A Zoning Rewrite Team Green Paper

Initial ideas for discussion and testing

to create a simpler ordinance based
on sustainability and quality of place.

8787 Georgia Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20910
301.495.4500
www.MontgomeryPlanning.org

II. Land Use Districts: Consolidation and Focused

Integration

By Lois Villemaire, Project Manager

Damon Orobona
Joshua Sloan

April 7, 2009
 Contents Introduction
Zoning Districts are regulated by Article 59-
Introduction 2 C of the Zoning Ordinance. There are 18
Problem Statement 3 divisions of this article covering various
residential, commercial, planned unit
Background 3
development, overlay, and other zones.
Proposed Solution 3 Divisions 59-C-14 to 59-C-17 are reserved
Summary & Example 6 for who knows which other types of
Selected Resources 7 development can be imagined. Each of
these divisions has its own land use table
and set of development standards for each
zone within the division. As mentioned in
Green Paper I, the land use tables are not
consistent or logical. Further, the
development standards do not always follow
the same order when in tabular form or
when delineated in paragraphs. Thus, there
is no consistent place to look for information
in any given zone.

The diagnosis of the Zoning Ordinance, as

summarized in the Zoning Discovery, has
shown that both development standards and
land uses are strikingly similar over many
zones. There are also numerous
redundancies and absurdities that should be
eliminated and/or rationalized. A telling
fact in the ordinance is that Article 59-C is
titled “Zoning Districts” but each of the
divisions refers to groups of zones. And
each of these zones has its own permitted
uses and development standards (and
purposes, intents, and sometimes findings).
An early task of the diagnosis was to create
matrices of zones, uses, and standards to
elucidate similarities and differences. Once
the zones are compared side by side,
patterns emerge that allow for a much more
logical system of districting. If the uses are
separated from the development standards, a
large number of “zones” can be simplified
as “land use districts” – as Article 59-C
seems to imply they should. The

March 11, 2009

development standards, which will standards rather than the creation of
be discussed in a later paper, could new zones.
then apply to zones based on 2. All commercial zones should be
intensity of use, i.e., they should consolidated and no commercial
correspond to density, not use. The district should prohibit residential
districts would be mapped to provide uses – all commercial zones should
appropriate space for required uses, permit, if not require, a mix of uses.
the densities of development then 3. Agricultural and low- to medium-
determine the spatial standards. density residential neighborhoods
should only allow uses that enhance
This paper briefly outlines a and preserve their character.
potential restructuring of the existing 4. Industrial zones should support new
zones into nine general land use technologies and services in demand.
districts. The guiding principle of
further district consolidation analysis
is the focused integration of uses in Background
our nodes of mixed-use development In 1928, Montgomery County had five
and the protection of existing zones. As noted, it now has over 100. And
agricultural and residential each of these zones individually delineates
neighborhood patterns. the allowed uses and standards in tables and
paragraphs spread throughout the ordinance.

This graph shows the growth in the number

Problem Statement of zones in over the past eight decades:
The Montgomery County Zoning
Ordinance has over 100 zones in 12
districts. Most of these zones share
uses within the district and, if not for
the virtually infinite array of
development standards for each
zone, could easily be simplified as
more comprehensive use districts.
The zones have become so specific
with regard to allowed uses and
standards that planners continually
add zones to tailor their master plans
to the needs of a given locality. A
restructuring of zones into more
comprehensive use districts will Although, we have increased the number of
ensure that the following objectives zones at an exponential rate, many of these
are met: zones are applied to less than ten properties
per zone and a miniscule percentage of land.
1. Master plans should rely on For example, there is one C-5 zoned
the ability to assign density to property, four Country Inn zoned properties,
ensure proper development
and one PCC zoned property. In the consolidation of zones into
fact, there are almost forty zones that districts to accommodate minute
have contiguous areas mapped less differences.
than 10 times throughout the county.
And some zones are not mapped at Each of these conclusions is discussed
all: MRR, several of the PD zones, a below.
couple RMX zones, LDRC, and a
couple others. Land Use Districts
It is proposed that 9 land use districts be
Given the large number of existing created:
zones, it has become difficult to  Agricultural
quickly and easily find information  Residential Low Density
about any given property. And a  Residential Medium Density
quick glance at the land use tables  Residential High Density
shows that many uses are shared  Commercial/Residential
across these zones. For example,  Mixed Campus
there are six differences between the
 Industrial Service
uses allowed in the RE-1 and R-200
 Industrial Light
zones (out of a possible 433 uses in
 Industrial Heavy
the ordinance). Likewise, there are
four differences between the uses
Each of these districts would have a table
allowed in the R-150, R-90, and R-
enumerated in an identical manner of
60 zones (again, out of 433 possible
permitted, conditional, and special uses. In
uses listed in the ordinance).
the case of the residential district and
industrial districts, they would be combined
Rewrite Team Solution in one table each. The commercial/
residential and mixed campus districts will,
After diagnosis of the existing state
given our research to date, probably allow
of our land use tables, research into
identical uses, but they are separated as
contemporary districting, and the
districts because they have such distinct
efforts of several other jurisdictions,
characters and contexts.
the zoning rewrite team has come to
several conclusions:

1. Land use districts should be

rationalized into overarching
themes of land use.
2. Development standards
should be divorced from land
use to ease consolidation of
districts and tie standards to
density.
3. The use of a three-tier system
of allowed use will facilitate
 The proposed consolidation, after the will have a wide range of uses based on
initial comparison of standards and master plan recommendations. The
uses: development standards would work in a
similar fashion, but be capped at the time of
rezoning.
Current zones Proposed use districts Symbol
RDT, Rural, RC, RS, Last, overlay zones may fit into a fewer
RE-2, RE-2C, Country number of overlay districts that focus on
Inn, RNC, LDRC Agricultural A particular issues such as:
RE-1, R-150, R-200, Residential Low  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
RMH200 Density RLD  Small-Business Protection
R-90, RMH, R-60, R-40, Residential Medium  Employment
RT-6, RT-8, R-4plex Density RMD  Design & Character
RT-10, RT-12.5, RT-15, Residential High
R30, R20 Density RHDThese last two proposals for consolidation,
R10, RH, RMX- viz. the PD and overlay districts will only be
1/2/2C/3/3C, MXTC, able to be streamlined if three things occur
Commercial/Residential in concert:
CBD-R1, TOMX, CBD- (typically higher residential
R2, TMX, TSR density than commercial) RC  general guidance for the district is
C5, C6, CT, C1, C2, C3, given in the ordinance,
Commercial/Residential
C4, CBD-0.5/1/2/3, HM, (typically higher commercial  a more specific vision is provided by
CO, TSM density than residential) CR the master plan, and
CP, I3, R&D, LSC, OM Mixed Campus MC  a site plan with a finding for master
I1, I4 Industrial, Light IL plan conformance is required of all
I2, MRR Industrial, Heavy IH applications.
New Zone? Industrial, Service IS
Use versus Development Standards
When properties are assigned to a use
Discussion of moving the RS zone to
district they will also be assigned a density.
the Light Industrial district is
To ensure compatibility with context and the
ongoing.
creation of a more uniform aesthetic for an
area, the development standards for any use
The TDR zones would be grouped
will be tied to the density. And this can
according to their primary zone, e.g.
occur in one of two ways. A simple table
R-90TDR would move to the RMD
for each density in a district can list
district. The zones would not be
setbacks, heights, etc. Or, in specific areas
necessary, because receiving sites
of concern – such as village centers or
can be mapped separately –
CBDs, the standards can be directly mapped.
regardless of district or density
designations. (This will be discussed
Thus, all uses would be regulated the same
in a later paper.)
in the RMD district, but the designation of
density would determine the standards in the
The current PUD zones are being
table or as mapped. In this case, a simple
further analyzed for consolidation
into a single PD floating zone that
one-to-one map amendment would have a clearer understanding of what is
assign density as follows: allowed where and under what
circumstances.

Assigned The consolidation of, for example the I-1

Zone FAR and I-4 zones are strikingly similar. First,
R-90 0.80
the names, “I-1 – light industrial” and “I-4 –
low-intensity light industrial” is a clue.
R-60 0.90
Second, there are about a dozen differences
R-40 1.00
in the land use table out of about 160 total
RT-6 0.90 uses. And these are for uses such as
RT-8 1.00 stockyards (how many are there in
Montgomery County?) and a few are simply
This will be discussed in detail in the grandfathered uses. A rate of 92% similarity
Residential FAR and Development lends itself easily to general grandfathering
Standards white papers. provisions and to establishing permitted,
conditional, and special use permits to
Tiered-Use Impacts and District ensure the outlying 5 or 6% of differences to
Consolidation be sensitively and responsibly regulated.
Most of this is possible only when Last, the standard method development
implementing the permitted, standards are virtually identical (I-4 requires
conditional, and special use method more green space) and the “special
outlined in paper I. In some cases, regulations” of the I-1 zone and optional
consolidation would mean the once method of development in I-4 allow for a
prohibited uses would be allowed in great amount of flexibility when reviewed
a new district. In these cases, a by site plan. The consolidation of these
choice must be made to simply zones into a light industrial district will
permit the use (it may never have contribute to easier development of
been considered for a certain zone or necessary activities that have scarce
it may be innocuous), to allow the available land in the county while
use under conditions (for example a maintaining protections for residential
minimum lot size, setback, or neighborhoods.
screening requirement), or it may be
allowed only by special permit to Simplifying and rationalizing land use
ensure a Board of Appeals ruling on districts, detaching standards from use
compatibility. This flexibility allows districts, and using a tiered regulatory
consolidation of zones into larger review, will allow for better comprehension,
districts while maintaining context- forecasting and master planning, and
specific sensitivity. flexibility of implementation without the
need for a new zone or text amendment for
Summary & Example every new planning idea. One final caveat:
These methods work together to this proposal allows for a base of allowed
form a simple and rational approach land uses; optional method development that
to zone districting. Applicants, may allow more flexibility in exchange for
regulatory bodies, and citizens will
certain public benefits will be
researched and discussed later.

Selected Resources for Green

Papers I & II
Texts:
Anderson, Robert, Anderson’s
American Law of Zoning, 4th ed,
New York, Clark Boardman,
Callaghan, 1996.
“The Conditional Use Permit”,
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research, The Planner’s Training
Series, Sacramento, CA, August,
2007.
Easley, Gail, “Conditional Uses:
Using Discretion, Hoping for
Certainty”, Zoning Practice, May
2006.
Elliott, Donald, A Better Way to
Zone, Washington DC, Island
Press, 2008.
Freilich, Robert, et.al, 21st Century
Land Development Code, Chicago,
APA, 2008.
Kushner, James, Comparative Urban
Planning Law, Carolina Academic
Press, 2003.
Markham, Lynn, “Conditional Uses:
Part 1”, The Land Use Tracker,
2:4, Spring 2004.
Rohan, Patrick, Zoning and Land
Use Controls, Matthew
Bender/Lexis Nexis, 2001.

Jurisdictions Researched:
Stafford County, VA
City of Port Orange, FL
Ocean City, MD
Northbrook, IL
Hanover, PA
County of Chesterfield, VA
Town of Carrboro, NC