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
[Link]

IV. Approval Procedures

By Lois Villemaire, Project Manager

Damon Orobona
Joshua Sloan

May 28, 2009

 Contents Introduction
Approval procedures for development in
Introduction.........................................2 Montgomery County are generally covered
Problem Statement.............................2 by Articles 59-D, 59-G, and 59-H of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision
Background.........................................3
Regulations (Chapter 50). In all, there are
Rewrite Team Solution........................4 13 different procedures covered by the
Approval Procedure Redundancy.....4 Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations:
Summary & Example..........................5
• Development Plan
Selected Resources ...........................6
• Diagrammatic Plan
Selected Resources 6
• Schematic Development Plan
• Supplementary Plan
• Pre-Preliminary Plan
• Urban Renewal Plan
• Project Plan
• Preliminary Plan
• Site Plan
• Record Plat
• Variance
• Special Exception

This paper briefly outlines suggestions to

consolidate, streamline, and rationalize the
development approvals reviewed under the
Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
Ordinance. The guiding principles of
further procedural analysis are:

1. Appropriate public openness and

opportunities for input, and
2. Reasonable development oversight
by professional staff through
equitable review processes.

Problem Statement
The Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance
can provide a more rational and streamlined
set of approval procedures for its various
development applications while remaining
comprehensive and transparent. A thorough
March 11, 2009
but systematic set of approval for a Project Plan, which was then applied to
procedures will ensure that the the optional method of development in the
following objectives are met: RMX, MXTC, TMX, and TOMX zones.

1. Citizens and developers are The advent of the floating zones, which
able to readily understand the require approval by the District Council, led
steps various development to the four types of rezoning plans we now
applications must take. have:
2. The rigor of the required
reviews and hearings is • Development Plan: R-4plex, R-MH,
balanced against the potential C-Inn, PD, MXPD, TS, PN, PRC,
local and regional impacts. PCC, TS-R, and TS-M zones.
3. Public noticing and the • Diagrammatic Plan: MXN zone.
ability to ensure transparency • Schematic Development Plan: OM,
are retained and enhanced. CT, C-3, RH, CP, HM, RS, LSC, I3,
4. Approval processes are tied and the RT zones.
to development type and
• Supplementary Plan: TS.
impact, not necessarily the
zone in which the
The “Combined Urban Renewal Project
development takes place.
Plan” is only used to expedite project review
5. Redundant processes and
and approval in urban renewal areas
hearings are reduced or
designated under Chapter 56.
eliminated.
6. Submittal requirements are
Most approvals are obtained through the
rational, consistent, and
preliminary and site plan review processes.
focused on providing the
The pre-preliminary plan is a plan seeking
information needed to make
advice (typically non-binding) from
the findings required for
Planning Department staff and/or the
approval.
Planning Board. Preliminary plans are
reviewed by the Planning Board when
Background properties subdivide or re-subdivide. Site
plans are detailed development plans
In 1928 there were basically two
approved by the Planning Board. Record
approval procedures: a certificate of
plats are legal documents that become part
occupancy and compliance was
of the County land records after subdivision
needed coincident with the
or re-subdivision.
application for a building permit and
that building permit required a plat to
Variances are heard by the Board of Appeals
be filed and kept with the office of
when an application cannot meet the
the Building Inspector. Things are a
standards of development for reasons of
little different now.
hardship or unusual circumstances.
For example, the creation of the
Special exceptions are approvals for
CBD zones led to the requirement
permitted uses that have restrictions beyond
the regular development standards is no consistent format to the sections within
typically due to concerns about these approvals and they are not grouped by
nuisances or adverse impacts. the agency with ultimate jurisdiction over
the approval. A better approach would be to
consolidate approval procedures into one
article and begin with a table that outlines
Rewrite Team Solution the processes, the review agencies, and their
After diagnosis of the existing roles:
approval procedures, a review of the
literature on development review,
and research into the review process
of several other jurisdictions, the
zoning rewrite team has come to
several conclusions:

