Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SRA 25 02 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge limits on lot consolidation as Montgomery County Council hears SRA 25-02
Summary
At a Sept. 16 public hearing, residents and civic groups urged the County Council to limit lot consolidation under SRA 25-02—proposing area-based caps (three times the zone minimum) and an outright ban on flag/through lots—while the Planning Board asked for narrow exceptions for corridor-fronting multiunit buildings.
Barney Rush, mayor of the town of Chevy Chase, told the Montgomery County Council on Sept. 16 that the proposed SRA 25-02 should limit lot consolidation by total area rather than by the number of lots, recommending that any consolidated parcel be capped at three times the zone’s minimum lot size. "For example, in an R-60 neighborhood, the maximum allowable consolidated parcel would be 18,000 square feet," Rush said.
The hearing drew dozens of residents, municipal council members and civic organizations who expressed broad concern that a per-lot consolidation cap could permit very large parcels and building massing out of scale with single-family neighborhoods. "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," said Sarah Eford Steffens, a village council member in Section 3 of Chevy Chase.
Why it matters: SRA 25-02 is a companion to ZTA 25-02 (the county's corridor upzoning text amendment) and would set how optional-method workforce housing can assemble lots. Opponents say unrestricted consolidation and new allowances for flag or through lots risk pushing dense development into neighborhood interiors and creating traffic, stormwater, infrastructure and displacement pressures.
Speakers representing civic federations and neighborhood associations pressed the council for several specific changes: ban creation or use of new flag and through lots under the optional method; cap consolidated parcels by total square footage (many asked for no more than twice or three times the zone minimum, with multiple witnesses citing 12,000–18,000 sq ft as an appropriate cap for R-60); limit consolidation to two contiguous eligible parcels in some proposals; and apply single-family lot-coverage rules to developments on consolidated lots. "We request the council reject any expansion of the eligibility of lots for optional method beyond what is currently in 25-02," said Cheryl Gannon, president of the Montgomery County Civic Federation.
The Planning Board’s representative, Benjamin Burbert, told the council that the board generally supports the SRA’s intent to prevent new through lots and limit consolidation but recommended allowing limited creation of flag lots where a multiunit building directly abuts a corridor so the building is not placed behind detached homes. He said such exceptions would come with building-envelope and setback protections.
Equity and displacement concerns also featured prominently. "This plan ... risks tearing our community apart in the pursuit of wealthier, wider Montgomery County. That's not equity," said Kimberlyn Persaud, executive director of EPIC of MOCO, urging stronger no-net-loss protections and deeper affordability requirements when larger consolidations are permitted.
Not all testimony opposed consolidation: Melanie Stickel, a solo parent and former civic-association president, said lot consolidation can enable smarter site planning, protect trees, and create more housing opportunities for families facing displacement pressures.
What’s next: Council President Stewart announced a Planning, Housing, and Parks committee work session scheduled for Sept. 29, 2025; written materials for council consideration were due Sept. 22, 2025. No formal vote occurred during the hearing; council members will consider amendments and staff recommendations at future sessions.
