zoning ordinance is in the townhouse low density zone and it's 1250. But since R200 has such large lots, Council staff believes 1,500 square feet would work. And then also for the lot area per unit to say a lot area per unit average, the reason here being that an interior townhouse is often smaller than the corner one, so it would let the developer do an average size so they can make those accommodations. So two council staff amendments, agreeing with the planning board. Okay, any questions on the proposed amendments? And see any questions? We'll take this up when we come back. I'll just note to reiterate, a duplex that's being built under these standards which can't be built by right, a teardown house can be built by right. A duplex would have to go through the optional method development, as it talks about before. But the standards are the same for a single family home as for a duplex in terms of all of the development standards that were noted. For anything beyond duplex, the standards would follow what is essentially the lowest density townhome standards. So that's the TLD zone, the low density townhouse zone. So I just think it's important. I've said that before. I just think it's important to say that here to reiterate that these are residential standards that are common in residential neighborhoods and the height at 40 feet is 5 feet above what a single family home can be torn down and built to today and what many single family homes are at currently, which is 35 feet as the current standard. So I just think it's important to note that. Let's continue. So section 418 is something that is cited a lot. These are compatibility requirements, specifically about setback compatibility. The way they read a property in a residential multi-unit, commercial residential employment or industrial zone has adjusted side-and-rear setbacks to other abutting zones. This language does not apply to ZTA-2502. The reason being the R40, R60, R90, and R200 zones are not in the residential multi-unit family of zones, which are actually R30, R20, and R10. This is sort of a headings on the use table is how we define this. Council to have staff did think about whether they should apply. And the conclusion is no, because the development standards are so narrow and already preserve lock averages. And then even more importantly, because the height is limited to 40 feet, you're not gonna have that usual issue of a towering apartment building next to a house. So no proposed change here. All right, let's continue. Next is the units allowed per zone, which we discussed a little bit earlier, and the question of whether the FAR should be increased. So on page 21, I did a sort of overview of what FAR is. That's our floor area ratio. And it shows you how FAR works on a lot. And as you'll notice, if you look at these diagrams, the less of a lot you're covering, usually the density is made up for in height. But here, the height is going to be capped at 40 feet. For people watching or everyone here usually we say a story is about 10 to 12 feet, so at most you might get four stories. So that's if you're trying to picture what 40 feet is. So using the numbers here I will note because we've talked about different size apartments, the numbers on page 21 where we say are 40s, 40 units, are 67 units. These are all assuming 1,000 square feet. So you might have units much larger than this, which would mean the number of units would go down. You're not going to get, you know, if you want to build 12 or 1,300 square foot lots, you're probably not going to get those seven units in the R60. So I just wanted to flag what number was used there. And then in addition, that's assuming that you can meet the parking requirement, which is also not being changed in the ZTA. So you might not be able to get that many units if you also need to do the parking. And then as Chair Freedson asked, we will make sure when we do the diagrams, we factor all those things in, so these numbers might change. Yeah, I think those diagrams are going to be helpful because, you know, as noted before, the example of the townhome was a 2000 square foot townhome, which is maybe on the lower end of what we're seeing current new townhomes being built in. We see some townhomes being built, you know, much larger than that. And so having the diagrams and really honing in on this are going to be really important because this chart is based on a 2,000 square foot town home and not taking into consideration any parking for instance, which is part of the standards and really not taking into consideration some of the more specific dynamics within the development standards. So appreciate that. A proposed amendment here from the planning board was to revisit the CFAR. Council staff admits it's unusual to have very many zones where we set one FAR. It was done deliberately here because 1.25 after some analysis was deemed large enough to produce units but also small enough for that neighborhood impacts compatibility factors. Council staff notes here, while there is an FAR, as noted before, that's not a promise that you'll always be able to get your max FAR. So noting that as well. And so for those reasons, Council staff does not recommend adjusting the FAR person. Yeah, and to your point, in many cases, the height will be the key restriction, as opposed to the 1.25 FAR that you can't hit the 1.25 FAR because of the height in addition to all of the development standards, including lock coverage, you know, setbacks, et cetera. Councilor Modrauna. I'm meant to ask this earlier, but I think this is a good place to maybe chime in on it since we're talking about the FAR and what's allowed wear and the applicability. Mr. Nidu, you mentioned in the opening summary that there were some that questioned why quarters didn't include areas in Potomac, for example, such as like Democracy Boulevard, where you've got highway and major malls, and you've got the same type of housing