|
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />25A-5. Reqmrement to build MPOUs (moderately-priced dwelling uni0;
<br />agreements; alternatives
<br />(a~ Any applicant, in order to obtain a building permit, must submit to the
<br /> Depa~ment of Environmental Protection, with the application for a per-
<br /> mit, a written MPOU agreement approved by the Oirector and the County
<br /> Attorney. Each agreement must require that:
<br /> (1) A specific number of MPDUs must be constructed on an ap-
<br /> proved time schedule;
<br />
<br /> (2) In single-family dwelling unit subdivisions, each MPOU must
<br /> have 2 or more bedrooms; and
<br />
<br /> (3) In muitifamiiy dwelling unit subdivisions, the number of effi-
<br /> ciency and one-bedroom NiPE)Us each must not exceed the ra-
<br /> tin that market-rate efficiency and one-bedroom units respec-
<br /> tively bear to the total number of market-rate unit5 in the subdi-
<br /> vision.
<br />
<br />(b) When the development at one location is in a residential zone in
<br /> which a density bonus is provided; and
<br /> (1) Is covered by a plan of subdivision; or
<br /> (2) is covered by a plan of development or a site plan; or
<br />
<br /> (3) Requires a building permit to be issued for construction; the re-
<br /> quired number of moderately-priced dwelling u'mts is a variable
<br /> percentage that is not less than 12.5 percent of the total number
<br /> of dweiling units at that location. Except as specified in subsec-
<br /> tions (ri and (d), the required number of MPDUs must vary ac-
<br /> cording to the amount by which the approved development
<br /> reeds the normal standard density for the zone in which it is
<br /> located. Chapter 59 permits bonus densities over the presumed
<br /> base density where MPDUs are provided, if the us~,-of the op-
<br /> tional MPOU development standards does not result in an in-
<br /> crease over the base density, the Director must conclude that
<br /> the base density could not be hchieved under conventional de-
<br />
<br /> velopment standards, in which case the required number of MPOUs
<br /> must not be less than 12,.5 percent of the total number of units in
<br /> the subdivision. The amount of density bonus achieved in the ap-
<br /> proved developm, ent determines the Percentage of totat units that
<br /> must be/vlPOUs, as follows:
<br /> · Achieved Deosity Bonus MPDUs Required
<br /> Zero 12.5%
<br /> [Each 1 percent increment'up to'20% then p~oduces a
<br /> · 1% inclose in MPDUs required. The final increment
<br /> below concludes the t~ble.
<br />
<br /> Up to 22% 15.0%
<br />
<br />(c) In planned development zones, mixed~use zones, transit station zones.
<br /> and central business district zones (standard method of deveJopmenU
<br /> containing flexible development standards, the number of MPOUs must
<br /> not be-less than either the number of density bonus units or 12.5 per-
<br /> cent of the total number of dwelling units, whichever is ,greater.
<br />(d) In central business district zones, far development under the optional
<br /> method, at least 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units must
<br /> be MPOUs.
<br />(e)(1) In exceptional cases, instead of building the required number at MPDUs,
<br /> an applicant may offer to:
<br /> (A) 8uiid significantly more MPDUs at one or more other sites in the
<br /> same or an adjoining planning area;·
<br /> (B) Convey land in the same or an adjoining planning area that is suit-
<br /> able in size, location, and physical condition for significantly more
<br /> MPDUs;
<br /> (Q Contribute to the Housing initiative Fund an amount that will pro-
<br /> duce significantly more MPOUs; or
<br /> (D) Do any combination of these alternatives that will result in building
<br /> significantly more MPOUs.
<br />
<br /> Kcrmcdy and L¢onar4'~ deXqrfition o£ genmficadoa sr_rong~y
<br />impliez that thb sc~rnin§l¥ desirable land-u~e pattern ul6mateiy
<br />divide~ comrmmides and people, segregating vario~ ~oups inca
<br />horno§enous,duscers. Thc same does aa: apply, however, co
<br />revitalization or rdnvesrmenc The key, according ;o many
<br />b to anddpare genr. rificadon early enough to get organized and
<br />develop a plan. A padcer of se(acted infbrrnadon on this topic
<br />ava/laNe co Zaniag'New~subscribers.'Send inquirie~ to tvfichael
<br />Davidson, Co-Editor, Zoning News, American ?bnning
<br />Association, 122 South Michig-an Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL
<br />5060~, or e-mail mdavid.son@pbnning.oc§.
<br />
<br />NEWS BRIEFs
<br />
<br />No Takings Found in
<br />Tahoe Moratorium Case
<br />Should the government be requ/red to pay compensation to '
<br />property owners For every moratorium on development, regardless
<br />ofir~ purpose, its duration, 0r the impact ir might have on property
<br />values? Ac thc care, that was the bald que~don pr~ented to thc
<br />U.S. Supreme Coua~ in ~anuary. On April 2~, Jttsdcc John Paul
<br />Steve_as, writing For a G3 majority, answered '~ao" in ~he couffs
<br />
<br />INCLUSIONAR¥ ZONING/GENTRIFICATIQN RESOURCe5
<br />
<br />Betancur, John J., babe! Oomeyko, and Parr(cia A.. Wright.
<br /> Genrnjqcanon in West Town: Contested Grouno~ University oElllinob
<br /> ac Chicago, Nachalie R Voarhccs Center tbr Neighborhood and
<br /> Commtmity improvement. September 2001. www. uir_edu]cuppa]
<br /> voorhee~crr/Gentrificacion,pctf
<br />Boulder, Colorado, Inclusionary Zoning Code. www. ci.bou/der, co.us/
<br /> cao/brd965.html
<br />CMifornia Redevelopment Axea Legislation. Department of Housing'
<br />and Com~nunity Detdopmcnt. www. hcd.~.gov ';.
<br />Campbell, Hear. her. "Lakcfront Arems Oownzuned in Chicago.' Zoning
<br /> Newz Februav/2002.
<br />Hucche~on, Narc. "Short.term Vacation Rentals: Residential or
<br /> Commercial Use?" Zoning Newt. March 2002.
<br />lnnovauve Housing instirute -- www. inhousing.org
<br />Kennedy, Maureen, and Paul Leonard. Dealing w~rh Netghborlmod
<br /> Change: A primer on t.Tenvrifiearwn and Polio. Choices. Discussion
<br />
<br /> Paper Prepared For the Br0oking~ Institution Cgnrer on Urban a~d
<br /> Merxopotimn Polio7 a~d PolicTLmk. April 2001. w"mv. brooLedm
<br /> www. polim/link, org
<br />Montgomery County, Maryland. lnctuziOnary Z~ning Ordinance.
<br /> www. inhousing.org/Incluaionary Zoninglzonela Ws.htm
<br />New Jersey Fair Ho~ing Act. www. state.nj.us/dcrdfairhousing]
<br />Rose, Kal(ma. "Beyond Gentrificarion: Tools for Equitable Deveiopment.".'~-.,u~.'~'_''-
<br /> Shelterforce Online. May/June 2001. www. nhi.orgtonlineJissues/117/
<br /> Rosc.html -
<br />Santa Fe, New Mexico, Inclusionary Zoning Law. www. ci.sanra4~:.nm.us/
<br /> s fwcb/PlanningLandUsc.hrm
<br />Schwab, Jim. "Planning }'or Industrial Survival." Zoning New~. September 2000.
<br />
<br />Spain, Daphne. ~'Been~Hcrez Vers,,~ Come-Heres: Negotiating Conflicting
<br /> Community (dent(ties." Journal oj~rhe ..4~nencan pr. arming Agsoclarzon.
<br /> Vol. 59, No. '2. Spring t993. I56-13'!.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|