Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zta 25 02 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilmember Andrew Friedson outlines ZTA 25-02 changes as Section 5 residents raise safety and data concerns
Summary
At a Feb. 25 Section 5 meeting, County Councilmember Andrew Friedson reviewed zoning text amendment ZTA 25-02 — narrowed to about 2,500 residential lots and shifted to an optional method of development — while residents pressed for clearer limits on lot assembly, stronger data supporting workforce-housing projections, and assurances about emergency-access impacts.
Councilmember Andrew Friedson attended the Section 5 council meeting on Feb. 25 to explain ZTA 25-02 and take questions from residents.
Friedson said the latest draft narrows the footprint of the proposed change to roughly 2,500 residential lots and replaces 'by-right' redevelopment with an optional method of development intended to allow more targeted review. He told attendees staff can provide maximum-unit-size figures for particular parcels by request and noted that, in general, a 6,000-square-foot lot could support up to six units.
Residents pressed several concerns. One asked whether developers could assemble adjoining lots (including lots behind Connecticut Avenue properties) to create larger developments; Friedson replied that existing rules about street addresses and case-by-case review would limit common assemblage but acknowledged the county could add clarifying language. Councilmember Sean Downey raised an example that an assembled property could yield as many as 18 units under current zoning rules, illustrating why residents want clearer limits.
Several residents criticized the GAP analysis and workforce-housing estimates, saying the methodology and data sources were not transparent and urging sensitivity testing and stronger projections before changes proceed. A resident also warned that units built under the legislation could end up as condominiums with management fees that would undermine affordability goals; Friedson said regulatory structures addressing ownership and management will need to be considered.
On corridor suitability, residents said Connecticut Avenue differs from other corridors in the bill (narrow streets, fewer streetlights, a narrow median) and asked whether it should be treated differently. Friedson responded, "they didn’t make value judgements with this legislation; rather, they wanted to make a standard," and said the council aimed for consistent standards across corridors.
Safety concerns featured prominently: residents argued Section 5’s narrow streets could impede emergency services and that increased density even limited to Connecticut Avenue could create health and safety risks for the neighborhood.
Friedson shared resources for residents, including the More Housing N.O.W. web material and an interactive parcel map of affected land, and said he would look into keeping the public comment record open beyond March 4 to give constituents more time. He also encouraged follow-up questions via his office.
The county-level hearing on ZTA 25-02 is scheduled for March 6; Friedson and Section 5 leaders discussed pursuing clarifying amendments ahead of that hearing.