that you price in other places. So did I guess my question would be and you have some larger lot sizes, different sizes that we're talking about here. I don't know the answer to that. So I guess it would be more of a question to the sponsors because I think those are similar corridors, some of those. Could you repeat the question? Why corridors like Democracy Boulevard and Potomac weren't included? Everything is included that meets the 100 feet of master plan with and three or more travel ends. There's nothing that was excluded. So the standard was set and then everything that fit within the standard was included. So nothing was excluded based on that. Now that's a question for master planned with and that's a question for the number of travel lines that are or are included. In terms of our land use pattern in the county. So master plan with not not what exact not what is necessarily there. Yeah the master plan with is the plan with so for instance there are parts of Connecticut Avenue for instance that are not at the hundred foot with but are included in terms of closer in actually inside the belt, but are masterplanned at 100 feet. I mean, there are examples of places that have masterplanned width. I mean, one of the challenges of not using what's there in terms of that is that there are certain things like 355 BRT, for instance, is looking at a different standard for what that roadway is supposed to look like in the land use pattern for what is intended. So Master Plan With was a more clear and consistent standard that was used because the, you know, bringing out a measuring tape and figuring out exactly, you know, what hit a certain foot length and what didn't is a much more challenging standard to implement. Well, yeah, I just, it's okay. I appreciate that answer. I think there's a reasonable question from folks about why some of those areas didn't make it, but I appreciate that answer. I guess the other question I have for planning, there was some back and forth during the public hearing about whether certain Properties would fall into it entities like schools libraries hospitals. I do not think that was the intent Could we just be clear that that has that been removed or is that something that there's an amendment needed or is that I don't I'm I quite sure where that landed with the actual language? Yes, I can clarify this. So what happened is the map was generated based on what's allowed in the ZTA. So it just took zone road with type of road and then the number of lanes and that generates all the eligible parcels. So when you look at that map there are publicly owned properties. There are schools, parks, etc. that are on there because they do technically meet the requirements of the ZTA. Of course the way ZTA works that does not mean that the county is going to tear down that school and build housing. The reason they're being left on there is because they are eligible so it is technically correct. But as with the technical eligible they are technically eligible. So as with even the privately owned homes in the map that you know if a property owner wanted to sell or do this they could and in this case the county would be the property owner. So that is why they are selling it or the school would be the property owner. So it is, you know, it's, we know how the CIP works. So just because it's on there does not mean it'll be redeveloped. And thank you for having that because that is something important about the map that the map is not saying there's no taking, there's no eminent domain, it's just saying you meet the requirements if you a property owner want to do this but the county is not going to force you to and it was not supposed to indicate that the county is proposing redeveloping every property on the map. But could we say that those if those are not eligible? The concern would be that if one day, let's say there was some publicly owned property like a rec center that was vacant, no one's using it. I don't mean tomorrow I couldn't mean 10 years from now. There could be some reason H. O. C. wants that property to build housing. And if you remove it, then it might imply to the public that that's not an option. Or you need to come back and pass this ETA to allow it specifically. I just think it's a balancing act of like not wanting to say that you know my sorry that's why I think this is important to say we're not saying. Remove the library or hospital or school. but it is technically, but it's also important to say that it's technically possible at some point so okay so it would be an applicable parcel. Yes applicable parcel is the perfect word thank you. All right and perfect yeah that was my question thank you I know that was kind from earlier, but I meant to bring it up and I forgot to just on that point. The council and the county currently have an obligation to look at housing and childcare for every public parcel of land if and when it gets reconstructed. So that is part of the discussion and decision point that has to happen. For better or for worse, that doesn't happen very often. Co-location of housing happens far fewer than, you know, in many fewer times than these properties become available. But I just think it's important to note that. I do think it's important and maybe we should include specific language on the map to just highlight the publicly owned parcels. Ultimately, the county government would have to decide how to proceed with that. In the case of schools, the state has to approve any disposition of state properties. The MCPS is not generally in the business of selling their properties very often and certainly don't do it without the county government because usually it's our money that is being used or approval from us to pass through the funds. But if and when a school board site is included, if it doesn't have a restriction that comes to the county, which sometimes it does, and we've had examples of this where the county has a right