Category: AHS

Here are additional opportunities to learn about and to express your opinions regarding the proposed Attainable Housing Strategies [AHS] initiative and how it may affect Parkwood.  The AHS will be considered by the County Council in the coming weeks.

1. Wednesday, September 18, from 6:30-7:00 PM.  The Town of Chevy Chase View, our neighbor on the other side of Cedar Lane, has invited anyone who wishes to attend, to join the first half hour of its hybrid Town Meeting to hear Montgomery Planning Representative, Mr. Ben Berbert present an overview of the Attainable Housing Strategies Final Report and specifically how the current plan impacts Chevy Chase View. Mr. Berbert will answer questions, as time permits and will respond to all emails. This presentation will be recorded.  The session uses software different from Zoom; the link is accessible here.

2. Wednesday, September 25, from 7:00-9:00 PM.  This will be an in-person listening session with Councilmember Friedson at the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School.  The deadline to register is Sep 21. Register here.  [Note: This session was previously closed because there was no more space available, but has been re-opened at a new venue, the BCC High School.]

3. Wednesday, Oct. 2, (via Zoom) 12-1:30 p.m. This is a virtual meeting with Councilmember Friedson. Meeting details will be sent to registrants prior to the event. Sign up by Sept. 27, 12 p.m.  Register here. 

This article, prepared by the PRA AHS Committee, discusses the market factors identified by the Planning Board that could affect housing development in neighborhoods such as Parkwood if the Council approves the proposals in the Board’s Attainable Housing initiative.

Previous articles in this series have covered the initiative’s Goals, the Impact on Types of Homes in Parkwood, Priority Housing Districts, and the proposed Pattern Book. Because our Committee aims for objectivity and neutrality, much of the text of this article is composed of direct quotes from the final report on the initiative.

To support the development of its recommendations, Montgomery Planning evaluated the market feasibility of constructing attainable housing within established single-family neighborhoods.  It looked particularly at the factors that might affect the building of duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods such as Parkwood, in addition to, or instead of  the replacement of an existing single family home with an even larger one, as is already permitted.

As defined by the Planning Department, “Replacement homes are the purchase of an existing house by a builder, the demolition of that existing house, and the construction of a replacement home that is then sold at a profit. Replacement homes are substantially larger and more expensive than the prior home that was demolished.”.  [pp74; dp75**]. 

“Montgomery Planning identified 683 replacement homes built since the year 2011. The original homes averaged 1,500 gross square feet, while the replacement home averaged 3,730 gross square feet. 19 Builders bought the properties for an average of $640,000, and then sold the subsequent replacement homes for an average of $1,635,000.” [pp74; dp75**]. 

Further refining its analysis, the Planning Department found [not surprisingly] that the replacement home industry targets the lower cost and most attainable properties in high demand neighborhoods and converts them into the highest cost properties.  “Within the 10 neighborhoods with the greatest concentration of replacement homes built since 2010…the replacement home industry has acquired 35% of the relatively least expensive houses [121 of 349 homes] in [these] neighborhoods and sold them for more than 130% of the average sale price in these neighborhoods”.  [pp76; dp77]

Planning concludes that “these data indicate that while the replacement home industry is relatively small in comparison to the entire number of housing units in Montgomery County, it is resulting in a significant and meaningful loss of the most attainable single-family properties.” [pp76; dp77**]. 

Of particular interest to Parkwood residents is a more detailed look undertaken by the Planning Department at replacement homes in a portion of Kensington Estates, the community immediately north of Parkwood from Westbrook Lane to Knowles Avenue. The area studied has one of the most dense concentrations of replacement homes built in the last several years.

As shown in the report [pp78; dp79], since 2011:

• 50 replacement homes were built
• $815K=the average sale price of all homes in the area
• $485K=the average value of properties acquired by replacement home builders
• $1.25M=the average sale price of replacement homes

These numbers illustrate the facts that homes to be replaced are bought at significantly less than the average of all home sale prices, and that the replacement homes sell for significantly more than the average of all home sale prices.

The Department then estimates that “if five percent of replacement homes built over 10 years [in the portion of Kensington Estates studied] had instead become multi-unit attainable housing properties [i.e., duplexes triplexes, and quadplexes], it would have resulted in one or two properties converting to multiple units in the entire 10-block. At 30 percent it would result in eight properties converting, which is still less than one multi-unit attainable property per block over a 10-year period.” [pp78;dp79]. 

