The Town Council continued its markup of the proposed new building ordinance. The Council has made the ordinance simpler and much less restrictive than the original proposal. Here are the major changes to the ordinance from the original proposal:
Everyone is guaranteed a minimum of 3000 square feet regardless of lot size (up from 2500).
Basements don't count for purposes of FAR calculation.
Attics don't count for existing homes or additions to them but the portions of attics above 6' 6" (i.e. you can walk in them) do count for new construction (or the expanded portion of existing attics).
There is a single FAR of .50 for all lots of less than 12,000 square feet.
For homes on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, the FAR is .25 for the amount over 12,000 (e.g. on a 14,000 foot lot, you could build 6500; 6000 with the FAR of .50 for the first 12,000, 500 for the 2000 above 12,000)
The garage and wall length incentives have now been made into requirements (i.e. requirements on the placement of garages and no wall can be longer than 34 feet).
Non-vegetative surface is limited to 35% or less of the front yard.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Modifications to Proposed Town of Chevy Chase Building Ordinance
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Town of Chevy Chase FAR Incentives
This post outlines the incentives for which homeowners can receive a higher FAR and thus build a larger house under the proposed ordinance currently before the Town Council. It relies heavily on the Land Use Committee's report and the worksheet on calculating FAR provided by the Town. (In a previous post, I explained Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) and how it is measured for purposes of the Town of Chevy Chase's proposed ordinance.)
Through the use of incentives, the permitted FAR can rise from .30 to .45 for additions and .50 for new construction. The central goal of the incentive program to encourage the construction of new homes that fit with the existing character of the Town yet provide homeowners a great deal of flexibility in deciding how to construct their home. There are a variety of incentives and homeowners can select which ones, if any, they would like to meet in order to receive additional FAR.
A key advantage of this approach is that it avoids the creation of some sort of design or review board which would rule on the aesthetics of each home. At the same time, it provides a set of incentives to construct homes which fit within the Town's current character for people who would like to receive additional FAR (i.e. build larger homes relative to the lot size).
Homeowners can build any home they like which is already permitted under existing law and meets the new height limit--two feet lower than the current County limit--at an FAR of .30. They can construct an even larger home depending on how many additional incentives are met. Some incentives are quite easy to meet; others will probably be met by relatively few people but exist to promote a particular goal (e.g. historic preservation).
However, one can receive the maximum permitted FAR by meeting different combinations of incentives so no one has to meet all of them or is expected to do so. For example, additional FAR is awarded for several different types of garages, for example, because there are multiple types which fit within the existing character of the Town.
One hopes that the use of well-defined bright-line incentives would help limit the number of variance hearings. If a proposed construction plan meets the incentives, it receives the additional FAR. Variances would not be granted for an inability to meet a particular incentive because no home (or lot) is expected to be able to meet all of them and there is a choice among incentives. Of course, nothing would prevent the Town Council from granting variances if the proposed plan furthers the general goals of the ordinance. And don't forget that all homeowners are guaranteed a certain minimum square footage no matter how small the lot.
The biggest incentive is for building an addition instead of tearing down the old house and building a new one. The permitted level of FAR rise by .05 for construction of an addition.
Additionally, homeowners can receive credits, and an increase in FAR of .01 for each credit, for a variety of other criteria listed below. Again, one doesn't have to meet all, or even most, of the criteria. Instead, one can pick and choose. No matter how many criteria are met, the maximum FAR is .45 for a completely new home and .50 for home with an addition.
Tree Canopy (2 points are possible)
- Retain all healthy shade trees over a certain size.
- Plant a new shade tree. (You must also retain all healthy shade trees.)
- No more than 10% of the front yard is covered by non-vegetative surface.
- No more than 40% of the lot is covered by non-vegetative surface.
- Building coverage (buildings, pool, deck, for example) if 25% or less. (If the coverage is 20% or less, you may get a credit for this incentive and the next one.)