to purchase and other dynamics based on dispositions that have occurred, the state Board of Public Works has to approve the disposition of those properties. So the county council, and it's a public process, the county council has to approve in the case of county government public property like libraries. And the state has to approve, if not the state and the county have to approve in the case of school property. So I think it's helpful for us to include some language to explain those dynamics. I think it's important also to reiterate the point here that nobody is being forced to do anything. And that includes the county government is not proposing that individual parcels here are being redeveloped to do anything. The idea in this case is what would be allowed on these 2,470 parcels of which some of them because of the definition, they were not picked individually. They were chosen based on their proximity to quarters that meet certain standards. Can I say something? Councillor Morphanagan's also. Also just to add to the conversation, if you look at page 7 of the staff report, it talks about this and if you click on the map there is a disclaimer also addressing this issue. The end. Moving on. All right, let's continue. All right, so we are at question 35. I'm page 22. Is will increase density and mixed use bonuses apply? The ZTA specifically has language saying a multi-use building would not be allowed and then incentive zoning does not apply to these zones. So a short answer for that one. Is a triplex new? So the ZTA adds a definition for a triplex. Previously, a townhouse was defined as three or more dwelling units. So the ZTA added a definition for triplex, saying it's three dwelling units, and then amended the definition for townhouse so that it starts at four. So this does change the way the tables work in the zoning ordinance. What the ZTA is introduced does is it says triplex or townhouse because in the zones not under this ZTA, the intent was to not change what currently exists. If there's a three unit townhouse, you don't want the implication that now and under their development standards apply. So that's why the ZTA says triplex or townhouse. Planning board recommended adding a separate column. Admittedly, council's office not actually opposed to that, just thought that it wasn't unnecessary given the slash. But that can be done if the committee would like to. Beltz's dispenders, we'll take that up when we come in. Next is the parking requirements. So I'm actually just gonna go ahead and read these here. So the zoning ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit for single unit living, two unit living, and townhouse living for multi-unit living. It's one space for an efficiency often known as a studio, 1.25 for a one-bedroom dwelling unit, 1.5 for a two-bedroom dwelling unit, and 2 spaces for 3 or more dwelling units. And then in addition, a workforce housing unit, you would cut that number in half. So to do a little math here, if you would have triplexed with 3-bedroom dwelling units, you would need to provide 5 off-street parking spaces. and then also ZTA 2310, which was approved by the council two years ago, exempts properties within a half mile of transit from the parking requirements, and that would apply as well. So one recommendation here, and this was apologies, just an oversight on council staff's part, that triplex needs to be added to the parking table so that correction would be made but noting for the committee here that the standards could just mirror the standards for townhouse living. There was a question about surface versus garage parking either satisfy your off-street parking requirements. Oh sorry. Councillor O'JJourney? Yes, sorry I couldn't find the hand button. Just on the parking issue, something that obviously comes up a lot. You mentioned the interplay of the ZTA that we passed for transit. So no parking changes if you're not in that area, correct? If you're not in the transit area. Yes. Okay. So that would have to be onsite, you know, and obviously if you're on a court or that doesn't, you can't, some court as you can't park on during, you know, depending on time of day or just as not feasible. So that would have to be provided onsite of the development itself in that case. Yes, yes. parking requirements, you're right. I should have said that up front. The parking requirements are always an off-street parking space. Right. So when you on the property must provide. Yes. So make sure people understand that because that came up a lot when I was my ZTA. And so it had to be on site. And but with the exception that in a half mile from transit, is that what we did? It was. Let me make sure I read this correctly. So it was half mile of Metro or Purple Line and quarter mile from an existing BRT station or BRT station funded in the current C. I think a lot of flashbacks here. I know you get all the, you get all the short sticks to counsel. So if there's a way to, my request was going to be if there's a way as we're going back to like overlay or show where those areas are on the map of this, I think it would be again, just in the trying to be and helpful. So people don't there's no one's trying to hide the ball so they understand if this would move forward where parking would not be required because of the previous action even though the ZTA in general does require the parking. Yes I can tell a map showing where ZTA 2310 applies that also overlays with this where the two ZTAs meet that's that's what I'm asking yes can do thank you let's continue okay so both surface parking and garage count surface parking would be a driveway parking pad but a few differences the two. A detached garage must meet the requirements for an accessory structure. Also a garage counts towards your lot coverage whereas a surface parking does not. And then again as noted the CTA does not change either the parking requirement or the design standards. There's