1. Approval procedures should

be grouped in one section of
the code and then by the
agency that has jurisdiction.
2. Approval procedures should
not have unnecessary
redundancy and layers of
approval.
3. Approval procedures should Approval Procedure Redundancy
be based on use and impact – Many developments have to go through
not necessarily zone. several application types that have similar
4. Rezoning applications should findings. But the wording and focus of the
be consolidated to reflect the findings may put these applications in
flexibility of mixed-use conflict with later findings. This is
planned developments. especially true when a condition is placed on
5. Some approval procedures an application in the early phases that binds
might be consolidated to an applicant to something that becomes a
provide the reviewing agency problem when a more detailed design is
with a more holistic view and created. Appropriate findings should be
avoid redundancy and made with the appropriate plan.
conflict between approvals.
Project plans have also become a point of
Each of these conclusions is contention for developers because they have
discussed briefly below. become as detailed as site plans. Our team is
investigating a way to shorten the approval
Grouping of Approvals process and/or create a more “conceptual”
Our current ordinance discusses approval.
approval procedures in Articles 59-
D, 59-G, and 59-H (and there are Impact of Approvals
some related issues in 59-A). There
Currently, many approvals are based and site plan process as a whole or in
on the zone in which a proposed phases.
development is located, rather than
on the impact of the use. Of course, Consolidation of Approvals
there are some uses that will always There are some review processes, such as
require a more rigorous review for a development that requires both a
because of the assumed context of preliminary plan and site plan, that could be
the zone. It makes more sense, reviewed by one submittal. In this case, a
however, to first ensure that planner and designer might be assigned as a
approvals are based on impact and review team to ensure the subdivision and
later coordinate the process across site plan findings were adequate, but only
zones. For example, in the current one application would be required. Another
code, a 5,000 square-foot building current practice that causes confusion occurs
with few generated trips and little when both a special exception and a site
visual impact may require a site plan, plan are required. We are looking into a
while a 60,000 square-foot building limited special exception approval, which
with a large number of trips and a may approve only the use in question
significant visual impact may not. contingent upon the findings of a site plan to
ensure compatibility. Any and all options
Rezoning are on the table.
We have several dozen zones that
require rezoning plans and each type
of rezoning plan has its own Summary & Example
findings. A solution that we are There are a number of related items that will
researching is the feasibility of come into play when the larger questions of
reducing the number of existing approval processes are evaluated within the
floating zones. Any rezoning (other restructuring of the entire Ordinance. For
than to correct a change or mistake) example:
might be better accomplished
through a revised, more flexible • Which agencies should control
planned-development zone. In this intake?
case, an applicant could use the • Which agencies should become lead-
parameters of the planned agencies and for which applications?
development zone to design the basic • What processes can be eliminated if
framework: uses, transportation
the Code provides better guidance
patterns, overall densities, public
and regulation?
amenities, and open space patterns.
• What applications can be fast-
The District Council would then
make the necessary findings that, for tracked by using new options, such
a number of specified reasons, this as “land use typologies” (an
planned development would be more upcoming green paper)?
beneficial to the public than that
which could be accomplished with This initial review and discussion will
the underlying zone(s). The project provide a foundation for a fairer, more
would then go through a subdivision reasonable, and appropriately
comprehensive approach to our 1. Provides appropriate and reasonable
approval procedures. Applicants, zoning approval processes and
regulatory bodies, and citizens will 2. Maintains and enhances the input
have a clearer understanding what is citizens have planning the vision of
required for each application type an area and the transparency of the
and how to provide effective input implementation of that vision.
for each.
We think these initial suggestions should
One example of the problems spark a dialogue to help us achieve the
inherent in the current process above objectives.
involves a zoning case that will also
require special exception review and
subdivision and site plan approval. Selected Resources
Duplicated findings are needed Texts:
throughout the process, leading to Anderson, Robert, Anderson’s American
extraordinarily long approval time Law of Zoning, 4th ed, New York, Clark
frames. Applicants should know Boardman, Callaghan, 1996.
quickly and through an iterative but Elliott, Donald, A Better Way to Zone,
increasingly focused process whether Washington DC, Island Press, 2008.
their project will be allowed to Freilich, Robert, [Link], 21st Century Land
proceed. In this example, the zoning Development Code, Chicago, APA, 2008.
review might be limited to basic Kushner, James, Comparative Urban
findings about compatibility between Planning Law, Carolina Academic Press,
the proposed zone and the 2003.
surrounding area. The subdivision Rohan, Patrick, Zoning and Land Use
review might then be limited to Controls, Matthew Bender/Lexis Nexis,
right-of-way issues, general 2001.
environmental protections, lot
size(s), and general uses on lots. The Primary Jurisdictions Researched:
special exception review would be Franklin, TN
limited to the impacts on adjacent Chicago, IL
neighborhoods and local context. Denver, CO
And the site plan review would tie Burlington, VT
these previous approvals together in
a comprehensive and detailed design.
But the type of plant needed to
screen a generator pad, for example
should not be a subject for each of
these plans.

Our goal is to create an ordinance

that: