Comments on False, alarmist flyer agitates Chevy Chase on zoning update - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Marjorie Rachlin

Sat, 12 May 2012 17:04:50 EDT

As a resident of Forest Hills I like the 8 foot side yards, which means 16 feet between my house and the neighbor's house. That 16 feet means air, privacy and light in the side windows of my house.

Under the proposed regs, a lot 50 foot wide would have to have 30% in side yards (15 feet) and at least 10% of that must be on one side (5 feet). So a neighbor or developer could build to 5 feet of the side lot line. If the lot next door were 6o feet wide, the neighbor could build to within 6 feet on one side of the house (with a total of 18 feet for both sides.)

What's the reason for this change? OP talks about the historical pattern in the older parts of the city, but why not just keep 8 foot side yards in the Northwest section where the 8 feet pattern already predominates.?

Comment by Christine

Tue, 08 May 2012 12:19:04 EDT

@Lance

GGW may not have written about Harriet's husband, but it did call attention to the cover story on Harriet that Lydia DePillis did two months ago, which included a pretty thorough description of their relationship and shared professional interests: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/42328/urbanista-inside-harriet-tregonings-push-to-reshape-dc/

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Fri, 04 May 2012 17:02:40 EDT

Officials from the Zoning Commission presented on the zoning rewrite at the ANC 5B meeting last night (May 3rd). People in the audience repeated a lot of the incorrect talking points about corner stores taking over neighborhoods, etc.

Unfortunately, it was somewhat of a good-cop/bad-cop routine from the ZC officials, as one shot down rumors, another used talking points that sounded suspiciously like the alarmist flyer mentioned above.

Comment by Nancy

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:37:35 EDT

I think accessory apartments in the home can be very helpful for a variety of reasons. Having a caregiver living in the home or someone who is providing rent to help defray the maintenance costs and taxes can help homeowners to age in place or afford to stay in their homes and neighborhoods. Exterior accessory apartments present different potential affects on adjoining neighbors and those should perhaps only be approved after reviews that include the neighbors. Alternatively, there may be neighborhoods that are anxious to have garage apartments (OP says that Cap Hill supports) but others that are not so anxious. Georgetown sought and got OP's help to ensure that garage or carriage house apts. must be reviewed by BZA.

The replacement proposals for home occupations are quite different than what is currently allowed. The categories that I mentioned - arts design&creation, office, and service - would be applied, along with others, to the Chevy Chase neighborhood, which was the focus of my comment since its their flyer that started this discussion. But those non-residential uses would also be allowed in other detached and semi-detached neighborhoods throughout the city. OP is proposing to eliminate the 10-12 occupations that are currently allowed as home occupations and replace them with categories of types of business. As long as a business fits within the definition of that category the owner of the house could open that business. There are some conditions, such as the operator must be the owner and space limits, but these are no different than the conditions applied to the benign small list of professions currently allowed as home occupations. Also, there are no space limits if the business is located in the basement or the garage, which could substitute for locating business in the house or be in addition to using the part of the house that is susceptible to space limits.
Are the proposed conditions adequate to avoid adverse impacts on neighbors? Are there some occupations that should be allowed and others that should be reserved for commercial zones? The categories will apply to commercial and residential. The only distinction will be space limits, employee limits, number of vehicles that can be used to facilitate the business and in some cases that owner of house must run the business. Special exception review is available for some categories to waive conditions.

Some businesses will not have to be operated by the owner of the house. There are a variety of conditions or special exception requirements that apply to certain categories. To say it is complicated is an understatement.

Comment by Allison

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:18:11 EDT

@Lance, I don't believe that Harriet's husband's career has ever been a secret or something held close to the vest. She is open about what he does and where he works, as is he. They certainly don't use their respective positions to advance one another's platforms. He is the Executive Director of Smart Growth America. She used to be Maryland's Secretary for Smart Growth and helped establish that program. I don't believe this can in anyway be construed as a conflict of interest given the transparency that exists.
I believe the point of this article is to raise the flag regarding flyers meant to instill fear, not educate, are dangerous to the trajectory of public discourse, especially for planning and zoning issues.

Comment by Ralph Bennett

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:10:42 EDT

Seems as if Chevy Chase Residents on both sides of the line tend to exaggerate. Chevy Chase MD opposed the Purple Line for a long time, and are opposing a Montgomery County Zoning rewrite which might, among other things, allow small accessory apartments by right and corner stores in residential zones. And higher density development at Chevy Chase Lake will end civilization as we know it.

So much to fear as we sit in traffic.

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:38:11 EDT

Nancy,

What from my post is inaccurate? I don't see anything you wrote which refutes anything in the article.

You are correct that the corner store provision is not limited to corner buildings or buildings with historic uses as commercial in the draft as written. However, it is clear that it doesn't apply in low-density residential zones like Chevy Chase, as I said.

I believe what you are saying about the side setbacks is correct. This would allow side additions in extremely few cases beyond what is allowed today.