also a lot of very detailed standards about how wide a parking spot must be. You have to room to turn into the parking spot. So none of that is being changed here and a developer again can choose surface parking or garage. The idea being if you choose a garage you might get a little more yard but then have a smaller unit because, you still have a 40 foot height. The ZTA does also limit driveway access to one driveway per street frontage, so if you have a triplex, you're not getting three driveways. You'll have one driveway that leads to all the parking, which must be behind the front building line. So that's an explanation of how all the parking works. So I will transition to an issue that does not seem related at first. But there is a big question about storm water management, tree canopy, and parking. So there's three different things that play here. First, I talked about the parking. A creative developer will figure out how to get it all to fit. and then planning and council staff will of course provide some diagrams for next time as well. In terms of storm water management, DPS can grant a variance from storm water management requirements. The reason this is in the discussion of parking is if you are a triplex and in R60 providing five surface parking spaces, there's not a lot of impervious surface space left, so it's going to be very difficult to meet that storm water management requirement. And then in addition to that, if you move a certain amount of dirt to put it in very not technical terms, it's called land disturbing activities of 5,000 square feet or more or 100 cubic yards of earth movement. The tree canopy rules kick in because now you need a sediment control permit and need to plant a shade tree. Right now you can pay a fee instead of planting that tree. So the interplay here is if you have to provide all five parking spaces very likely likely you would go to DPS for a stormwater management waiver, so you can fit that parking. So there's been a lot of requests, both four waivers against waivers and there's three different waivers. So a creative solution that Council staff presents to you is you tell the board they can grant one of the waivers, but not all three. But many options there to consider, especially based on the zone. Why don't we invite up DPS? I think there's two different dynamics here of what role is DPS is in the waivers, what role is plannings in the waivers, and then if you could talk about when, why, and under what circumstances waiver? Since this is a significant topic of interest and concern from residents, understandably. My name is Mark Etheridge. I manage the Water Resources section for the Department of Permitting Services. When we talk about our storm water management compliance standards, we have to remember that we're reviewing as a delegation of authority from the Maryland Department of the environment. They have minimum standards that we have to adhere to. Our code can be more strict and more stringent than theirs and it is in some places, but there are certain things that we can't be less strict than. The state law requires that storm water management be provided when it's required to the maximum extent practical. So we have to do that we can't automatically by blanket to say we're going to waive storm water management. The difference of one of the things in this is a little confusing but one of the things in our code that's more restricted than the state is that the state requirement is 5,000 square feet of disturbance. You need a sediment control permit and you provide storm water management. And if you're less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance under state code, you don't have to get a sediment control permit and you don't have to address storm water management. In County Code, there's two places that are more strict than that. One, doesn't really apply here and that is if you're changing use from residential use to some other use, you need a set of control permit and that can require stormwater management because lots of times if you go from single family use to a business user something, you need parking and those kind of things and that, we get a look at that and make sure that we can apply with those standards. The other thing though is that if you're building a new house or commercial building, regardless of disturbance, you need a set of control permit and you have to address stormwater management to the maximum extent practical. So my reviewers look at these plans and we say okay, what do you got? And they say we're going to get 75% of it. And we'll say, well, I'll be trying this, this, this, this. And we work on those until we're convinced that they've gotten everything that is practical. And if we can get 100% we will. But if we can't, we can issue a waiver for all or part of that storm water management. Under the little wrinkle here is that if we're talking about something that is a redevelopment project as defined by state code, the state has a lesser standard for that. We didn't buy that lesser standard. We said just do all you can do if you can do it. If you can't, we'll work with you and give you the partial waiver. But the other thing the state has is that if it's not redevelopment and these projects we're talking about today would not be considered redevelopment by state standards. You have a minimum standard, a minimum standard you have to hit with your stormwater management before we could consider a waiver. It's a calculated minimum standard. It's not hard to hit. Most projects that we see hit that standard. So it doesn't, it hasn't, in the 15 years that we've had this on the books, it hasn't become an issue on more than one or two projects that I can recall, meeting that minimum state standard. So that's what we do for stormwater management. We try not, we can't really stop the project because they can't meet full requirements, but we meet all the requirement that we can, and then we