The Planning Department gives no specific basis or rationale for selecting 5% and 30% for its estimates.  Presumably, it is done for purposes of illustration.  It then goes on to state that  the “Montgomery County Planning Department finds that the production of attainable housing [i.e., multiplexes] will be incremental [in single family zoned neighborhoods], with what is likely a small number of units built each year. This finding aligns with the Missing Middle market study presented previously to the Planning Board which found that development of smaller and/or less dense multi-unit properties would be unlikely to generate enough value to justify the purchase and redevelopment of homes of average value in many neighborhoods.” [pp76; dp77].

Summary:  In the County as a whole, developers in the replacement home business are focusing on purchasing the lower cost and most attainable properties in high demand neighborhoods and converting them into the highest cost properties.  The Department, however, found that  the total number of replacement homes purchased and sold by developers was relatively small.  A case study of replacement houses in a portion of Kensington Estates, a neighborhood adjacent to Parkwood illustrates these points. The Planning Board therefore concludes that the impact of its proposed zoning changes with regard to multiplex units in neighborhoods like Parkwood would be “incremental” and “manageable”.   

The next article in this series will discuss the possible impact on the value of homes in Parkwood.

***********************************************

 ** Throughout this and subsequent articles, two page numbers will be used as references to the text of the Planning Board’s Final Report to the Council.  The letters “pp” will refer to the printed page number of the report.  The letters “dp” will refer to the digital page number of the report in PDF format.

On September 5, 2024, County Executive Elrich spoke at a Montgomery County Civic Federation [MCCF] meeting to express his views about the proposed Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative currently before the County Council. You can view a recording of that meeting here.

This article, prepared by the PRA AHS Committee, discusses the types of housing proposed in the Planning Board’s Attainable Housing Strategies Final Report for neighborhoods such as Parkwood that have a zoning designation of R-60.  

If the regulations proposed in that report are approved by the County Council without amendment, then duplexes, triplexes, and possibly quadplexes would be permitted in Parkwood, in addition to single family homes.  Quadplexes would be permitted if Parkwood is determined to lie within a Priority Housing District (PHD) as currently defined, i.e., within a straight-line mile of a Metro or MARC station.  [More about PHDs in a forthcoming article.] 

The Planning Board also recommends creating a new optional method of development called the Attainable Housing Optional Method (AHOM) to provide opportunities for medium scale attainable housing such as stacked flats, small townhouses, and small apartment buildings on certain properties in R-60 zones that are within 500 feet of Thrive Montgomery 2050 -designated Growth Corridors . However, it seems unlikely that these additional  types of dwellings, i.e., stacked flats, etc. would  be permitted in Parkwood because it is not within the Growth Corridor boundaries. [pp31-32; dp32-33 **].   See this map of Growth Corridors.

Also of note is that the Planning Board is not recommending allowing the AHOM in R-200 zones, many of which are in wealthier communities, because the R-200 zones are generally  located outside of the corridor-focused growth areas identified in the Thrive report .  They are instead located in limited growth areas. [pp32;dp33**].  In addition, triplexes and quadplexes would be allowed only in R-200 zoned areas that were in Priority Housing Districts.  These limitations on what can be built in many R-200 zones have caused some residents to consider these constraints unfair in comparison to what can be built in R-60 zones such as Parkwood.

Finally, Parkwood would not be considered for “large scale” attainable housing developments, which include four- or more story, mixed-use live/work buildings, stacked flats, and small apartment buildings, again because it is not within one of the Thrive designated Growth Corridors. Given the larger impact and scale of these attainable housing types, the report states that this type of housing is most appropriate to be implemented after the full analysis and public engagement of either a local master plan process or a Local Map Amendment (LMA) process.[pp36;dp37**]  

In summary, if the Council adopts the currently proposed zoning changes, then duplexes and triplexes would be permitted in Parkwood, along with single family homes.  Quadplexes would be permitted if the Council agrees to the boundaries as proposed for Priority Housing Districts. However, stacked flats, small townhouses, small apartment buildings, and other large scale attainable housing developments would not be permitted.

The next article in this series will describe Priority Housing Districts.

