Sustainability Audit Comments

ARLENE BRUHN

Our current patchwork zoning rules do not reflect an overriding/comprehensive principle of

tree protection. From the outset, the county has to decide (commit) if it is going to protect tree
canopy ... or not. To talk green and act otherwise is frustrating.

How the zoning code allows tree destruction:

1. Sideline setbacks are often narrow. Wider setbacks would help in preserving a neighbor's
landscaping and in lessening the disturbance to the local ecosystem. Houses close to a sideline
create darkness between properties and lack of air circulation. Flexibility to front setbacks
would allow for greater tree save.

Note: New construction practices involve roofs that are less sturdy than were used in the 20's
and 30's. As a result a new house on fire often burns in such a way that the roof collapses and
the house seemingly implodes. Wider sidelines would allow space for trees and also some
protection for the neighbors. Let's not take the "it will never happen here" approach.

2. The current zoning code limits the percentage of lot coverage. In zones where lots are
smaller, sideline setbacks are narrow. For example, in R-60 zones (many are found in Bethesda),
the sideline setback is often a combined 15 feet (8 on one side and 7 on thet opposite side.).
Window wells, chimneys, and porches are allowed greater proximity to the sidelines. Houses
with huge footprints, plus large areas of impervious surface -- not included in the footprint --
are allowed. There is little space for large trees as property owners and builders take full
advantage of the limits of the permissible coverage. Here is a picture of a home with virtually all
of the lot covered in pavement. The front yard consists of pavers set in concrete. The street trees
(2) were killed and have since been removed. A neighbor removed two trees from the adjoining
property to increase curb appeal for sale of her property. The result was and remains localized
flooding.
3. What can we do to protect a neighbor's trees? Think about the measures that are necessary
to retain trees during construction. Construction mpacts on the root zones of trees occurs in the
limits of disturbance. There are no requirements that root zones of trees outside the limits be
protected. There is no requirement to protect trees along the sidelines or perimeters where the
tree roots often belong to the neighbors' trees. Nevertheless, the rule of self-help does not allow
one to kill a neighbor's tree. In practice, what happens is that a builder kills the trees, and the
neighbor is left deciding how much he can afford in legal fees to sue, etc. The process can
become exceedingly expensive.

4. ROW rules. The revisions to the State Roadside Tree Law allow for more stringent
measures to protect roadside trees. A year has passed since the State law was passed. The
County has not yet moved forward to make changes to the local law.

5. Current practices allow permits to be obtained for driveways wherever a property owner
wishes to place them along the perimeter of his property. There are no aesthetic prohibitions.
Trees are removed for "aesthetic" reasons, i.e., whim of the property owner. What incentives
can be offered for:

a. requiring alternative designs where established trees (3-4" dbh) are located;
b. bundling utilities along a driveway run or other area so as to create less disturbance to
existing trees -- whether house side or street side
c. working out drainage plans from the outset (including storm water/gutter outflow lines) so as
to minimize destruction to tree roots wherever located
d. requiring a plan before plans are approved

5. For years, construction workers have not been required to care for trees. As a result, they
tend to remove tree protection barriers even when they are erected. The foremen look the other
way. Here is an example:
6.. Super silt fence is a significant killer of trees along property perimeters. Super silt fence
requires trenching for installation and such trenching usually traverses the shallow feeder roots
of many trees. Advocating the use of such fence allows builders a fast and indirect, even covert
way, of killing asymmetrical trees which many homeowners find unattractive. Within a year or
two of the beginning of construction, the trees die and the homeowner can then call a landscaper
to develop a plan for what he considers greater curb appeal. In the meantime, several old trees
with large canopies may be lost. In the picture below, the maple tree was killed by change of
grade and trenching through the roots. The tree usually dies two or three years later. The
builder is long since gone. If not, the homeowner is told that the tree was diseased or even
that the County failed to take care of the street trees. It's always point the finger at someone
else.

7. Timing: Certain zoning regulations such as limits on storm water runoff only apply during
construction. As soon as construction is completed, there are virtually no restrictions on the
amount of impervious surface allowed on a built lot.
The end result is a pave-over with no room left for planting large trees plus an increase in runoff.
FOREST CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Via Caren Madsen

Hi,

Thanks for including me on the email thread. I'm not an arborist, just a county
tree-hugger. We would love to see a tree ordinance or something addressing urban
trees or the urban forest addressed in anything related to zoning revisions.
With the demand increasing for infill development and redevelopment in Montgomery
County, I think this is a niche that needs to be addressed once and for all.

Kathy Conlin at M-NCPPC told me years ago that when she was involved with writing
the original FCL on the books now, it was intended to address stands of forests
UpCounty and was not focused on the DownCounty or more urbanized areas.

Also, you might want to think in terms of building flexibility in revised zoning
codes as far as setback spaces and waivers for repositioning lots or buildings on
a given site. I remember a story a developer told some years back about having
to cut down mature trees on a site he was developing because he had to stick with
the county's zoning codes for setback spaces around a house he was building. It
seemed that if there was an update to zoning codes and possibly more flexibility
offered if the goal is to preserve a mature tree here and there, re-thinking
zoning in this way might be warranted.

I hope this is helpful. Would you like for me to ask some developers if they can
come up with case studies of similar cases?
GREEN ECONOMY TASK FORCE
Via Corinne Rothblum, Montgomery County Department of Economic Development

It was a pleasure meeting you last week at the Zoning Code open house here in Rockville. As I
mentioned, the Green Economy Task Force’s final report includes a few zoning-related
recommendations, which I have excerpted below (the full report can be downloaded at:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/pdf/green_economy_report.pdf). From a quick scan, it
looks like these are generally reflected in the Zoning Montgomery: Approach and Annotated Outline
Report.
I have added my name to the distribution list for updates on the Zoning Code Rewrite process, and look
forward to participating further as the process moves forward.

Regards,

Corinne Rothblum
Montgomery County Dept. of Economic Development
MONTGOMERY COUNTY’S GREEN ECONOMY TASK FORCE
Via Rich Thometz

Hi Ms. Villemaire, my name is Rich Thometz, I am a member of Montgomery County's

Green Economy Task Force, and received an e-mail about providing comments on the
Sustainability Audit relating to zoning code modifications. I am writing you this evening
as a co-owner and investor in two Montgomery County based green energy/green
economy businesses:
1. Efficient Home, LLC, an energy efficiency services/home performance contracting
firm located in Burtonsville (now up to 16 employees), and
2. Dynatemp, Inc., an HVAC and geothermal systems design build firm located in Silver
Spring.

(Notice the emerging Rt. 29 green-energy services corridor we are helping to foster?)

Both Efficient Home and Dynatemp work in both existing homes and new home
settings. While the report correctly captures that ground source geothermal systems
don't have the aesthetic implications that must be addressed in land use regulations for
above ground renewable energy systems, practical design and implementation of
geothermal systems (both horizontal and vertical loop/well systems) can face design
constraints due to current zoning and land use regulatory constraints. Such as, how
wells used for geothermal systems are classified, setbacks, etc.. I'd suggest
consideration of an additional recommendation for zoning ordinance applicability, to
allow deviation from setbacks and other otherwise applicable constraints in all
residential zones, unless there is a fundamental health, safety or building code basis for
applying the constraint to a geothermal design field and/or well system. This request
would include allowing geothermal systems in buffer and open space areas so long as
they do not adversely impact on environmentally sensitive wetlands, etc.. Otherwise,
new developments with increasingly larger restricted areas (due to ever increasing
forest preservation/aforestation, buffer, open space, and other environmental and/or
green space requirements) will effectively push out any remaining area on which to
locate geothermal fields. While stating that the use of geothermal systems should be
"encouraged", that doesn't really address the fundamental zoning regulatory obstacle to
encouraging broader use and installation of geothermal systems, which is the ever-
increasing maze of restricted land on each residential lot and open space parcels in
existing and new residential communities.

Also, in the report, I'd suggest that "District Energy" as a subtitle under the ENERGY
section, be replaced by Geothermal energy, then have a sub-discussion of how
geothermal systems can be provided on a district as well as individual basis.

Ground source geothermal systems have a promising future, as the most cost-effective
renewable energy system for residences in the Midatlantic region including Montgomery
County. Please give consideration to more specific zoning/land use measures that
would have the most positive impact in allowing geothermal systems on a broader basis
in Montgomery County. Jeff Revis from Dynatemp would be available to meet or
discuss geothermal systems and how the county could better encourage them through
the zoning ordinance, so I've included him on this e-mail as well. Thank you for your
consideration of these suggestions. Sincerely, Rich Thometz
 COMMISSION ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

May 13, 2010

Ms. Lois Villemaire, Project Manager

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning
Via email: lois.villemaire@mncppc-mc.org
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Project

Dear Ms. Villemaire:

On behalf of the Commission on People with Disabilities, we are writing to express our
recommendations that we voted on unanimously at our May 12, 2010 meeting to you regarding
the Zoning Code Rewrite Project. In reviewing the documents published to date, we find a
singular glaring omission: Universal Design. We are about to create the best we can achieve in
the design and livability for Montgomery County for the next 20 years, including public rights of
way. But, as we look forward, the standards of Universal Design need to be incorporated as the
“Best Practice” in design and planning and should be considered a “Public Benefit” and provide
incentives for achieving it.

The seven “Principles of Universal Design” taken from the Center for Universal Design,
North Carolina State University are:

1. Equitable Use – useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities,

2. Flexibility in Use – accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities,
3. Simple and Intuitive – easy to understand, regardless of user’s experience, knowledge,
language skills or current concentration level,
4. Perceptible Information – communicates necessary information effectively to the user,
regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities,
5. Tolerance for Error – Minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or
unintended actions,
6. Low Physical Effort – Can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of
fatigue, and
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use – Appropriate size and space is provided for
approach, reach, manipulation and use regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or
mobility.

How can a community look forward to a meaningful future for its citizens and do less?
Montgomery County is graying rapidly. Medical advances and technology provide for survival
and longevity of accidents and illnesses unheard of even 5 years ago. Many veterans, who have
given so much, are returning with injuries that limit their physical and cognitive abilities.

The Supreme Court added motivation to these principles in its Olmstead decision,
providing that persons with disabilities should be housed in the least restrictive environment of
their choice. It is the community’s obligation to create such an environment. The Zoning
Rewrite creates a one time opportunity to create such a community.

The American Planning Association in its “Zoning Practice” Series Issue #4 April 2006
makes the case well. We know that providing for the varied abilities of our residents at the time
of design and construction is significantly less costly than redesigning, remodeling and
retrofitting, all with more attractive effect and harmony.

For these reasons and more, we recommend that Universal Design be added as a
“Sustainability Objective” and that provision be made for incentives to those who achieve its
goals. Universal design provides for good design, meaningful inclusion of all persons, and
related cost effectiveness for the foreseeable future and beyond.

A community that excludes even one of its members is no community at all. Montgomery
County should exert its entire will to become an even stronger community. Please feel free to
contact the Commission if you have any questions or need any assistance from us. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on this important project.

Sincerely,

Mark Maxin, Chair

Jackie Simon, Commissioner

Member, Zoning Code Rewrite Project

c: County Executive Isiah Leggett

Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Royce Hanson, Chair, MNCPPC
Rick Nelson, Director, Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Uma Ahluwalia, Director, Department of Health and Human Services
Jay Kenney, Chief, Aging and Disability Services
M-NCPPC, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION

Environmental Planning Comments on Code Studio Report

1. Buildings and Neighborhoods: Pg. 57 what about using water efficient landscaping (natives)?

Might we including something from or about the Sustainable Sites Initiative program? Again,
most is covered but a few items not in the zoning audit are:

 The use of non-invasive plant species

 Design rainwater/stormwater features to provide a landscape amenity
 Minimize soil disturbance in design and construction
 Promote the use of sealants, paints, and coatings with reduced VOC’s (not sure if this can be
applied)
 Provide views of vegetation and quiet outdoor spaces for mental restoration

2. Healthy Trees: page 61.Great section with lots of good ways to get tree plantings. Yet tree
plantings in urban areas were recommended for medians, parkways, and islands. There was no
mention of planting trees in bioretention areas for urban/rural areas.

3. Add a new (c) that encourages the use of appropriate tree species and provides realistic
environments to ensure their long-term survival. For example, require an area to match the
critical root zone at maturity for each canopy tree planted or retained in infill development i.e.
retain minimum 1/10-acre open space for a 10” Tulip-poplar to meet the tree’s CRZ
requirements when it reaches 30” diameter.

4. In urban settings, increasing the volume of underground soil can provide adequate root space
when surface square footage is limited. (b) should include the use of covered underground soil
cells and constructed root paths.

5. Solar: Pg. 63 What about allowing solar panels on historic buildings? This should be allowed
when approved by the Historic Preservation Board.

6. Page 64: Provide incentives for building designs that promote or accommodate food
production by residents.

7. Waste Reduction: Page 66 This section mentions adding recycling centers and recycling
construction waste. Can we include an allowance for compost collection? (Like San Francisco’s
neighborhood composting collection program)

8. Page 62: Water Reuse and Irrigation: Because of the issues surrounding greywater and
stormwater reuse in the County, this should be addressed in the Comprehensive Water and
Sewer Plan.
 9. Page 71: Private Open Spaces: Recommended Changes: 1st sentence: I think we need to redefine
“green space” to separate the current conflation of public use space and vegetation. Clear
requirements for amount of vegetated open space should be established.
10. Page 75: Stormwater: Top Row: The mapping should not be for a waiver, but instead for
consideration of a more limited number of practices that would apply to urban areas.
11. PAGE 75-79: Stormwater: This should be coordinated with the revisions to Chapter 19 and the
stormwater management regulations.
12. Page 76: Stormwater : Top Row: Recommended Changes: 1st sentence: Not sure we should
“prohibit single use stormwater facilities” because ESD to the MEP in some situations may still
not leave much choice. We probably need different language here such as “Use multiple-use
stormwater facilities to the maximum extent practicable.” Again, DPS will probably have
opinions here.
13. Page 78: Stormwater: Greywater Systems: I’m not sure this belongs in the Stormwater section.
I’m not sure how they are defining greywater. Maybe they are including roof runoff with
dishwater, etc. If so, they need to be separated because they are not the same thing and
involve different levels of health and technical issues.
14. Page 78: Add the words Limit or mitigate impervious areas. Pervious paving mitigates
imperviousness, but does not decrease impervious area. Move the permeable pavement section
as second after parking lot pavement.
15. Page 79: Stormwater: Row 2: Recommended Changes: “Green Area” should be redefined. (see
comment 2).
16. Page 83: Recommend adoption of a tree ordinance separate from forest conservation law. The
tree ordinance should protect individual trees or require replacement of trees where loss is
unavoidable.
17. Page 85: Tree Canopy and Heat Island: Healthy Trees: Recommended Changes: 1st Sentence:
Delete “with impervious or semi-pervious materials”, add “and underground structures” to
structural soil. Second sentence: Add “or soil volume” after width.

Additional Thoughts:

1. The concept of revising zoning code to permit higher density near transit is great. The following
additions would be helpful
a. Legislate “vehicle free zones” similar to “no smoking zones” at transit centers. In these
areas provide housing ownership or rental incentives or make eligibility for housing at or
near transit centers conditional on residents not owning a vehicle. In other words,
provide incentives to have people get rid of their cars.
b. Use TDRs or similar concept to increase density at transit centers. Provide density in
relation to distance from transit centers and not zone e.g. higher density at the center
than ¼ mile away etc.
c. Use building design to complement building height in determining FAR at transit centers
i.e. building design should trump building height
2. Include reduction of SOV use as a component of reducing VMT.
3. Provide incentives to encourage linking urban open space with greenways, stream valleys, parks
and other green infrastructure.
4. Allow green roofs, onsite energy generation, and community gardens as a means of meeting FCP
requirements in infill development.
5. Increase the efficiency of transit (especially bus service); RideOn and Metro buses are currently
run apparently with little regard to scheduling, which discourages ridership.
6. (Walkable communities) In winter require businesses to clear sidewalks, bus shelters, and
wheelchair ramps in road ROWs fronting the business, to promote truly walkable communities
in all weather.
MARY DOLAN
M-NCPPC, Environmental Planning Division

Lois-

I want to reinforce some ideas that have been raised earlier, but didn’t seem to find their way
into this document:

 The definition of “green area” needs to be examined more thoroughly to disentangle

the issues related to “really green” space and public use space. I’m not sure simply
limiting the imperviousness of “green areas” will solve the problem.
 Cutting or clearing of healthy trees should not be allowed for solar panel installation
 The audit does not address ground mounting of solar panels. Should that be allowed?
What about mounting on brackets on buildings to achieve the desired angle?
 The shading options for high levels of glazing should include those integral to the glazing
materials (specially treated glass that responds to lighting levels).
 While slaughtering should be prohibited as a matter of right, there should be some
provisions for special exceptions in some zones to encourage local animal production.
 Multi-family and commercial buildings should have space required for recycling.

Thanks for reaching out.

Mary
Montgomery County’s Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee [“the Committee],
an advisory committee to the Montgomery County, MD County Executive and County
Council, is pleased to have the opportunity to submit comments on this Sustainability
Audit. As a support group strongly oriented toward doing whatever we can to support a
and sustainable future for Montgomery County, the Committee appreciates
the opportunity to provide feedback on this valuable overview of how the County can use
its zoning code to advance sustainable development.

General Assessment

The Committee finds this document to be well written, well organized, and an excellent
conceptual framework for supporting sustainable development. Comments below are
organized sequentially as they pertain to the document. Some comments may essentially
appear twice, once as they would affect the summary text and again at the place in the
detailed table to which they pertain. Page numbers referenced in the specific comments
are the page numbers as shown in the pdf sidebar.

Specific Comments

 : “pointed officials” should be “appointed officials.” [DF]

 The overview page does not indicate who prepared the audit, nor its
context (we understand that the zoning code is currently under
review/modification, and that this audit is an effort to suggest changes that might
steer the code toward sustainability.) Context of this type would be useful to
readers who don’t realize the larger efforts that are underway. [MC, DF]

 : The page number on which the Full Sustainability Audit text starts
is missing from the text. Currently that page is 13, but maybe it has been omitted
until all changes have been made to the front-end text and a final page can be
determined. [DF]

 : At the end of the last

sentence, add “….. and allow for expedited permitting and/or increased densities
as appropriate as incentives for sustainable initiatives such as district heating,
renewable energy installations, car-free housing, and reflectivity
improvements.” [NF, BB, DF]

 : To increase walkability in communities, we

encourage the county to reexamine incentives to developers that encourage large
 setbacks and small public plazas in front of buildings. While they can be
charming, such setbacks interfere with the appearance of contiguous streetfront
and successful retail. Perhaps a more efficient use of the developer requirement
to provide such open space would be to pool amenity requirements into larger
pocket parks or other more widely used public spaces. [NF]

 : In the detailed matrix is a suggestion that new parking facilities (mass

parking areas) install infrastructure to eventually allow for the recharging of
plug-in electric vehicles. If this initiative were to be included in the detailed
matrix, would it be appropriate to add a summary comment about it on this page?
[TS]

 : The initiatives regarding tree canopy can be very useful. Have the
provisions here been coordinated in any way with the Forest Conservation Law
(FCL) which has been in the process of being updated? Might the initiatives in
this document inform or motivate changes in the FCL, or are there any FCL
initiatives that might support or encourage initiatives in this effort? [MC]

 : The beginning of the last section should read “Reducing imperviousness

and increasing reflectivity are central ……” [BB]

 : The Committee appreciates and supports the idea of expanding greywater

recycling. [NF]

 : The Committee appreciates the emphasis on district energy/geothermal

systems in the Energy section. However, a few points could be clarified. First,
geothermal energy as commonly used in residential/commercial applications is
not renewable energy such as energy taken from hot springs or reservoirs. As a
method of using moderate-temperature subterranean energy exchange (in a
medium commonly from 55 to 60 degrees F) for space heating and cooling,
geothermal heat pumps require electricity to operate in the same way as air
source heat pumps, though the process is vastly more efficient. Also, geothermal
energy applications could be permitted/encouraged not just in district
applications (where a separate central facility is responsible for extracting energy
for heating and cooling and distributing it to end user facilities such as homes or
commercial buildings) but also in non-district aggregated applications, where a
series of separate geothermal systems might be installed in a cluster of end user
facilities. Geothermal, solar, and other renewable energy systems are other
applications where permitting and zoning incentives might be put to good use.
[DF, NF, ???]

 : Loosening the restrictions on livestock

and gardens seems like a good idea, though potential exists for some problems
which might have to be addressed somewhere in other provisions [MC, DF]
 : In addition to developing lighting zones, which the Committee supports,
attention should be paid to lighting orientation, so that lighting is consistently
directed toward the ground, minimizing the amount of light projected into the
sky. [NF]

 . : under recommended changes, consider

allowing developers to pool open-space requirements to create larger, more
usable “pocket parks” or other public spaces rather than pieces of large setback,
small public plaza spaces that interfere with streetfront appearance and
successful retail. [NF]

 Add a section called something like

“Examination of energy efficiency and renewable energy options” to the matrix.
In the recommended changes column, consider requiring developers to submit an
analysis of energy efficiency and renewable energy options for a proposed
project and providing developers with permitting/density incentives to encourage
use of cost-effective or cost-competitive technologies. Also, developers should
be required to anticipate the potential for future installation of energy efficiency
or renewable energy technologies and provide an analysis of potential options for
the project site, as part of the permitting or site review process. Reference for
these suggestions is the Cape Cod Commission’s project review requirements.
[NF/planners]

 : Should the recommended

changes column be coordinated with provisions of the revised Forest
Conservation Law? Are there any changes that could be suggested based on
mutual needs? [MC]

 : Insert “impervious” before “driveways” in the

first two entries under recommended changes, for emphasis. [DF]

 : The Committee supports the wide variety of recommended changes

for parking requirements in this part of the audit. [NF]

 : Again, coordinate plans/recommended changes with

the revision of the Forest Conservation Law as appropriate. [MC]

 : The recommended changes section does not

suitably distinguish between low-slope and high-slope roofs. Low-slope roofs
with SRI much larger than 29 are available. On the other hand, high-slope
shingle roofs on homes would not be able to meet the standard reflectivity cutoff
of 29. Anything above 26 would imply tiled roofs. Builders would have a real
problem with such a requirement. Also, the notes column in this section should
include a statement that the goals of roof reflectivity should be reviewed from
time to time to reassess what is actually practical to implement. A reference for
this review and decision process would be the Cool Roof Rating System. [BB]
 : Could there be a
separate section for non-district generation facilities (i.e., aggregated end user
facilities that use generation or other renewable energy systems as a coordinated
set of consumers rather than relying on a central generation facility? Such
aggregated sets of users would be allowed everywhere, and might be provided
incentives such as expedited permitting or increased density allowances in
exchange for use of such systems. [DF]

 : Could an additional section, entitled “Parking

Facilities” be added after the building section, to propose a recommended change
requiring developers of new parking facilities to plan and install infrastructure as
appropriate (conduit, necessary space for charging equipment, etc.) suitable for
recharging plug-in electric vehicles in a certain fixed percentage of the vehicle
spaces in the facility? There is no existing code on this, and applicable context
and priority level are to be fixed as appropriate. [TS]
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Via Bill Goodwin, Planning, Accountability, and Customer Service

Thank you for providing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with the
opportunity to comment on the subject draft dated February 15, 2010. We are pleased to
note that one of the Key Policy Issues arising from the Zoning Discovery process was the
need for “designing for people.” As the primary tool for implementing Master Plan
visions, we anticipate that the new zoning code will adhere to this principle.

Our review focused on the Sustainability Audit (Section 5) of the draft. Of particular
interest to DHHS are the discussions on Buildings & Neighborhoods and Food
Production.

 Buildings and Neighborhoods - The key themes of appropriate density,

walkability, and housing diversity resonate well with DHHS. These concepts
are interrelated from a “designing for people” perspective. Particularly as it
relates to walkability, we are concerned that the needs of the “lowest common
denominator” in the form of mobility-challenged persons (due to age and/or
disability) be routinely considered in walkability enhancement requirements
and prohibitions.
 Food Production – The Department shares the emphasis found in the report on
allowances for community gardens and farmers’ markets. The importance to
health of having access to fresh food cannot be overstated. In recent months,
we have been educating ourselves on the ways in which decisions about land
use and the built environment affect people’s well-being. We are sharing our
knowledge of these determinants of health with Montgomery Planning Vision
Division leadership, and are learning how we can best contribute to and
collaborate on local planning activities.

We understand that there will be further opportunities to comment on the code itself as
the process moves through the drafting phase later this year and into 2011. However, our
Public Health Service has a comment on the Food Licenses row of the Sustainability
Audit matrix on page 92:

 The statement on the document regarding existing code for food licenses
leads us to believe the author is not familiar with L&R licensing and fees or is
working from outdated information. Farmers who produce and sell their raw,
uncut fresh vegetables and produce from a stand on their farm, at a farmers
market in the county or from a mobile unit are not required to pay a fee or to
be licensed.
 Maryland State Food Service Regulations COMAR 10.15.03 requires that
vendors selling potentially hazardous foods, e.g., meats, cheese, milk and cut
melons, comply with the requirements of the regulation. Licensure and
Regulatory Services are required to inspect these vendors during the season.
The license fee for these vendors is $50 annually.
  DHHS’ Licensure and Regulatory Services has had a strong working
partnership with the Montgomery County Farmers Market Association for the
last two years and has eliminated the fee for selling fresh, uncut produce,
simplified regulations, and assists market organizers and vendors with the
application process and compliance. The recommended changes have been
implemented now for two years.

Bill Goodwin
Program Manager, Montgomery County DHHS
Planning, Accountability and Customer Service
240-777-1892; 240-777-3099 (fax)
ALYCE ORTUZAR

Hello Lois,

Thank you again for your time yesterday. I tried to condense my

suggestions, and I did re-read earlier documents from the SWG, so I also
might have gone beyond the zoning audit.

The authors are not correct about the storm water management codes/regs in
the state. It is my understanding the MDE weakened water quality standards
in 2008, which should be reviewed and strengthened.
And local yard and lawn codes still do not encourage watershed friendly
practices versus the emphasis on turf grass, chemicals, and mowing.

I regard these as public health issues, and I ran out of time, so I have
not included all that I wanted to stress.

Thank you again.

Alyce Ortuzar

There should be no clearcutting, and no more denuding of hillsides. There are examples
of developments that are built around large trees and other important vegetation, which
preserve and possibly even enhance the environment around the structure(s). The portion
of the forest next to Montgomery College in Germantown should be preserved, not
sacrificed for the Gaithersburg West project, which is an inappropriate development on
what should still be farmland. We have no resources to spare. Choose other buildings in
the county for this project; they are available near existing transit in Rockville.

Tree canopy that provides shade and habitat should be included in what constitutes a
walkable community. Make it pleasant and accessible and people will be there. Work
with the medical community to promote exercise (walking and biking); that, too, is cost
free. There should be mandated countywide hearings before utility companies, DPS,
SHA, and P&P remove trees anywhere. Planning staff needs to reread the 1980 master
plan for preserving agriculture and rural open spaces and natural resources. Stop off-site
mitigation trade-offs. Preserving trees and vegetation is a public health issue, not a
property rights issue. DPS has a terrible track record, as does P&P, for preserving
important natural resources such as trees, including hillside trees.

MDA efforts to use toxic chemicals and inefficient aerial spraying ignore lessons from
states such as Rhode Island, where such spraying stopped in 1975 after evidence emerged
that the chemicals were killing their crustaceans (lobsters). So what about our? Rhode
Island has not developed any super gypsy moths nor has a widespread Gypsy Moth
problem despite no spraying. The situation stabilized. We need to follow that model and
save lives, resources, and $1.5 million.
Projections of population increases are just that—these numbers are not mandatory, and
should be questioned in the context of appropriate land use plans and the ability of the
county to provide not just infrastructure, but services, including fire and rescue and
education.

Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions should be targeted to 2020, not 2050. Current
coal and natural gas extraction practices are destroying water sources and other resources
and should not be promoted. We need to promote plug-in vehicles, including school
buses (and the use of biofuels such as used vegetable oil), that use clean energy sources,
including geothermal, small-scale wind turbines that fit on the roofs and can generate
power in winds as low as 5 mph, and passive and PV solar. For an excellent blueprint, see
Living Off the Grid by Montana architect Lori Rykers.

We need to work statewide to reinvigorate our manufacturing base by using empty

factories to manufacture all renewables that the state uses, including LED bulbs, turbines,
solar panels, etc. For training, Fleming College is a wonderful model that spends $4500
per student for an intensive 5-month course where the students build a completely
renewable/sustainable building and leave with marketable skills for implementing these
sustainable options.

County agencies have to pay more attention to presentations in DC at the National

Building Museum (nbm.org) and on the Hill sponsored by the Energy Environment Study
Institute (eesi.org). County agencies are too insulated and even arrogant about looking
outside of their narrow box not just to other U.S. municipalities, but other countries. No
LEED standard will meet the recently enacted German code for buildings.

Too much money is proposed for administration and marketing/outreach efforts. Did
METRO really spend any money promoting the new Glenmont station, or were news
reports and press releases enough to fill that parking garage by 7:30 am within three
months of its opening. Make it convenient and accessible is the lesson, and use cost-free
news reports and press releases. Build those sidewalks and create bike lanes in roads as
they are repaved or constructed, separate cyclists and pedestrians with vegetation, and be
sure to use adequate vegetation to separate pedestrians from splashing cars during
inclement weather.

Work with builderswithout borders.org to learn about cob and straw bale buildings and
insulation for new and retrofitted building. For parking lot models, see Dan Burden’s
Walkable Communities. These documents fail to specify the exorbitant costs of parking
spaces. Limit school parking spaces to teachers/employers; students should be able to
rely on an efficient bus system.

These stated costs are excessive: “Including additional costs for website development,
promotional materials, mailings, etc., we estimate Program L’s total annual costs at
$200,000 per year.” These efforts are not necessary and of questionable effectiveness.
Restrictions on non-agricultural uses in the Ag Reserve need to be strengthened. Too
many non-ag uses are permitted in the legislation creating the reserve. All agriculture in
the county should be under the Maryland Department of Ag, not health departments. P&P
needs to see when and why rules governing structures for farm animals changed in the
county, and consider returning to what existed before these changes, which I am told took
place around the 1980s.

DEP sounds like the appropriate agency to be in charge, but its track record is dismal.
The rainscapes slides I have seen appear to have paid for turf grass. Northern Virginia has
a very innovative, flexible, less costly, more resident friendly watershed friendly yard and
lawn campaign aimed at reducing and eliminating turf grass, toxic chemicals, and
mowing. DEP claims to have a similar campaign, but I have seen no evidence of it, and
most homeowners still mow low and often to maintain chemical-dependent turf grass that
captures no rainwater and leaves no pollinator behind. I was forced to mow my watershed
friendly yard by the county office of lawn and yard code in the Dept of Housing, and
DEP refused to intervene. Nothing has changed. I wanted to move the jurisdiction of the
code to DEP, and found the county council amenable, but Bob Hoyt was not amenable to
that effort.

Smart Growth has been used in the county to destroy wonderful affordable garden
apartments and other housing. We need to stop rezone older homes from residential to
commercial and nonprofit. We need to stop giving developers permission to destroy
small houses and replace them with mansions.

We need to look abroad to models that are not high-density yet still provide train stations
and small-scale villages of services. There is a train station in the Loire Valley of France
surrounded by farm land, with no inclination to pave over and develop the farm land just
because a train station is there. Communities such as Ashton fear public transportation
because of the questionable paradigm that there must always be high-density everywhere
along a transit/bus route. We need to look at smaller buses and even vans/jitneys used in
other countries. All buses can run on used vegetable oil high school students can be
taught to produce.

Reducing lighting countywide needs to be extended throughout the migration and

summer months.

Alyce Ortuzar
farmparity@gmail.com
301.774.6617
AUDUBON NATURALIST SOCIETY
Via Diane Cameron

Dear Lois,

Please accept this email letter as the comments of the Audubon Naturalist Society on the Montgomery
County's Zoning Code "Sustainability Audit." Your email requested specific comments on "the priority
pieces of the audit that should be incorporated into the new zoning code." You had set today, June 1, as
the deadline for your receipt of comments that will be presented to the Zoning Advisory Panel at its
June 16 meeting.

Regarding the Sustainability Audit, (attached), we support the provisions of the Stormwater matrix, pp.
19 through 22, with the exception of the item concerning the proposed inclusion of green roofs for the
"green area" requirement. As ANS has previously testified, we support green roofs for several reasons,
but they do not serve as ground-level green areas. We support the amendments to the definition
of green area contained in ZTA 08-01 proposed by Councilmember Elrich, and we see this definition as
being conducive to our stormwater/ESD, Smart Growth, walkability, green street, and other County
sustainability goals.

As I requested during our May 24, 2010 meeting at the Planning office, we ask that you incorporate all
of the attached Biohabitats and Horsley-Witten Group consultants' comments into the Zoning Code
revisions. These consultants' comments are aimed at helping the County to fulfill its stormwater
permit mandates for:
* elimination of barriers to use of ESD practices;
* identifying specific opportunities to promote use of ESD; and
* correction of gaps in the code where ESD could be better enabled.

For instance, page 6 of the attached Biohabitats memo states, "All zone widths and setback codes should
be reconsidered if they could potentially discourage ESD designs such as rain gardens, bioretention,
swales, expanded tree pits, or others...As ESD areas could be considered “Green Area” and “Landscape”,
terms mentioned extensively in Article C as well as D and E, the minimum required area could be
expanded to minimize impervious surfaces and allow for more ESD area." We support these and all
other proposed revisions to the Zoning Code/Chapter 59 in the Biohabitats memo and Excel matrix
(both are attached here).

The thrust of the narrative on stormwater on page 5 of the Sustainability Audit is problematic, in that, in
promoting a significantly weaker volume standard for urban redevelopment projects, it is out of step
with longstanding, and continuing, policy and law here in Montgomery County. Montgomery has long
required both new development and redevelopment projects to adhere to the same stormwater
management standards, while affording greater flexibility for urban redevelopment projects. This
tradition has served us well, and it will be even more important as we strive to implement ESD measures
to meet our permit requirements; Anacostia and other urban water restoration objectives; and drinking
water protection goals.

The state's equivalent half-inch stormwater volume standard for redevelopment projects is well below
Montgomery's 1"/2.6" standard that applies to all development projects, including redevelopments.
The narrative on page 5 also suggests that urban projects should generally be assumed to need waivers
to enable them to escape on-site practices. This suggestion is out of line with current (and proposed)
County law and policy, and runs counter to the Stormwater Management Act of 2007, which expressly
includes redevelopment projects in its ESD requirements. As you know, there are numerous ultra-urban
ESD practices already available, and more, like green walls, are emerging on the market, as evidenced
by the Washington Regional Green Roofs and Walls conference in D.C. running today and tomorrow.
(http://greenroofs.com/upcoming_events.htm#washingtonGRHC)

The new stormwater norm assumes that all projects are able to apply ESD, and the burden of proof is
on the applicant to show that they have exhausted all feasible ESD practices before turning to any other
option. We ask that this narrative be revised to reflect this norm and Montgomery's ESD requirements.

In addition to the substantive ESD zoning code changes that we are requesting, we also request that the
planning and zoning staff work with DPS and DEP staff to institute changes in public notification and
plan review abilities, related to the new ESD approaches and mandates. Specifically, we ask that the
Montgomery County development approval process be revised to ensure that the public is given
adequate, timely and reasonable notification of; access to; and meaningful comment opportunities on,
all proposed projects' ESD Concept Plans.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Yours for clean water,

Diane M. Cameron
Conservation Program Director
Audubon Naturalist Society
Consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council