Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town attorney flags ambiguity in established building line for cul‑de‑sacs; council asks for clarifying code language
Summary
Staff identified an unclear provision in the town code on calculating established building lines for cul‑de‑sac and wedge/pipe‑stem lots. The town attorney will draft alternative text to clarify whether wedge‑shaped and pipe‑stem lots are included or excluded, and the council discussed balancing clarity with reducing variance burdens.
Town staff and the town attorney told the council they found the town code is capable of multiple interpretations when calculating the established building line (EBL) in areas with cul‑de‑sacs and nonstandard lot shapes.
The town attorney, Ron, explained the difference between the county and town approaches: the Montgomery County code explicitly excludes pipe‑stem (flag) lots and wedge‑shaped lots from the EBL calculation, while the town code does not contain that same exclusion. "When issues with the code come to light, we bring them to the council's attention so the council can decide whether the code should be amended," the attorney said (speaker 9). He noted the county's exclusions are intended to avoid counting lots that do not contribute to a streetscape, whereas the town code currently contains language that could be read either way.
The attorney walked the council through the established building line calculation (measuring adjoining homes within 300 feet and averaging setbacks) and identified examples (pipe‑stem lots, corner lots, intersection limits) where staff and applicants might reasonably disagree on which properties to include. Ron suggested two "buckets" for council consideration: (1) clarify the existing text to eliminate multiple interpretations (explicitly include or exclude wedge‑shaped or pipe‑stem lots), or (2) consider relaxing rules to reduce the need for variances in the future. Council members emphasized the cost to applicants of pursuing variances (surveyor, attorney fees) and asked the attorney to draft alternative clarifying text for cul‑de‑sac scenarios.
The council asked Ron to prepare sample code language showing (a) text that would include wedge‑shaped lots in the EBL calculation and (b) text that would exclude them, along with an explanation of how each alternative would reduce ambiguity. No vote or formal code amendment was taken at the meeting; staff will return with proposed language for council consideration.