******************************************

** Throughout this and subsequent articles, two page numbers will be used as references to the text of the Planning Board’s Final Report to the Council.  The letters “pp” will refer to the printed page number of the report.  The letters “dp” will refer to the digital page number of the report in PDF format.

This article, prepared by the PRA AHS committee, describes the goals of the proposed Attainable Housing Strategies and the problems it is designed to solve. 

A shortage of housing and especially affordable housing is the most important and most frequently cited challenge the plan is intended to address.  The goals also include:

• Increasing the diversity of the County’s housing supply.
• Meeting economic development objectives.
• “Unraveling” the exclusionary aspects of the County’s single family home zoning.
• Creating more opportunities for more home ownership for more households in more parts of the county.

The cost of housing is a major problem.  “Housing has become less affordable in all parts of Montgomery County. In 2023, the average detached home sales price was $968,522 – an increase of three percent from the 2022 average. This was not an outlier, as year-to-date in 2024 (January through April) the average detached home sales price increased by approximately $50,000 to over $1,000,000.

“In all zip codes in Montgomery County, home prices have increased above the rate of inflation and outpaced income growth since the mid-1990s. … Neighborhoods that were once considered relatively affordable are now only affordable to households earning well above the median income.” [pp12;dp13**]

“If the trends are not addressed, the disparities between those who can and cannot afford to buy a home in the county will continue to grow. Given the historical inequities associated with homeownership, those disparities will continue to segregate Montgomery County communities along racial, ethnic, and economic lines.”  [pp15;dp16**]

However, the actual shortage of housing in the county, attainable, affordable, or otherwise has become a matter of debate. While there is data, noted above, showing that in the last several years the cost of housing has risen faster than the increase in income, there is some disagreement about the extent of the reported “housing shortage”.  The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has said the county needs many more thousands of houses to meet demand in the next several years.

On the other hand, the County Executive notes that this need has declined in the past two years and reports that enough housing permits under current zoning have already been granted to meet that need.  If the latter is true, will the proposals encourage those with permits to begin building?  And will that housing be more attainable or affordable than the current market offers?

Some County leaders have expressed strong support for the need to solve the housing challenge. 

Council President Friedson, for example, has said that “We face a severe housing shortage in Montgomery County which requires thoughtful, forward-looking action. Finding a home that meets the evolving needs of our residents and families has become increasingly out of reach.” 

Planning Board Chair Artie Harris has stated that “The time has come for Montgomery County to break free from outdated zoning that has constrained the housing supply, led to skyrocketing real estate prices, and has forced more of the County’s middle-income population to search elsewhere for housing. The County has little open land left to build on and almost half of the County’s housing stock is composed of detached housing.” 

However, County Executive Elrich, while agreeing with the need for more affordable housing has questioned whether the proposals in the Planning Board’s plan are the best way to meet that need.

Summary:  Rising costs have made housing unaffordable for many residents in many parts of the county. The Attainable Housing Strategies initiative currently before the County Council is intended to meet the need for more attainable and especially more affordable housing, while also addressing other goals such as economic development and more opportunities for home ownership for more households.  There is debate, however, over the extent of the actual housing shortage and whether the proposals in the Attainable Housing Report are the best way to meet its goals.

The next article in this series will discuss the types of housing recommended and not recommended  for neighborhoods such as Parkwood.

** Throughout this and subsequent articles, two page numbers will be used as references to the text of the Planning Board’s Final Report to the Council.  The letters “pp” will refer to the printed page number of the report.  The letters “dp” will refer to the digital page number of the report in PDF format.

This article describes the forthcoming information articles the PRA AHS committee will begin publishing on the Attainable Housing Strategies Final Report which the County Council will take up when it resumes sessions in September.

As noted in a previous PRA News article, the County Council has scheduled five in-person and one virtual session on the Attainable Housing Strategies [AHS] initiative which is likely to result in zoning amendments intended to increase the supply, affordability, and diversity of housing in the county.

As background for these listening sessions and the zoning amendments the Council will likely consider, the PRA AHS Committee will provide a series of brief articles that explain the potential impact on the Parkwood community, raise questions that require clarification, and identify important issues that need to be resolved.  As stated previously, the articles will be as neutral and objective as possible, intended to provide useful information to residents, but will not state a position for or against any of the proposals in the report of the Planning Board.  These articles will appear in PRA News on the listserv.

