Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission forwards proposed "medical residential" housing amendment to supervisors
Summary
The commission recommended that supervisors consider Text Amendment R2024‑1, which would allow elevator‑equipped, accessibility‑focused multifamily rental buildings in the INT‑RG zone; the recommendation passed with one commissioner opposed.
The Silver Spring Township Planning Commission voted Nov. 7 to forward Text Amendment R2024‑1 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval after a presentation by Charlie Courtney of McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Jonathan Juffe of Statewide Partners, LLC, and John Murphy of Alpha Engineering.
The amendment as presented would allow "Medical Residential" multi‑family dwellings in the INT‑RG zone on three parcels along Winding Creek Boulevard totaling about 23 acres. Applicants described plans for three elevator‑equipped, four‑story rental buildings with a combined maximum of about 240 units, amenity spaces including a community center, outdoor benches and walking‑trail improvements along the creek, and recreational courts. Courtney said the buildings are intended to include accessibility features such as elevators, "stepless entries," "36\" clear passage for all exterior doors and 32\" for interior doors," and other design elements to accommodate residents with physical disabilities.
Commission discussion focused on density (noted by staff as roughly 12 units per acre gross), the difference between age‑targeted and age‑restricted housing, emergency‑services impacts and the lack of nearby shopping or transit. Mr. Doug McDonald observed the concept "fills a need," while Mr. Randy Duncan questioned whether the location and absence of nearby retail made it the best use. Don Franklin and other members of the public raised concerns about future requests and service impacts. When asked whether units would be rentals or for sale, the applicant replied: "Rentals." The Planning Commission's motion to forward the amendment carried; Mr. Duncan voted in opposition.
The item will next be considered by the Board of Supervisors, which will hold further hearings and decide whether to enact the ordinance change.