can consider allowing you to go forward with a fee and lieu that goes to Department of Environmental Protection so they can implement their environmental programs offsite instead of on site. How do you calculate the fee and lieu? Is that like the percentage remaining you come up with a comparable number? How do you calculate the? The fee and lieu is set in an executive regulation. I believe it's 5-9-0. I might be wrong. And there's two ways it's done. One, if it's a residential use, there's a residential zone and there's a fee for that zone. If it's not residential use, if it's a commercial use, then we look at the percent of imperviousness and how much of a waiver we did, and we calculate a percentage of that based on a number that's in the regulation. Do you see an issue? I mean, there's a suggestion of us waving, not allowing for the waiver at all. You've suggested that it's not a binary dynamic, which is different than how it's been described. And I think where some of the requests comes in of you either wave all, where you force all to occur, which is not how you're saying it actually works. Right. That works. Do you have a view or any feedback and practicality of how not allowing for your discretion to provide waivers and what impact that would have. Yeah, there's a few things that can happen. One is if we can't issue a waiver, with the understanding that we're looking to get everything we can get on site, and if it's not possible, then we issue the waiver. If we can't do it and they can't meet 20% of that requirement, we can't issue the building permit. Because there's no waivers. So master plans, other things like that would be affected. Redevelopments downtown Bethesda is very hard to get full compliance on a one-acre lot to lot line redevelopment of a commercial building when these storm grain systems are old and shallow, the soils are no good, it's a lot line to lot line building and all you've got to work with is the rooftop for storm water management. Those are tough to get. There are also single family lots in the county that I've seen where even to rebuild the same house on the lot you couldn't meet current storm water management requirements because the soils are bad, the set don't work it's a constriction for site layout so the it would cause some problems with with permitting and moving forward with some of those protocols we want to do for our construction. So prohibit products? It would by banning the waivers it would. The waivers aren't granted as a as a con to the developer. The waivers are granted to avoid having to deny the project. And do you have a position on what council staff is suggesting that there would be discretion on a waiver, but only one waiver and one of the three, not all. I think the only problem I have with that is that through state code, we're obligated, when there's a set of control requirement to look at storm water management to the maximum extent practical, that's a state requirement. State law doesn't give us the ability to just go directly to a waiver without trying to provide storm water management. Yeah, I just want to reiterate my understanding maybe council staff can clarify. My other saying wasn't to say one waiver happens. It was to say if a waiver is happening only one waiver can happen. Meaning you're expecting every applicant to follow every rule, but if someone is going to go through the process that you stated and you are going to determine that 80% compliance is the only practicable area and you decide that a stormwater management waiver is allowed for the remaining 20%, then they would not then be allowed to get, and the planning department would not be able to issue a waiver on the other requirements in terms of tree canopy or parking. Well right now in code that the tree canopy doesn't require a waiver. The tree canopy code chapter 55 is clear that you could pay a fee and lose. Amen and look which we I'll know it councilmember glass and I. the tree canopy doesn't require a waiver. The tree canopy code chapter 55 is clear that you could pay a fee and lose. Amen and look, which we, I'll know it, Council Member Glass and I, increase those fees so that more. Yeah, you're aware of that. Yeah, yeah, that more funding would go in and that fewer trees would come down. But I mean, if we don't, I guess we're going to probably be in a situation and I've heard some discussion about this tangentially today already with increased density on smaller lots, we're probably going to have a problem getting full compliance of storm water management in many cases. So this may take the cake away from the other two in a lot of cases, if that's what happens, you just have to figure out which is most important. I don't know how to. But it seems like your concern is you already have the discretion currently and that you don't just give waivers for the purpose of- We grant the parking. We want to retain your- We put in your at the stormwater waiver then we couldn't issue the building permit. Okay, I was just trying to get feedback on council staff's suggestion. I think you've at least helped us to understand it's not a binary question of whether a waiver occurs or not, which I think is... I'm not always just a choice as to whether or not you want to put it there or not. Sometimes it's just not possible. Even if you're not building much on a piece of property because of the existing constrictions on the property, it's just not possible. And it's your contention that the department is requiring everything that it can under a count of code in state. We absolutely do. If anything, I have to call my hands off once in a while and tell them to calm down a little bit in terms of their prosecution of the maximum extent. Appreciate that. Councillor Modrawanda. For you and your house, I appreciate your work. Quick question, you mentioned that this could, you'd have trouble potentially with compliance here. One of the things I was going to ask, you