2/28/08 Council Work Session
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers said to be data by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions – or not, and with caps and minimums, or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with his seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident strongly biased in favor of a restrictive FAR ordinance and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was also notable for two events. At one point, responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-age Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, notable mostly for their pictures as FARs are mostly in the .4 and .5 range, and vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most of residents don’t know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. It is true two of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, as reasonable concern as the Contractor, AB, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notes from Council work session 2/28/08, part I
2/28/08 Council Work Session
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions or not, and with caps and minimums or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with LH seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was notable for two events. Responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-page Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, valued by the Council for their pictures (into which at one point they fell into a cacaphony of "viewing", as FARs are chiefly in the .4 and .5 range. Waving the pictures, Rob vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Most residents don't know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. 2 of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, a reasonable concern as the Contractor, ABeale, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions or not, and with caps and minimums or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with LH seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was notable for two events. Responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-page Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, valued by the Council for their pictures (into which at one point they fell into a cacaphony of "viewing", as FARs are chiefly in the .4 and .5 range. Waving the pictures, Rob vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Most residents don't know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. 2 of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, a reasonable concern as the Contractor, ABeale, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)