Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Lot Consolidation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge limits on lot consolidation, flag-lot loopholes in SRA 25-02
Summary
At a Sept. 16 public hearing, dozens of residents and civic groups told the Montgomery County Council that SRA 25-02, the subdivision regulation amendment tied to ZTA 25-02, should cap consolidation by total area and prohibit new flag or through lots to avoid outsized development in single‑family neighborhoods.
The Montgomery County Council on Sept. 16 heard extensive public testimony on SRA 25-02, a subdivision regulation amendment tied to ZTA 25-02 that would prohibit creation of new through lots and flag lots for optional-method workforce housing, limit lot consolidation for that method to three lots, and generally amend subdivision requirements for such development. A Planning, Housing and Parks Committee work session is scheduled for Sept. 29, 2025.
Why it matters: The amendment affects which parcels along designated corridors may be assembled for multifamily workforce housing. Residents and municipal officials said the SRA as drafted could permit consolidated parcels far larger than planning staff illustrations, producing building scale incompatible with adjoining single-family neighborhoods and increasing traffic, stormwater and school impacts.
Many speakers urged the council to measure consolidation by total lot area rather than a number of lots. Barney Rush, mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase, said the draft SRA’s “3 lot consolidation limit” “uses a metric that does not account for the wide variation in lot sizes across down county neighborhoods.” Several residents proposed a cap tied to “3 times the minimum lot size” in the base zone — for example, 18,000 square feet in an R-60 zone — instead of a flat three‑lot cap. Sarah Efridge Steffens, a Village Council member and resident of Section 3 of Chevy Chase, said, “A limit based on square footage rather than number of lots would give homeowners and builders alike a more consistent understanding of the potential for new development.”
Opposition to flag and through lots was widespread. Debbie Heller, a Somerset council member and member of the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights (CCCFH), asked the council to “reject any recommendations from the planning board that expand the eligibility of lots for upzoning beyond the terms stated in ZTA 25-02,” including “loopholes to allow flag lots and/or through lots.” Benjamin Berberdt, speaking for the Planning Board, said the board supports the SRA’s intent to prevent multiunit buildings from being placed behind single‑family homes but recommended a limited revision that would allow certain flag lots if needed to place the multiunit building abutting the corridor rather than as a separate structure behind detached homes.
Speakers described local lot-size variation with specific examples. Denise Hitt, town manager for Chevy Chase View, said lot sizes along Connecticut Avenue in her town range from 9,808 to 29,215 square feet and that “even a consolidation of 3 lots could create parcels that are so large that would fundamentally change the scale and rhythm of our neighborhood.” Several civic associations and municipal councils suggested alternate formulas: limiting consolidation to two adjacent lots, capping consolidated parcels at 12,000 square feet in R-60 areas, or otherwise tying consolidation to the underlying zone’s minimum lot area.
Other recurring themes: requests to confirm that waivers tied to flag/interior lots would not waive other zoning standards such as setbacks or lot coverage; calls for citizen advisory committees so impacted residents have a formal role in corridor decisions; and concerns about secondary impacts including traffic, stormwater runoff, emergency vehicle access and school capacity.
What’s next: The council accepted written materials through Sept. 22, 2025 for the SRA record. The Planning, Housing and Parks Committee will take up the item Sept. 29, 2025. No formal vote on SRA 25-02 occurred at the Sept. 16 hearing; speakers’ testimony will be part of the public record for committee consideration.
Ending: Advocates on both sides asked the council to preserve the goal of adding workforce housing while setting objective safeguards to limit building massing and preserve neighborhood character. Council deliberations and the scheduled committee work session will determine whether the SRA is revised to reflect the area‑based caps, tighter prohibitions on flag/through lots, or other changes requested by residents.