can say more about that, but I was also going to ask you if that has any interplay with the current, what the current backlog is, if any, on complaints, you know, related to stormwater issues. So could you talk about that? What is it, you know, so what does that look like? Is there a backlog? And how do you think if there is or isn't, that will interplay with, with, with kind of enforcing it in this context to realize them, you don't know exactly what's going to happen. But something's going to happen in a denser area where you're going to have issues that you're going to have to address. Yeah, I assume what you're talking about is, is complaints about a lot to a lot run off. Yes talk about it to the adjacent property and potentially causing damage. That's not the main focus of the storm water management program. The main focus is environmental mitigation. Right. It's based on a portion of a one-year storm event. But we certainly look at that as part of our reviews. And I'll tell you, in ten more days, I will have been here 30 years doing this. And I have not seen a whole lot of actual damage happen from this. There's a lot of concern and I get it and there's a lot of people on me very careful and there's a lot of people that don't want any additional water to go on their lot. But if that conveyance is acceptable and that water goes on through the property, then that's allowed. A lot of the older neighborhoods had their backyards all designed originally to convey that flow and over the time people have done things to their yards and they filled things and built things that maybe shouldn't have been in the flow area and sort of compromised some of that stuff but it's amazing how few actual problems we see most of the problems that I've seen occur during construction with maybe sediment controls that weren't implemented properly or a contractor getting out of sequence with this sequence of construction and grading something that wasn't ready to be graded yet. There have been some problems and we do have, we have a certification. The statement on the plans now from the engineer has to sign that says it's a runoff statement says I understand my Responsibilities under state law with respect to law runoff and I have analyzed this project and I found it to be acceptable. If we need more information, we ask them for studies. Point being if something does happen and it does have to go to court, we tell the engineers we can stand up and say this is the guy that did it and We can have this conversation. So we're trying to raise everyone's awareness and they're concerned for what their project is doing to adjacent properties It's not a guarantee that everything's gonna work out just right, but we're not blind to it and we do try to enforce it. I appreciate that. And the, obviously you talked about this applies to new construction. Are there any instances where, based on your 30, almost 30 years where these wouldn't be considered new construction, so there'd be a potential exception. I, it seems to me that these would all apply. That apply. I talked about new and, and reconstruct and redevelopment. That's a state. Just a state, a definition. The state allowed an option for a lesser standard for stormwater management for redevelopment when the code was rewritten after the 2007 stormwater act of the state. We chose not to accept that lesser standard, but to accept the lesser standard, you have to meet the definition of redevelopment, which is the existing use has to be commercial, industrial, institutional, or multifamily, and the existing imperviousness on the property must be 40% or more. We said, we don't care, just do it all. Do all the stuff. It wouldn't apply here because it doesn't. It doesn't. So, across the board. Sorry if I introduced a little bit of confusion there with that talk about new development and redevelopment. If they're building a house, whether it's a new house on a new lot or a tear down or rebuilt, they have to address strong water management the maximum is that right. You have to look at the screen. The cameras where I am. I know. But you know, I'll tell you ahead. I know it's odd. I'm an old guy on all this new stuff. It's like really, you know, hard again. Yeah, too. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. Thanks for your 30 years. Almost of service. We certainly appreciate it. I think it would be helpful if we could get feedback from planning and from the Department of Permitting Services of how Council staff's recommendation would work in practice. So if we were to consider what Council staff is suggesting, which I'm not predisposing anybody for that, but we at least should know how it would work in practice because there are multiple moving dynamics here between permitting services and planning as part of the review process. I think it would be helpful for the committee to be aware of how that work. If one could be granted, what is the sequence of that? Does it depend? Is it uniform? You know, does one get to pick before the other, you know, so to your point of, you know, stormwater is that the primary and then parking is the secondary and, you know, tree canopy, which can be painted in lieu, you know, et cetera, I just think it would be helpful for us to really understand and practice. Come up to the microphone, please. For the record, a tool charmer with the planning department, I just want to get on clarification related to this. So for the on-site, shade tree planting, our discounted staff and the PHP members think that the waiver is that you get to make a payment or is the waiver that you don't have to plant the tree on site. I think that'll help us think to someone. Yes, thank you. As I had written it, my thought when I was calling it a waiver, sorry for being unclear, is that you get to make the payment. So making the payment is the waiver. Yes. I just sounds like we should think through. But yes, that's how I meant it when I wrote