Your more detailed characterization of what happened with the institution confusion and the fraternity house issue fits with my understanding. Both have been clarified and so I hope that folks like the N4N flyer authors will refrain from alarming people by using it in future materials.

It is true that the accessory dwelling provision is a significant change. It is a trend nationwide and an important way to help people "age in place" by allowing them to downsize in their homes without having to move.

A carriage house could be built from scratch only for buildings that don't max out lot occupancy and don't have an accessory building now. Some may do so if they don't have a garage now. It would have to be small and 22 feet is not very high.

I believe you may be confusing 2 provisions when you list allowable uses such as "office, service, arts design & creation." Those are 3 of the 4 uses that would be allowable for "corner store" type businesses in row house zones, but that provision doesn't apply to single-family zones.

Home occupation businesses are also permitted but that is not a policy change from the current zoning. People can run businesses of their own, in certain permitted categories, out of their homes today.

I am not aware of changes to this but there may be some small ones. If so, please feel free to illuminate. I would be interested to hear if you have any concerns about home occupation businesses, but I have not heard any concerns thus far.

It's not clear why people would not have been aware of this process. In my neighborhood people who are active in civic issues have generally been very aware of it. There have been numerous discussions at the ANC and our ANC's Zoning Preservation and Development committee, of which both Anne Sellin and I are members.

I have tried my best to communicate it widely. Further, at the early workgroup meetings, people from your part of the city were generally represented in greater numbers than elsewhere, not that it's a contest, but it didn't seem to me at the time that it was an unknown in Ward 3.

It seems that perhaps the members of the task force could help to do more to keep ANCs and community groups apprised. Regardless, the draft is still not even officially out, as it's still in the task force stage, so it's far from too late.

I am definitely not arguing that people should not raise concerns. However, I think that any outreach such as flyers should be sure to present an accurate picture of the situation. This flyer is designed to stir emotion with a particular goal in mind, getting people to take a negative impression of the project. I think that's doing a disservice to the people of Chevy Chase.

Lance: Your dig at planners is misplaced. Contrary to what you are saying, they seem acutely aware that different parts of the city differ. That's why many of the provisions of the zoning update don't even apply to Chevy Chase in the first place.

It seems more to me that opponents don't realize the city is not all one place. Not every neighborhood is Chevy Chase and many of the provisions of the update will make a very positive difference in neighborhoods very different from Chevy Chase.

Robin Diener had a very insightful comment at the end of the Federation meeting, where she pointed out that perhaps those unhappy with the update are only thinking about its impact on their neighborhoods and not many others around the city where people are eager for development.

Comment by Lance

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:41:59 EDT

@Nancy, Thanks for explaining what it is we have to fear ... or at least 'some' of what we have to fear. I think you're right in noting that a big part of the problem is that those people writing this code are under the mis-impression that ALL of Washington is the same, and ALL of Washington is urban .. which, of course, is far from the truth. We have some of the oldest suburbs in the area IN Washington itself ... Those are suburbs which should go by suburban rules and not urban ones which these 'one size fits all' proposals seem to want to cater too.

Also, interestingly the other day I was having lunch with an out of town friend (from another part of the country) who happened to mention that she was friends with Harriet Tregoning. She happened to mention that Harriet' husband is the president of "The National SmartGrowth Organization" or something like that (I'm paraphrasing the name. Jeez, an important conflict of interest like that you'd think someone with GGW with would have let us know. Well, I guess that explains a lot about the one-sided, single-focused policies ....

Comment by Dizzy

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:13:28 EDT

I meant MacWood. My apologies.

Comment by Dizzy

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:12:48 EDT

Nancy, can we get a confirmation that you are one Nancy McWood of ANC3C and the Committee of 100?

Comment by Nancy

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:54:45 EDT

David, not all of the information you provided is accurate. But I compliment you on trying to respond to concerns being raised in neighborhoods. There are several issues that are causing the alarm in some neighborhoods and one is that the OP website displaying the draft zoning code has not been available for a month. Perhaps it is back up today but as of Tuesday it was still down.

The introduction of corner stores into row house neighborhoods is written in the draft new code as not limited to corners or to lots on the block that have houses formerly built and used as retail stores or markets. Apparently it was OP's intention to limit the locations and OP has said it will change the draft.

Rear yard setbacks in Chevy Chase and similar neighborhoods are not proposed to change. Side setbacks are proposed to change. In Chevy Chase, which is mostly detached houses, an owner could build an addition or a new house with one side yard at 5 feet. There is a formula for determining the other side yard, but if the front of your lot is 30 ft., as some are in Chevy Chase, your side yards have to total 9 ft. Since no side yard can be less than 5 ft without a waiver from the BZA the other side yard would also have to be at least 5 ft. If your front is 50 ft wide, as new lots would have to be in Chevy Chase, the total would have to be 15 feet and owner can split it up however he wants as long as neither are less than 5 ft. What is important to remember is that many of our older neighborhoods do not have regulation lot sizes and many lot widths are less than required if a new lot were being created. Corner lots need only have 5 ft side yards no matter the length of the lot width.