Among the topics to be discussed in these articles are the following:

• Goals of the AHS proposals:  What are the problems the AHS initiative is intended to solve?  What has happened to the cost of housing in the county?  What is the actual extent of the  housing shortage?
• Potential effect on types of housing in Parkwood:  What types of houses would be permitted/not permitted in Parkwood?  
• Market factors:  How might market factors affect the rate at which single family homes would be turned into multi-unit houses if the AHS proposals are approved?  What is the number of multiplexes [duplexes, triplexes, etc.] projected to be built in communities like Parkwood? 
• Possible impact on the value of homes in Parkwood.
• Explanation of Priority Housing Districts and Growth Corridors, whether they would apply to Parkwood, and if so, how.
• Explanation of the Pattern Book, which will provide mandatory guidance on the design of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.
• Important issues that need further clarification, such as stormwater management, parking, and impact taxes.
• Discussion of the likelihood the AHS proposals will be able to meet the plan’s objectives, based on experience of other jurisdictions, research reports, etc.
• Potential limitations to upzoning: restrictive covenants, municipal control, litigation.
• How to express your opinion to the Council.
• How to learn more: Notices about speakers,  meetings with experts, etc.
• Council schedule for review and implementation, to be updated regularly.

The next article in this series will describe the goals of the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative.

As reported in a Montgomery County press release, Council President Andrew Friedson and Montgomery Planning Director Jason K. Sartori are inviting community members to attend five in-person and one virtual listening sessions on the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative (AHS).  The initiative would allow property owners to have the option to build a wider range of housing types in areas of the County that for decades have only allowed one single-family detached home per lot. See further comments at the end of this article regarding the purposes of the AHS initiative.*

There is no legislation to implement Attainable Housing Strategies currently pending before the Council. The purpose of the six listening sessions is to collect feedback on the Planning Board recommendations which will be shared with all Councilmembers as part of a deliberative review process.

Use this link to sign up for a listening session. Please note that there is a deadline for signing up for each session.

The Council is also inviting residents to provide additional feedback on the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative. 

The six listening sessions will be held in each of the County’s five regional service areas, followed by a virtual meeting. The five in-person events will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. The virtual session will be held on Oct. 2 from 12-1:30 p.m.

The listening sessions are scheduled on:

• Wednesday, Sept. 11, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center (1319 Apple Ave., Silver Spring, MD). Sign up by Sept. 9, 12:00 p.m.
• Thursday, Sept. 12, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Wheaton Community Recreation Center (11701 Georgia Ave., Wheaton, MD). Sign up by Sept. 10, 12:00 p.m.
• Tuesday, Sept. 17, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the White Oak Community Recreation Center (1700 April Lane, Silver Spring, MD). Sign up by Sept. 13, 12:00 p.m.
• Monday, Sept. 23, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Germantown Community Center (18905 Kingsview Road, Germantown, MD). Sign up by Sept. 19, 12:00 p.m.
• Wednesday, Sept. 25, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center (4805 Edgemoor Lane, Bethesda, MD – Wisconsin Room). Sign up by Sept.23, 12:00 p.m.
• Wednesday, Oct. 2, virtual on Zoom 12-1:30 p.m. Sign up by Sept. 27, 12:00 p.m.

*According to CM Friedson, “We face a severe housing shortage in Montgomery County which requires thoughtful, forward-looking action. Finding a home that meets the evolving needs of our residents and families has become increasingly out of reach. I look forward to hearing a variety of perspectives and ideas from our residents, so we can work together to build on the recent progress we’ve made and refine solutions that support the type of communities and the quality of life we’ve come to expect in this great County.”

Planning Board Chair Artie Harris has stated that, “The time has come for Montgomery County to break free from outdated zoning that has constrained the housing supply, led to skyrocketing real estate prices, and has forced more of the County’s middle-income population to search elsewhere for housing. The County has little open land left to build on and almost half of the County’s housing stock is composed of detached housing. People of all ages and income levels need more choices to bridge the gap between high-rise apartment buildings and single-family detached houses. We can no longer afford to devote so much land to so few people.”

Montgomery Planning Director Sartori notes that “Montgomery County supports strong, inclusive communities and its zoning laws need to align with its commitment to fostering the creation of communities where not just the most fortunate can own a home and build wealth.  These recommendations not only outline different housing types to add to our housing stock but create options and opportunities for households of various incomes to attain housing that is suitable to their needs.”