it. All right. Well, I would like to understand from a practical scenario what that looks like and then what the payments, you know, what the waiver would look like, what the process would look like and what the payments in lieu would look like. I mean, that'd be helpful for our consideration before we make a decision on this. Thank you. All right, that's why we're not taking votes today. So we can come back and have some time to process and think through, really appreciate your work today. You're being here. It might feel like 30 years for us to make it through these issues, but I promise we'll go as methodically as we can. Let's continue through the packet. So next was a question about in-home childcare centers. I believe the reason this is in here is because it's permitted in the zones that are applicable to the CTA which is why it was asked. The off-street parking requirement for in-home childcare center, sorry, is one space per non-resident employee, and that's also only up to 12 persons above that is not allowed. But the space may be on the street abutting the site, so just providing that information. Next is what an ADU be permitted. The answer is no, because you can only have an ADU as part of a single family detached house. Next up, if someone is redeveloping, if somebody is tearing down and building a new house, they can decide and would have to decide whether to go through this process which requires optional method development to build a duplex, for instance, or to build a primary single family home with an accessory dwelling unit as part of it. So just to be clear, they essentially have to pick one or the other. Okay. Let's continue. The next question is how do the development standards work with overlay zones and master plans? So as noted earlier, a ZTA applies countywide, and overlay zone would only supersede this ZTA if in the Zoniornins when talking about the overlay zone, housing other than single-family is prohibited. Council staff reviewed the various overlays and did not find any such language. In addition, for master plans, again, the ZTA would take precedence. Most master plans recommend residential zone, so it's unlikely there would be a conflict anyways. And then also the board has to find substantial conformance with master plans when approving the project. And then lastly, the way master plans work is each new one supersedes. So any before thrive this DTA would be more consistent with thrive and so for both of those reasons this would super seed. Okay let's continue. All right moving on to page 25 how this impacts historic districts the DTA makes no changes to how development works in a historic district. So a historic area work format would still be required for any alterations within a designated historic district or for designated historic sites. As you know, we have a historic preservation commission that reviews all proposals for construction, addition, modification, tree removal, and those meetings are also public. Continue. all proposals for construction, addition, modification, tree removal, and those meetings are also public. Next is will there be a pattern book, be attainable housing strategies initiative from last year proposed by the planning board recommended a pattern book. The reason was because various development was allowed by right meaning it would go to D, so there isn't that same level of a discretionary board. Because this ZTA is all optional method, no pattern book is necessary, these projects will all go through the planning board for review. Okay, let's continue. All right, we are on our, I think second to last section, State, Federal, and laws. First, how this affects HOAs. HOAs are covenants, or in other words, private contracts between a property owner and their HOA. The county does not get involved if there's a dispute with HOA rules that goes straight to court. Next, how does this ETA affect municipalities? I do feel like I don't print this list enough, but the zoning ordinance does not apply to the following municipalities. Brookville, Poolsville, Layton'sville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gathersburg, and Washington Grove. There's a big history lesson from the 1940s about why that is, but for that reason this would not apply. For other municipalities that the zoning ordinance does apply to under the state land use article, those municipalities can impose stricter building requirements. When they're proposing zoning changes, they actually get sent to the council, council staff reviews them, and the council replies if they would object to those changes. But they're about building standards and they can't supersede our zoning, which is a good transition to state ledge. The session ends April 7th, hopefully. And there were two bills that are relevant to this. The first was a bill to clarify musical authority to regulate structures. That was passed favorably. It's a clarifying amendment about what single family zoning means. And then also a bill about 80 use was withdrawn. And I believe those are the two most relevant pieces of state legislation for the CTA. And there's a link to the website if you want to look at all the state wedge-bills. Next is the effects of the governor's housing package, specifically the housing expansion and affordability act. Planning and council staff met with state housing frequently and often and the final answer from the Department of Housing and Community Development was that the density bonus language does not apply to the residential zones in Montgomery County. Okay, so next section impacts. So for this section, similar to the consolidation one, all the questions were combined because they overlap. These are questions about infrastructure, environment, stormwater management, transportation schools. The county does a lot in this space. First is the growth in infrastructure policy. That admin, administers are adequate public facility requirements. It includes a