- Building coverage (buildings, pool, deck, for example) if 20% or less. (If you meet this requirement, you also get a credit for the previous one.)
- Donation of a conservation easement.
- Historic landmark designation.
- A two story or less house, rather than a two and a half story house.
- The roof gable orientation is the same as others on the block if 60% of the block has a similar orientation.
- No portion of the front wall is more than 34 feet long. If a house is more than 34 feet wide, you may still receive a credit if there are indentions along the front of the house that mean no one wall surface is more than 34 feet.
- No portion of either side wall is more than 34 feet long. If a house is more than 34 feet deep, you may still receive credits if there are indentions along either side of the house that mean no one wall surface is more than 34 feet. (Each side of the house could get a credit, so two credits are possible.)
- An unenclosed front porch with a minimum size of 6’ deep and 10’ wide.
- An unenclosed side porch with a minimum size of 6’ deep and 10’ wide.
- A wraparound porch where the front portion meets the standard and the side portion is at least 50% of it (2 credits).
- An entry feature that is at least 3’ deep and has a roof. (If the front porch standard is met, you also receive this credit.)
- A one story element of at least 8’ x 10’ (a small enclosed room) on the front, side or back of the house (up to 4 credits possible).
- No projections (porches, stoops, bay windows, etc.) are made into either side yard setback other than a chimney.
- A walkway goes from the front of the house to the street and is not part of a driveway.
- A shared driveway is maintained and there is no other driveway on the lot.
- A side entry attached garage is maintained or built. (Note that credits may be received for only one of the three garage standards.)
- A detached garage of no more than 240 square feet is maintained or built.
- Only one story above a front loading cellar garage.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Understanding Chevy Chase's Proposed FAR Ordinance
Much of this summary is based on the Town of
This post explains the concept of FAR and how it is measured in the Town of Chevy Chase's proposed ordinance.
The Basic Idea
The Town of
The base FAR proposed for
The Committee has proposed a maximum FAR of .50 for houses with additions. At this FAR, one could construct a 5,000 square foot home on a 10,000 square foot lot. The purpose of a higher FAR for homes with additions is to provide an incentive to retain existing homes and preserve the Town’s character.
Why FAR Tends to Underestimate What You Can Really Build
The figures cited above tend to underestimate greatly the permitted floor space within any building except on really large lots. Here is why:
Minimum of 2,500 Square Feet Allowed
No matter how small your lot, you can still construct a house of 2,500 square feet. Small lots are thus protected and given a bonus over large lots in terms of permitted floor space.
Below-Ground Floors Usually Don’t Count Toward Allowed Floor Space
Many below-ground areas thought of as basements by most people are legally classed as cellars. In general, if over one-half of the below-ground level is below the average elevation of the finished grade, this area is classed as a cellar as does not count toward your allowed floor space.
Unenclosed One-Story Porches Don’t Count Toward Allowed Floor Space
Porches are part of many existing homes in the Town. In order to help protect them and encourage their inclusion in new construction, the Committee recommended that unenclosed one-story porches not count toward your allowed floor space.
First 240 Feet of Detached Accessory Structures Don’t Count
This exemption is designed to encourage the preservation of detached rear garages which are characteristic in many parts of the Town. Caution: If you build an addition which attaches them to your home, then the first 240 feet will count as they are no longer an accessory structure.
Attics Count Only If They Have Structural Headroom of 6 Feet, 6 Inches
In other words, more traditional short attics don’t count toward the floor space limit.
Many Projections from the Home Don’t Count
For example, bay windows don’t count toward the allowed floor space unless they run from the bottom to the top floor of the house.
A Couple of Important Caveats Which Limit Home Size
Maximum of 5,000 Square Feet Is Allowed
Even if your FAR theoretically allows you to build more, you can only build up to a maximum of 5,000 square feet. However, remember that this limit excludes all of exceptions mentioned above which do not count toward the limit. A below-grade basement, for example, could greatly expand the useable space in such a home.