The new side yard provision could result in more building into the side yards even though the total allowable amount of building on the lot won't change. That could change the look of the block from the street and it could move houses closer to their neighbors.

The proposed change from the list of a dozen professions allowed in residential neighborhoods to broad categories with only definitions and a few conditions to determine what could locate in a neighborhood is what gave rise to the institution confusion. The allowance for institutional establishments like non-profits and private clubs to use a house in any neighborhood was very disturbing. It was proposed over a year ago and there have been concerns raised ever since. Recently OP provided the task force with a very long list of the type of establishments that would meet the definition of each category. Under institutional frat houses were listed. There was alarm expressed by residents at one forum and at a subsequent rezoning task force meeting we expressed almost unanimous concern about the appropriateness of losing housing to non-profits in residential areas. To its credit, OP dropped the institutional category proposal by the next task force meeting.

Regarding using space in your home for a rental apartment that is being proposed. Currently, an owner needs a special exception, but that would not be required under new code. The proposal that is getting more attention is the proposed allowance to transform your garage, which can be built on the property line if located in the rear yard, into an apartment with no review. The garage or carriage house could be expanded from 450 square feet, the maximum allowed now, to 900 square feet and the height could go from 15 ft, currently the max, to 22 ft. OP points out that owners can currently raise the garage roof to 20 ft if a domestic (not my term) would be using the space. Renting the space is currently prohibited in neighborhoods like Chevy Chase. Residents at another recent forum thought this was a very significant change since few people have live-in "domestics" but many might take advantage of renting out a potential 1800 square foot apartment. Its true that the garage plus the house can't exceed 40% of the lot without a waiver from the BZA, but as you point out many Chevy Chase lots are not close to using 40% of their lots.

The introduction of a list of categories like office, service, arts design & creation as allowable businesses run by the resident is getting some attention. The amount of space that could be used is limited to 25% of the house area, not including the garage or basement and there are some other conditions, incluidng number of employees. Among the concerns that have been expressed at the recent forums is that some professions might have few or no affects on neighbors but others could introduce substantial affects but neighbors won't be able to stop those professions.

Many of us have been involved with the rezoning process since it began over 4 years ago. We have been attending many meetings and testifying at the Zoning Commission and we continue to raise issues with OP and attempt to persuade OP to make changes that we believe would not work well in neighborhoods and in fact could have negative affects on the quality of life. It would be very helpful if more people advocated for heights that represent the predominate heights in the neighborhood, the predominate setback of houses from the street, and the existing pattern of side yards as the Comp Plan recommends.

What is clear however is that many people, in fact most, have not been aware that this process was occurring or how they could become involved. Its true that ANCs have received notices of hearings on rezoning topics at the Zoning Commission, but as an ANC commissioner I can tell you that without more outreach most ANCs would not use a ZC notice as a clarion call to get involved.

The outreach that is being conducted now is very important. Rather than arguing that people shouldn't raise concerns or that a good reading of the 500+ page draft (to date) will quell your fears, I think we should acknowledge that a one size fits all zoning code is perhaps not appropriate for DC and that some neighborhoods will welcome some changes and others will not. We have a small city and we should be able to preserve what is good about our neighborhoods and open up new opportunities if that is what residents want.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:11:35 EDT

A corner store in Chevy Chase!? He'en forefend that they should build another Broad Branch Market and attract all of those Hawthorne street toughs.

Comment by TM

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:17:17 EDT

Lance maybe you haven't seen them because you haven't looked. If only OP published all the draft regs on some website with a pretty self evident title...oh wait, they do!

dczoningupdate.org

The proposed regs are all there for your review. (although the links to the docs appear to need to be updated). As for community input, I can say that in my neighborhood OP is working very closely with residents to develop compromise regs. Maybe you should acrually do a little research if you're so alarmed

Comment by crin

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:10:18 EDT

The HD was not overwhelmingly rejected. Only 1/3 or residents objected to it. 1/2 the residents who received "ballots" didn't even respond. No one knows whether they were for or against.

Comment by JustMe

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:09:51 EDT

You can't take anyone seriously who uses that "fancy writing" font on the last page of that flyer.

That said, did you call them for comment, Dave? Their contact info is right there.

Comment by ah

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:03:12 EDT

On a related note, this week's Northwest Current has a letter to the editor complaining about the zoning rewrite with similar concerns, and that it will force a more urban environment on neighborhoods.

The real kicker is that the author says these "large government" changes have her considering a switch to the tea party.

Comment by William

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:55:58 EDT

Ironically, from the addresses on the people who created this flier, they don't live anywhere close to any of the issues that they are raising their dander over.

Comment by Lance

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:40:28 EDT

David, I've heard it will AND I've heard it won't. But I haven't seen any published regs which allow me to know who to believe. Additionally, the process for writing these regs has been more or less a dog and poney show (i.e., not allowing for real community input). Given the lack of real proposed language to look at AND the lack of an open process for real community participation, don't you think people DO have a reason to be alarmed? I am.