schools test, utilization premium payments for transportation. There's local area transportation review, the GIPs reviewed every four years, it always comes up fast, the last one was reviewed last year just this past November. In addition, there is a 10-year comprehensive water supply and sewage systems plan to make sure that future water supply and waste water disposal needs are met. Next up, and sort of the, I guess, maybe big announcement here, is the council recently passed a resolution to form an infrastructure funding work group. The hope is for that group to begin, members are being assembled. of now, sounds like a Marvel movie. And that work is supposed to begin this summer, which will be an even deeper dive into how the county reviews infrastructure. So I know it's a long list of very many different policies, but the short answer is the ZTA is not changing the already existing laws and regulations on infrastructure and impacts. Okay, let's continue. Next is property taxes. So this is always a tough one in the world of land use. For every article on property taxes going up, you will find an article on property taxes going down. The answer is it is extremely fact specific. the effects of multi-family development, including duplexes and triplexes, it depends on the quantity, the quality of development, the neighborhood itself, the market conditions. So it's difficult to say for sure which way it will go. During a table housing, we reached out to the State Department of Assessment and Taxation Estate and they had a similar answer on it would depend on other factors. Okay. I saw a hand that I saw her down, so let's continue. And the very last section here is various technical amendments. of these include page 27, updating the building types in the other zones to add that there is now a triplex building type. The building type definitions are repeated in every zone, so this would just make sure that triplex is included throughout. As mentioned earlier, adding a parking requirement for triplex, clarifying that the front lot line is the applications tracked, because there's a different definition for a lot and a track. So just being clear on what we mean here, and then expanding some of the site coverage recommendations to duplex and triplex, I believe we had put not applicable for some of them, but in a few we could probably find a number. So I'll present all those technical amendments when we get to voting so you can see them in a clean draft. Okay, Councillor Rear Drowin now. Yeah, I just, I saw Mr. News almost done some on the letter finishing so I could, before I made the point. Just on the infrastructure, I feel like I know we're later in the day here, but this is something obviously that is one of the major takeaways from this entire discussion with community members that folks are concerned about. Stormwater management is obviously part of it. You know the capacity of our water system and water main breaks that we saw this winter. Obviously school capacity comes up and it's very cute and certain areas. Some impacted by these corridors. I just think the I appreciate you outlining the current mechanisms we have, but I do want to emphasize and I think we need to do a better job of connecting potential real life impacts to what people are seeing in their specific communities. And some impacts are going to be potentially more strannuous than others, depending on where it is and where there have been challenges in any form of infrastructure or capacity issue. And I think having an ability to analyze and talk about that and refine those tools both in place but also system wide is really, really important and it's something we hear we've heard about a lot and I think there's a lot of validity to it. And so to the extent that during this process I think don't want it to be glossed over because it's something that is important and has impacts on a lot of people's daily lives, depending on obviously what happens. It's not just this proposal, but it's in everything we do. So I just wanted to mention that as a charge to us and to planning it to everybody because I think it's going to take coordination but I do think we need to be responsive to that. Appreciate that. I don't think we're glossing over anything as the last nearly three hours reflects. I really appreciate this conversation. All of the tremendous work of council staff who've worked really hard to put this packet together and the thoughtfulness of planning and of Department of Permitting Services, Department of Pousing and Community Affairs for all being here and participating in these conversations. We're about to take up the budget. We are likely switching gears as a committee coming into the recess after public hearings next week related to MCPS spring break, which we will not be meeting that week and then come back and our full-on budget. And so likely we'll be coming back to this after budget in June when we're taking this up in earnest and we have a lot of homework and questions that have come up, some diagrams and other dynamics that we need and will receive responses on and look forward to the continued collaboration between planning and our council staff as well as the executive departments who are involved as well. I'll note that, fortunately, Mr. Duh, who gets the raw deal sometimes in some of these incredibly complicated dynamics during the budget actually has a little bit of a reprieve. So this will be a good opportunity to be able to weigh through that. Some of the other council staff members, perhaps not so lucky and have to work around the clock on our behalf and more importantly on behalf of the community in County we serve. So thank you to the team, thank you for colleagues for today and look forward to continuing this conversation and moving forward with a thoughtful, methodical process and hopefully getting to and landing in a good place. So thank you and with that colleagues we are adjourned.