Two-Story Rooms Are Counted Twice
Even if a floor isn’t laid, two-story areas (defined as 14 feet or higher) are counted twice under the recommendation, so you don’t get a break for cathedral ceilings. This makes sense since the goal of the Committee’s recommendation is to limit the bulk of homes. You can’t double your home size by having extra-high ceilings in every room.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Chevy Chase Moratorium Hits the Papers
Read Audrey Dutton's take on last week's Council meeting in the Gazette. According to Dutton: "The council is expected to vote on the new building laws by the end of April." The Washington Post printed a separate article by Dutton on this topic but the online link doesn't work.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Heated Council Meeting in Chevy Chase
Is he taking a picture for that blog again?The Town of Chevy Chase Town Council held an unusually well-attended and heated meeting on Wednesday night. Most of the meeting was dedicated to the proposal introduced by Councilmember Kathy Strom (above right) for a new moratorium on the issuance of new construction permits excepting emergency repairs or additions of less than 500 square feet.
Public Comments
Twenty-eight residents spoke during the public comments period at the start of the Town Council meeting. Bridget Hartman presented a petition in support of the moratorium signed by 267 residents of the Town. Numerous people spoke passionately for and against the moratorium.
I haven't seen nearly so much tension at a meeting of the Town Council, normally relatively sedate and poorly attended affairs, since the last moratorium proposal was introduced. I felt bad for Irving Kaminsky who had come to speak on another topic--in support of a sidewalk on the north side of Thornapple St. (Bruce Russell speaks in favor of the moratorium and asks for action on a new noise ordinance.)
Consideration by the Town Council
The conflict over the proposed moratorium among the residents was reflected in some unpleasant moments and tension on the Council. Mayor Linna Barnes deserves credit for her management of this difficult meeting. One might note that her attempts to keep the meeting on time and residents (and councilmembers) within time limits were not so that she could dominate the debate--she didn't speak much at all--but so that all could be heard and in service of a fair and civil process.
Councilmember Kathy Strom formally introduced her proposal for a new moratorium on the issuance of new construction permits with exceptions for emergency repairs or additions which expand the footprint of a house by less than 500 square feet. The moratorium would take effect after a public hearing and action by the Council.
Kathy explained that the moratorium would prevent the loss of more homes while the Council considered the proposed FAR (floor-to-area) ratio ordinance crafted by the Town's Land Use Committee. Mayor Linna Barnes seconded the proposal.
Councilmembers Rob Enelow and Lance Hoffman spoke against the proposal. Rob felt that moratorium proposal is "unfair" and disagreed passionately with those who would say that the ordinances adopted in the wake of the first moratorium has accomplished little:
Have these ordinances succeeded? No. But they were the only tools we had. It was the best we could do. If there were no tree ordinance, those crepe myrtles on Virgilia would be mulch. If there were no water ordinance, there would be no water board appeal on the Underwood project. Are the new houses still too big? Yes. But many of these projects would have been even larger. And there would be fewer canopy trees in Chevy Chase today.Lance spoke in a similar vein, arguing that the moratorium "just does not make sense", is a forerunner of "more acrimony that is totally unnecessary" and would slow down consideration of the new FAR ordinance. (Councilmembers Lance Hoffman and Rob Enelow consult at left.)
While Rob and Lance spoke out against the moratorium, their comments implicitly acknowledged the justice of some pro-moratorium arguments. Rob said he was "upset at the scale of the new houses". Rob further acknowledged that the moratorium proposal had given the Council a second "kick in the pants" to move more expeditiously to enact a new FAR ordinance. Lance promised to do "whatever it takes" to move expeditiously on the FAR ordinance and stated that he would support a moratorium in a month's time if enough progress had not been made on the ordinance.
At this point, Councilman Mier Wolf suggested that the Council hold a hearing early next month on the proposed moratorium. Mier's thought was clearly that the Council should work to move forward quickly with the new FAR ordinance in the hope that a moratorium would become unnecessary and further conflict averted. Mier's personal calmness--perhaps the benefit of experience--helped bring down the temperature of the debate a notch.
Kathy suggested an earlier hearing date but Mier's proposal was ultimately adopted with the support of Kathy and Linna. Rob voted no and Lance abstained.
Moving Forward
The Town Council would do the Town an enormous service if it moved expeditiously enough on the new FAR ordinance that further conflict within the Town over a moratorium were averted. However, this goal is highly ambitious and is going to take both planning and hard work in the part of the Council to achieve.
The Council needs to move immediately to schedule the public meeting (or meetings) for Town residents with the consultant on land use issues within a few weeks time, so that residents can have questions regarding the proposed new ordinance answered. This needs to be done now so that proper notice can go to Town residents.
The document drafted by the Land Use Committee explaining their proposal for the new FAR ordinance should be mailed out to all Town residents about one week before that meeting. Julia Miller, the Chair of the Land Use Committee, showed a calm and impressive command of these issues at the Town Council meeting when the proposed ordinance was introduced. The report issued by her committee is unusually clear and well-drafted--it answered a lot of questions I had about the proposal.
The meetings for residents with the consultant need to occur soon so that the public hearing on the ordinance can occur shortly thereafter--even as soon as a week later. Moving at this pace is necessary so that the Council will have made enough progress in consideration of the new ordinance to avoid a repeat of the conflict on display at the last month's meeting.
The Council may be tempted to delay the public meetings until it has had time to review carefully the new ordinance. However, the Council should hold its own meetings in tandem with this public process. In any case, the Council will likely want to make any changes (or not) in response to public comments so the public process will aid its own internal deliberations.
Oh, and maybe we can reprint one of Mayor Bill Hudnut's talks on civility in the Forecast. Now I know why he used to give them so often. Hopefully, everyone will do their best to remember that we're all going to be neighbors long after this difficult process is completed.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
New Moratorium Proposed in Town of Chevy Chase
The Town of Chevy Chase will consider a new emergency building moratorium on Wednesday evening during its 7-9pm meeting. The purpose of the proposed moratorium is to stop new construction (except of additions of under 500 sq. ft.) until the Town can adopt the ordinance proposed by the Town's Land Use Committee designed to promote construction compatible with existing homes in the Town.
The crux of the proposed new ordinance is a new limit on floor-to-area ratio (F.A.R.) which allows larger homes on larger lots. The ordinance would also include new height and lot coverage restrictions beyond those already imposed by Montgomery County. The proposed ordinance also contains incentives in the form of permitting a higher F.A.R. for additions to existing homes (rather than teardowns) and for construction that meets certain environmental standards.
I favor both the moratorium and the concept behind the new ordinance. The new ordinance is complex and the Council will need time to consider it carefully and to hold public hearings on it before adoption. At the same time, I hope the Council moves expeditiously to move the process forward and enact the ordinance.
Even if the Council acts quickly on the ordinance, the moratorium is needed because the Town may continue to lose existing homes due to this delay and because the new ordinance has taken longer to enact than expected. If no new construction occurs, then no one is injured by the moratorium but Town residents will feel reassured. Supporters of the new moratorium plan to present a petition in support of it at tomorrow night's Council meeting.
The Town Council can feel safe enacting the moratorium on an emergency basis because of the long-established record in hearings and elections of support for measures like moratorium and the ordinance. This new ordinance represents the culmination of a process begun with the first moratorium.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Discussing Development on Political Pulse
Washington Post Reporter Ann Marimow will be on the "Political Pulse" TV Show in Montgomery County on Thursday, January 25th at 9 p.m. and Tuesday, January 30th at 9:30 p.m. to discuss some of her recent articles on the building moratorium that was recently proposed by the Montgomery County Council.
Other issues that will be discussed include the County budget, development and growth in the County and the first months of County Executive Ike Leggett's Administration. Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