On July 22, 2024, the County Council’s Planning, Housing, and Parks [PHP] Committee held its third Work Session [WS] on the Attainable Housing Strategies [AHS] report submitted by the Planning Board to the Council on June 14.  [Ed note: These notes were prepared by Clare Murphy, a member of the PRA AHS committee.]

As in the first two Work Sessions, the three committee members participated in the meeting: Andrew Friedson, Committee Chair and President of the Council; Will Jawando (via zoom), At Large Council Member [CM]; and Natali Fani-Gonźalez, District 6 CM. The Committee expects to make final recommendations to the full Council in the fall.

As in past sessions, the WS was led by members of Council staff, including its Legislative Attorney and Legislative Analysts who presented their assessment of the last three sections of the Planning Board’s report.  Staff gave their suggestions to accept Planning’s proposals or to make changes to them. Planning Board and Department employees were there and provided clarification and information when asked by Committee Members or staff.

 The July 17th Memorandum from the committee staff to the committee members details the Report sections discussed at this WS.

Planning Report Sections Discussed:

• Large Scale Attainable Housing [AH] – four-story [or more] mixed-use, live/work buildings, stacked flats, and small apartment buildings. Planning recommended and Council staff agreed to use the master plan process to identify opportunities to rezone properties along the Growth Corridors for higher intensity residential development. [Ed note: This could include portions of Parkwood.]
• Plan Reviews and Subdivision Process. – Planning recommended and Council staff agreed to revise site plan reviews for some large scale development and to streamline subdivision approval process for projects of 19 or fewer units. This included allowing some projects without frontage.
• Parking. Planning recommended and Council staff agreed to several plans to reduce the minimum parking requirements for AH development but stressed that there’s no prohibition to providing more parking. CM Friedson stressed that parking is a big issue with residents and should be further reviewed.
• Residential Driveway Standards. Planning recommended establishing narrower widths for AH projects. CM Friedson questioned this recommendation and suggested that Planning get more data on latest construction projects.
• Street Trees and Tree Canopy. Planning recommended exploring ways to reduce tree spacing in the right of way. CM Friedson said this issue needs a “deep dive beyond AH” and needs to be analyzed further.
• Fire and Rescue Standards. Planning is concerned that Commercial Standards, which are stricter than residential, will be applied to AH multiplex projects, thereby reducing the number of housing units built.  
• Storm Water Management. Planning recommends updating the current code to require SWM for multiplex buildings. [Ed note. There wasn’t much discussion on this topic.]
• Catalyst Policies and Programs. Planning recommended several programs to incentivize homeowners to convert their properties to multiplexes, such as tax refunds, loans, and development of a “toolkit”. CM Friedson said this issue is much broader than zoning and should be removed from the AH plan. He said it’s an economic issue. CM Fani-Gonzalez said it will be addressed soon.
• Impact Taxes. Planning noted that minimizing taxes on AH projects will “accelerate” production of them. This matter will be addressed at the Council’s 2024-2028 Growth and Infrastructure Policy this fall.
• HOAs and Municipalities. Council staff and CM Friedson stressed that the County can’t override these entities’ zoning controls. They suggest exploring ways to remove prohibitions to AH and to educate municipalities on AH.  [Ed note.  There was a lot less emphasis on getting the State to address these issues than there had been in earlier Work Sessions.]

Council Members’ Questions and Concerns

• CM Jawando attended via zoom and didn’t make any comments or ask any questions.   
• CM Fani-Gonźalez made a few comments and didn’t ask any questions.
• CM and Committee Chair Friedson led the Work Session and asked a lot of questions of the Council staff and Planning employees.

Next Steps

• The Council plans to hold a series of “listening sessions” in the fall of 2024 to obtain additional feedback from stakeholders. After consideration of input from these work sessions and public listening sessions, proposed legislation is expected to be transmitted by the Planning Board to the Council to implement the various recommendations and zoning changes.
• The Council will also conduct public hearings and hold further work sessions to review the legislative proposals before enacting any changes. More details on this schedule will be available in the coming weeks.
• Planning started its three-part “Speaker Series’ on July 18^th. Two others are scheduled for Sep.19^th and  Oct. 17^th.  Most of the speakers are from communities that have implemented a form of AH, research organizations and developers.