Loading...
This Chapter does not repeal or modify or otherwise affect any other ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation of the County; however, wherever this Chapter imposes more stringent requirements, the provisions of this Chapter must prevail. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, §104-5; Ord. No. 18-19, §2.)
Editor’s note—The predecessor to the above section is cited in Creative County Day School of Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 242 Md. 552, 219 A.2d 789 (1966).
A. The Board will consider subdivision of land as follows:
1. Except for an administrative or minor subdivision under Divisions 50.6 and 50.7, the subdivider must submit a complete preliminary plan application form and payment of the required fee.
2. The plat of all or part of an approved subdivision plan must be submitted with required supporting data and documents, a completed application form, and payment of the required fee.
B. Subdivision of part of a tract. The Director may reject a subdivision plan application for part of a tract if the size and shape of the property as submitted prevent designing a plan that will meet standards established by these regulations, and require all or a larger part of the tract to be platted to meet this Chapter, Chapter 49, or other laws or regulations.
C. Properties with a pending water or sewer category change request. The Director may reject a subdivision plan application for a property undergoing review by the Council for a water or sewer category change request, and require Council action to approve the request before a preliminary plan application is accepted.
D. Area within pending zoning map amendments. The Director may reject a subdivision plan if all or any part of the plan is located within the boundaries of a pending amendment to the zoning map. The subdivider may resubmit the plan immediately after the final disposition of the pending amendment. This Subsection must not apply if any map amendment is still pending 6 months after the date of the submission of the plan.
E. Area within pending master plan. The Board may defer action on a proposed subdivision plan application if all or any part of the plan is located in the boundaries of a pending master plan or master plan amendment. For purposes of this Section, a pending master plan or master plan amendment is the public hearing draft master plan or master plan amendment.
1. The subdivider may resubmit a proposed subdivision plan deferred under this Section to the Board either:
a. after the final disposition by the District Council of the pending master plan or master plan amendment; or
b. no later than 12 months from the date the Board approves the public hearing draft master plan or master plan amendment, unless there is a determination by the Board that the subdivision plan application presents a substantial conflict with the proposed public hearing draft master plan or master plan amendment, in which case the Board may defer a subdivision plan application for a maximum of 18 months from the date the Board approves the public hearing draft master plan or master plan amendment, but in no event beyond the period in Subsection a. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, §§104-9, 104-12; Ord. No. 5-164, §1; Ord. No. 7-55, §1; Ord. No. 10-47, §2; Ord. No. 10-60, §2; Ord. No. 10-73, §1; Ord. No. 10-78, §3; Ord. No. 11-53, §2; Ord. No. 12-12, §1; Ord. No. 13-57, §3; Ord. No. 13-65, §1; Ord. No. 14-8, §1; Ord. No. 15-67, §1; Ord. No. 16-10, §1; Ord. No. 16-26; §1; Ord. No. 16-35, §1; Ord. No. 17-04, §1; Ord. No. 71-31; §1; Ord. No. 17-36, §2; Ord. No. 18-04, §1; Ord. No. 18-19, §2; Ord. No. 19-22, §2.)
Editor’s note—Portions of Section 3.2, 3.6 and 4.3 [collectively, formerly §50-20] are quoted in Remes v. Montgomery County, 387 Md. 52, 874 A.2d 470 (2005). Portions of the above sections are cited in Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County, 337 Md. 15, 650 A.2d 712 (1994); are described in Donohoe Construction Company, Inc. v. Montgomery County Council, 567 F.2d 603 (4th Cir. 1977); and are cited in Logan v. Town of Somerset, 271 Md. 42, 314 A.2d 436 (1974).
Section 3.6 [formerly §50-23 and, prior to that, §104-12] is cited in Gruver-Cooley Jade Corporation v. Perlis, 252 Md. 684, 251 A.2d 589 (1969).
Ord. No. 19-12, § 3, states: Automatic Extensions.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2009, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2009 is automatically extended for 8 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 8-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2011, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2011, is automatically extended for 6 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 6-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2013, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2013, is automatically extended for 4 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 4-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2015 or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2015, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on July 28, 2020, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on July 28, 2020, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
Ord. No. 19-12, § 4, states: Automatic Extensions:
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2009, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2009, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 8 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 8-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2011, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2011, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 6 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 6-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2013, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2013, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 4 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 4-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2015, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2015, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on July 28, 2020, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on July 28, 2020, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
ARTICLE II. SUBDIVISION PLANS
Except for an administrative or minor subdivision submitted under Divisions 50.6 and 50.7, the subdivider must submit a proposed subdivision to the Board for approval in the form of a preliminary plan before the submission of a plat. The plan must show graphically, and supporting documents must demonstrate, the data needed for the Board to make the findings required by this Article. (Ord. No. 18-19, §2.)
A. Application and fee.
1. The subdivider must file the preliminary plan with the Board, together with the completed application form, supporting information, and payment of the required fee.
2. The subdivider must own the property or be authorized by the owner to file the application.
3. If property is owned or controlled by the State, Montgomery County, or another political subdivision, government entity or agency, or WMATA, the subdivider must obtain authorization from the government entity, agency or WMATA to include the property as part of the subdivision.
B. The drawing. The subdivider must submit a preliminary plan drawing in a form required by regulations of the Board. Details and information must include:
1. scaled drawing of a maximum of 100 feet to the inch, or as specified by the Director;
2. title block information;
3. certificate of an engineer or land surveyor to affirm the accuracy of boundary lines, topographic data, and other engineering or survey data, and to certify that the subdivision plans and supporting documents were prepared in a manner that satisfies all submission requirements and applicable agency standards, policies, and procedures;
4. locations and names of abutting and confronting subdivisions with lot, block, and record plat number of subdivided land, and deed references for unplatted land;
5. existing scenic easements, scenic vistas designated by the Rustic Roads Plan, or designated historic resources;
6. vicinity location map; and
7. graphic representation of the proposed subdivision, including:
a. bearings referenced to the Maryland Coordinate System, except that an application filed to correct an approved preliminary plan may be referenced to the plat meridian used on the original approved preliminary plan or the record plat;
b. lot and block layout;
c. all roads labeled as public or private with construction details. The subdivider must show the applicable Road Design and Construction Code design standards or typical sections for the proposed roads and must list any proposed modifications;
d. location of existing and proposed utilities;
e. existing topography with contour intervals of 5 feet or less;
f. location and width of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including sidewalks, shared-use paths and on-road bicycle lanes and connections to existing off-site facilities;
g. sites for public uses and open spaces;
h. location, type, and width of all existing and proposed rights-of-way and easements, including roads, slopes, paths, utilities, on- and off-site storm drainage, and other improvements;
i. the proposed use of all lots on the preliminary plan and the scaled dimensions and approximate area of each use;
j. lines showing the limits of each zone, if the property is located in more than one zone;
k. all existing topography, structures, and paving on adjoining properties within 100 feet; and
l. location of any burial sites of which the applicant has actual notice or constructive notice or that is included in the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory.
C. Supporting information.
1. An approved Natural Resources Inventory/Forest Stand Delineation.
2. A preliminary forest conservation plan or forest conservation exemption.
3. Verification from the County and other applicable agencies showing payment of any required fees in connection with the County’s review process.
4. Concept road grade and profile. For a public road, an engineer or a land surveyor must prepare conceptual road grade and profile plans under the design criteria approved by the Department of Transportation and indicate the percentage of tangent grades, lengths of crest and sag, vertical curves and elevations, and elevations of all intersecting roads. The plan must indicate the direction of water flow. Where the topography makes the determination of the adequacy of the road grades difficult, the Director may require additional supporting information.
5. Storm drainage capacity and impact analysis. The concept road grade plan must be supported by a preliminary storm drain study prepared under the drainage design criteria of the transportation or permitting agency with jurisdiction over the road.
6. Sight distance evaluation for all driveways that will serve new development and road intersections prepared under the criteria of the applicable State or County transportation agency.
7. Hydraulic Planning Analysis. For lots located in areas where the subdivider proposes connection to public water and sewer facilities, the subdivider must submit verification from WSSC that the subdivider has applied for a Hydraulic Planning Analysis.
8. Wells and septic systems. For lots located in areas where the subdivider proposes the installation of individual wells and septic systems, the preliminary plan must also show:
a. the proposed locations of water wells for each lot and existing wells on the property and within 100 feet of the property;
b. a circular area with a radius of 100 feet around each well to denote clear space in which no final sewage system is to be located;
c. the “usable area” for sewage disposal that satisfies the Executive Regulations for on-site sewage disposal;
d. any existing sewage disposal systems located on the property and within 100 feet of the property;
e. wetlands, rock outcrops, and floodplains; and
f. a 10-foot zone surrounding the water service line to buildings, free and clear of any sewer lines, systems, or part thereof.
9. Phasing schedule.
a. The preliminary plan approval establishes the plan validity and adequate public facilities validity periods for the entire project.
b. Where the subdivider proposes a phased project that will cumulatively exceed the minimum validity periods under Sections 4.2.G.2.a and 4.3.J.5.a, the applicant must submit a recording and construction phasing schedule as part of the preliminary plan for approval by the Board. The schedule must indicate the portions of the preliminary plan for which record plats and building permits will be obtained during each of the proposed phases, up to the expiration of the maximum adequate public facilities validity period under Section 4.3.J.5.a.
c. When applicable, the phasing schedule must identify the timing for the completion of construction and conveyance to unit owners of such things as common open areas and recreational facilities. In addition, the phasing schedule must indicate the timing for the provision of moderately priced dwelling units, and infrastructure improvements associated with each phase. The subdivider must design such a phasing schedule to minimize dependence on features (other than community-wide facilities) that will be provided in subsequent phases and have minimal impact during construction on phases already built and occupied.
d. If a phasing plan for a preliminary plan included land or building space that the County accepted for an arts or entertainment use under Section 59-C-6.2356 of the zoning ordinance in effect on October 29, 2014, approval of a site plan under Section 59-7.3.4 for the phase containing that land or building space validates all remaining phases of the preliminary plan and the project plan for the purpose of Section 59-D-2.7(b) of the zoning ordinance in effect on October 29, 2014.
10. Transfer of development rights.
a. A preliminary plan for a property located in a receiving area that proposes to increase the density of the property by using transferred development rights must indicate:
i. the number of lots permitted for the tract by zoning without the use of density increases as allowed by Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) programs;
ii. the number of development rights to be conveyed to the receiving property;
iii. the number of Moderately Priced Dwelling Units to be provided as required by Chapter 25A;
iv. the total density, in dwelling units, of the proposed subdivision; and
v. the density recommended by the adopted master plan.
b. A preliminary plan that uses transferable development rights in the Rural Residential and Residential zones must include at least two-thirds of the number of development rights permitted to be transferred to the property under the appropriate master plan. However, the Board may reduce the two-thirds requirement if it finds the reduction is more appropriate for environmental or compatibility reasons.
11. Draft Traffic Mitigation Agreement. A preliminary plan application for property located in a Transportation Management District (TMD), designated under Chapter 42A, Article II, must contain a draft Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg) or similar plan designated under Chapter 42A prepared by the applicant that meets the requirements of that Article.
12. Encumbrance. The applicant must identify the existence of and the location of any encumbrance that would impact the proposed development, including encumbrances on existing or proposed right of way.
D. Application processing.
1. The applicant must submit an initial application to the Director. The Director must review the application for completeness within 10 days after receipt. An application is incomplete if any required element is missing or is facially
defective, e.g., a drawing that is not to scale. An application filed without all required fees is also incomplete. The assessment of completeness must not address the merits of the application.
2. The applicant must submit any required revisions to the Director. The Director must review the revised application for completeness within 10 days after receipt.
3. After the Director verifies that the application is complete, or if the review is not completed within 10 days after receipt, the Director will accept the application and establish a hearing date under Section 4.1.E.
4. Public notice is required to satisfy a regulation approved under Section 10.1.
E. Hearing date. The Board must schedule a public hearing to begin within 120 days after the date the Director accepts an application. The Director may postpone the public hearing by up to 30 days once without Board approval. The Director or applicant may request one or more extensions beyond the original 30 days with Board approval. The Board must notice the public hearing and indicate the new hearing date on the Board’s agenda. An application that was filed before February 13, 2017 is not subject to this subsection.
(Mont. Co. Code 1965, §§104-23, 104-24; Ord. No. 6-39; Ord. No. 7-41, §§1, 2; 1973 L.M.C., ch. 25, §8; Ord. No. 8-46, §1; Ord. No. 8-73, §§1, 2; Ord. No. 8-92, §2; Ord. No. 9-23, §1; Ord. No. 9-68, §1; Ord. No. 9-69, §1; Ord. No. 10-12, §2; Ord. No. 10-60, §3; Ord. No. 10-71, §1; Ord. No. 11-18, §§1, 2; Ord. No. 11-23, §1; Ord. No. 11-28, §3; Ord. No. 11-63, §3; Ord. No. 12-16, §1; Ord. No. 12-19, §§4, 5; Ord. No. 12-31, §1; Ord. No. 12-60, §§1, 2, 3; Ord. No. 12-83, §2; 1995 L.M.C., ch. 13, §1; Ord. No. 13-26, §1; Ord. No. 13-36, §1; Ord. No. 13-51, §§1, 2; Ord. No. 13-91, §4; Ord. No. 13-113, §1; Ord. No. 14-8, §2; Ord. No. 14-37, §1; Ord. No. 14-50, §1; Ord. No. 15-39, §1; Ord. No. 15-50, §1; Ord. No. 15-66, §1; Ord. No. 15-67, §1; Ord. No. 15-89, §1; Ord. No. 16-05, §1; Ord. No. 16-16, §1; Ord. No. 16-26, §1; Ord. No. 16-27, §1; Ord. No. 16-33, §1; Ord. No. 16-35, §1; Ord. No. 17-04, §1; Ord. No. 17-20, §1, Ord. No. 17-31, §1; Ord. No. 18-04, §2; Ord. No. 18-19, §2; Ord. No. 18-31, §1; Ord. 19-22, §3.)
Editor’s note—Section 4.1 [formerly §50-34] is quoted in Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 173 Md. App. 349, 918 A.2d 1254 (2007). Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 8.1 [formerly §§50-34 to 50-35 and, prior to that, §§104-23 through 104-25] are quoted in Gruver-Cooley Jade Corporation v. Perlis, 252 Md. 684, 251 A.2d 589 (1969).
For preliminary plans and record plats approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which remain valid, the validity period and procedural requirements and limitations for plan extensions are as established under this ordinance.
Portions of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 [formerly §50-35] are quoted in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37; 968 A.2d 552 (2009) and cited in Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 173 Md. App. 349, 918 A.2d 1254 (2007). In Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Silkor Development Corp., 246 Md. 516, 229 A.2d 135 (1967), the court held that the 1963 amendments to the Maryland-Washington Regional District Act eliminated the right to require approval of a development plan within sixty days of submission. The “default provisions” of the Act only apply if the County adopts them. Section 4.2.D.3 [formerly §50-35(k)] is cited in Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County, 337 Md. 15, 650 A.2d 712 (1994). Portions of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 [formerly §50-35] are cited in Montgomery County v. Waters Landing Limited Partnership, 99 Md.App. 1, 635 A.2d 48, wherein the court held development impact tax valid. Portions of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 [formerly §50-35] are cited in Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 376 A.2d 505 (1971). Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 8.1 [formerly §§50-34 to 50-36 and, prior to that, §§104-23 through 104-25] are quoted in Gruver-Cooley Jade Corporation v. Perlis, 252 Md. 684, 251 A.2d 589 (1969).
The requirement in §4.2.D.3 [formerly §50-35(k)] concerning a determination of adequate public facilities prior to approval of a subdivision plan is mentioned in connection with a discussion of Montgomery County’s growth policy in P. J. Tierney, Maryland’s Growing Pains: The Need for State Regulation, 16 U. of Balt. L. Rev. 201 (1987), at p. 237.
See County Attorney Opinion dated 9/7/07 discussing methods of acquiring the construction of infrastructure for development districts. See County Attorney Opinion dated 7/26/07 discussing multiple issues deriving from the Clarksburg Master Plan and related issues regarding development districts. See County Attorney Opinion dated 11/5/99 describing the authorization for the Department of Public Work and Transportation to provide a recommendation to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission regarding road access.
Ord. No. 19-12, § 3, states: Automatic Extensions.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2009, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2009 is automatically extended for 8 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 8-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2011, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2011, is automatically extended for 6 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 6-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2013, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2013, is automatically extended for 4 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 4-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2015 or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2015, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on July 28, 2020, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on July 28, 2020, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
Ord. No. 19-12, § 4, states: Automatic Extensions:
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2009, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2009, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 8 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 8-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2011, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2011, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 6 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 6-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2013, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2013, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 4 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 4-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2015, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2015, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on July 28, 2020, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on July 28, 2020, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
Ord. No. 17-20, §2, concerning Tier 4 density, and §4, concerning effective dates, state:
Sec. 2. Certification of Tier 4 density. Within 5 days after this ordinance becomes law [September 18, 2012], the Planning Director must submit the Tier Map to the Maryland Department of Planning, with all data required by Maryland’s Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, to verify that the average density of the Tier IV area is no greater than one unit for every 20 acres.
Sec. 4. Effective date. This ordinance takes effect as follows:
(a) Except for Section 4.3.F.3.f [formerly §50-35(e)(7)], this ordinance takes effect on the date the ordinance becomes law [September 18, 2012].
(b) Section 4.3.F.3.f [formerly §50-35(e)(7)] takes effect on the date the Maryland Department of Planning certifies the Tier IV area as being less dense than one dwelling unit for every 20 acres. [Maryland Department of Planning letter of December 21, 2012 to the Montgomery County Planning Department, states: “MDP’s finding is that the County’s established zoning and subdivision rules already adequately limit residential subdivision sufficiently so there is no need for the additional restrictions that would be imposed by Tier IV restriction.”]
Subsection 4.3.E.5.c is derived, in part, from Subsection 50-35(q), which was added by Ord. No. 12-31, §1. Section 2 of that ordinance reads as follows:
“Sec. 2. Interim protection of roads.
“(a) This Ordinance applies to the roads identified on Exhibit A [following §49-80] as rustic roads and exceptional rustic roads as if the County Council had so classified the roads under Section 49-78.
“(b) The Rustic Roads Advisory Committee must advise the Planning Board regarding the significant features of these roads that must be preserved when the roads are improved. These significant features have the same status as those identified by the County Council under Section 49-78.
“(c) The County Council may add or delete all or part of a road from the list on Exhibit A by resolution after a public hearing if:
“(1) the Planning Board asks the Council to delete a road from the list so that the Board can require roadway improvements not permitted by this Act;
“(2) the Rustic Roads Advisory Committee asks the Council to add or delete a road from the list; or
“(3) an applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision asks the Council to delete a road from the list so that the applicant can make roadway improvements not permitted by this Act.
“(d) This Section is not effective after December 31, 1996.”
Subsection 4.3.J.5 is derived, in part, from Subsection 50-35(h), which was amended by Section 2 of Ord. No. 12-60. Section 3 of that ordinance reads as follows:
Sec. 3. For preliminary plans and record plats approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which remain valid, the validity period and procedural requirements and limitations for plan extensions are as established under this ordinance.
Section 5 of 1995 L.M.C., ch. 13, reads as follows: “Sec. 5. A regulation that implements a function assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services by 1995 LMC ch. 13 continues in effect but is amended to the extent necessary to provide that the regulation is administered by the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services.”
A. Referral of plan. After accepting an application, the Director must send a copy to the Development Review Committee and other reviewing bodies, requesting each agency to submit a recommendation concerning the plan. The Director must send copies, as needed, to:
1. WSSC, for water and sewer service;
2. the Department of Transportation, for roads, streets, intersection locations, site access, sight distances, traffic calming, paths, pedestrian and bicycle facilities (including bike share), parking, transit facilities, transportation demand management elements, and storm drainage within County-maintained rights-of-way and easements with all reviews consistent with the objective to achieve Vision Zero goals;
3. the Department of Permitting Services, for stormwater management, floodplain delineation, sanitation, wells, and septic systems;
4. the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, for water and sewer adequacy and tree variances;
5. Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service, for requirements for adequate fire protection and access;
6. the State Highway Administration, for right-of-way requirements and access on state roads;
7. any appropriate agency of the federal government;
8. any municipality that has filed a request with the Board for an opportunity to review subdivision or resubdivision plans for property located in that municipality;
9. Montgomery County Public Schools, for school site planning or for an application for residential development;
10. any other Montgomery County Executive agency, for the adequacy of public facilities and services and any proposed public use; and
11. local utility providers.
B. Review and recommendation.
1. Timing of review.
a. The Director must allow reviewing State and County agencies and utilities a minimum of 14 days to review plans. Those agencies and utilities must submit initial comments to the Director before the Development Review Committee meeting when one is scheduled.
b. The applicant must submit revised drawings at least 65 days before the date of the hearing to address all comments received. The Director may
extend the deadline if the applicant submits a written request within 15 days after the revised drawings were due. If no written request is received or if the requested extension is not granted, the application is deemed withdrawn.
c. State and County agencies and utilities must each submit their final recommendations on the application at least 45 days before the date of the Board hearing or must request an extension.
2. Approvals from public agencies. The following agency approvals are required before the Board approves the preliminary plan:
a. Design of County-maintained roads. The Department of Transportation must approve in preliminary form the typical section, concept road profile, intersection and site access locations, sight distances, utility location, and storm drain adequacy for improvements along County- maintained roads and paths within its jurisdiction;
b. Wells and septic systems. The Department of Permitting Services must approve lots with individual wells or septic systems, the well, and septic plan. Proposed wells and septic systems within existing rights-of-way or easements are prohibited;
c. Stormwater management. The Department of Permitting Services must approve a stormwater management concept plan and floodplain delineation, if required under Chapter 19;
d. Water Quality Plan. If a water quality plan is required under Chapter 19, the Board must not approve a preliminary plan or any extension until all requirements of Chapter 19 for plan approval are satisfied. The Board must make the compliance with a required water quality plan, including any plan reviewed on a preliminary or final basis, a condition of any approved preliminary plan; and
e. Water and sewer service. If water and sewer are proposed to serve the property, the Board may approve a preliminary plan only if WSSC has reviewed the proposed water and sewer service layout.
3. Director. The Director must publish a report and recommendation at least 10 days before the Board hearing.
C. Planning Board Action.
1. The Director must present every preliminary plan to the Board for its review and action. The Board must take one of the following actions or defer action to obtain more information:
a. approve, if the plan conforms to the purposes and other requirements of this Chapter;
b. approve, with any conditions or modifications necessary to bring the proposed development into compliance with all applicable requirements; or
c. deny, if the plan is contrary to the purposes and other requirements of this Chapter.
2. All necessary improvements to support the development must be completed or assured, as specified in Section 10.2.
3. Where a site plan is required, the approval of the preliminary plan must not allow clearing or grading to occur before approval of the site plan, unless otherwise specified by the Board.
4. The Board must approve a resolution containing findings supporting its decision. Following approval of a preliminary plan by the Board, any substantial change in the plan may only be required by another agency in order to comply with a law or regulation. Any such change must be allowed by the Board’s conditions of approval or a plan amendment under Section 4.2.F.
D. Required Findings. To approve a preliminary plan, the Board must find that:
1. the layout of the subdivision, including size, width, shape, orientation and density of lots, and location and design of roads is appropriate for the subdivision given its location and the type of development or use contemplated and the applicable requirements of Chapter 59;
2. the preliminary plan substantially conforms to the master plan;
3. public facilities will be adequate to support and service the area of the subdivision;
4. all Forest Conservation Law, Chapter 22A requirements are satisfied;
5. all stormwater management, water quality plan, and floodplain requirements of Chapter 19 are satisfied;
6. any burial site of which the applicant has actual notice or constructive notice or that is included in the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory and located within the subdivision boundary is approved under Subsection 50-4.3.M; and
7. any other applicable provision specific to the property and necessary for approval of the subdivision is satisfied.
E. Plan Certification.
1. Every preliminary plan approved by the Board must be certified by the Director to confirm that the plan reflects the Board’s approval. Any modification of the plan conditioned by the Board’s approval must be included in the plan before receiving the approval stamp. The approved plan must be filed in the records of the Board.
2. After conditional use approval and prior to certification of a preliminary plan, the Director may approve a minor change to a preliminary plan that was approved contingent on the approval of a conditional use application, if the minor change does not modify a condition of the preliminary plan. The Director may approve these minor changes without a public hearing if no objection to the application is received within 15 days after the conditional use is approved. If an objection is received within 15 days and the Director considers the objection relevant, a public hearing and action by the Board is required. The Director may also require the change be acted on by the Board when no objection is received.
F. Amendments.
1. Any amendment to an approved preliminary plan must follow the procedures, meet the criteria, and satisfy the requirements of this Division.
2. Amendments are classified as either major or minor.
a. A major amendment includes any requests to change density that results in greater adequate public facilities impact; or make major changes to lot configuration or location, or right-of-way width or alignment; or make a change to any condition of approval, except a change to plan validity period or APF validity period.
b. A minor amendment to an approved preliminary plan includes any change that does not change density in a manner that results in greater adequate public facilities impact; make major changes to lot configuration or location, or right-of-way width or alignment; or alter the intent, objectives, or requirements of the Board in approving the preliminary plan. A change to plan validity period or APF validity period is a minor amendment.
c. The Director may approve a minor amendment to change validity period phasing as permitted in Section 4.2.H.1.b.
G. Plan Validity.
1. Initiation date. The plan validity period for preliminary plans starts on the later of:
a. 30 days from the date of mailing indicated on the written resolution; or
b. the date upon which the court having final jurisdiction acts, including the running of any further applicable appeal periods, if an administrative appeal is timely noted by any party authorized to file an appeal.
If a corrected resolution is issued, the initiation date remains 30 days from the date of mailing indicated on the original resolution.
2. Duration.
a. Single-phase project.
i. A preliminary plan approved after March 31, 2009 and before April 1, 2017 remains valid for 5 years after its initiation date.
ii. A preliminary plan approved after March 31, 2017 remains valid for 3 years after its initiation date.
b. Multi-phase project.
i. An approved preliminary plan for a multi-phase project remains valid for the period of time allowed in the phasing schedule approved by the Board.
ii. The applicant must propose a phasing schedule and the duration of the validity period for each phase as part of an application for preliminary plan approval or amendment. The Board must assign each phase a validity period after considering the size, type, and location of the project.
iii. The time allocated to any phase must be 5 years or less after the initiation date for that particular phase for any preliminary plan approved after March 31, 2009 but before April 1, 2017, and 3 years after the initiation date for that particular phase for any preliminary plan approved after March 31, 2017.
iv. The cumulative validity period of all phases must be shorter than or equal to the APF validity period that begins on the initiation date of the first preliminary plan approval, including any extension granted under Section 4.3.J.7.
v. If the recordation of an approved preliminary plan occurs within 5 years of approval for a multi-phase project that includes land or building space to be transferred to the County for an arts or entertainment use under Section 59-C-6.2356 of the zoning ordinance in effect on October 29, 2014, all phases of the preliminary plan are validated. After approval, an amendment or modification to the phasing plan or the preliminary plan will not affect the validations if the requirements of this Subsection have otherwise been met.
3. Validation. A preliminary plan or phase of a preliminary plan is validated when the applicant has secured all government approvals necessary to record a plat, and a plat for all property shown on the plan or in that phase has been recorded in the County Land Records.
4. Effect of a preliminary plan amendment on validity period. For any action taken by the Board to amend a previously approved preliminary plan, the Board will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether it should extend the validity period and, if so, for what duration. In making the determination, the Board must consider the nature and scope of the requested amendment.
H. Extension of plan validity period.
1. Extension request.
a. Only the Board is authorized to extend the validity period. The applicant must submit a request to extend the validity period of an approved preliminary plan in writing before the previously established validity period expires.
b. The Director may approve a request to amend the validity period phasing schedule of an approved preliminary plan if the length of the total validity period of the preliminary plan is not extended. The applicant must submit the request in writing before the previously established validity period of the phase expires.
c. The written request must detail all reasons to support the extension request and include the anticipated date by which the plan will be validated. The applicant must certify that the requested extension is the
minimum additional time required to record all plats for the preliminary plan.
2. Effect of failure to submit a timely extension request.
a. The failure to submit a written extension request in a timely fashion voids all non-validated portions of the preliminary plan and, where applicable, an approved site plan.
b. Where a preliminary plan has been allowed to expire due to the applicant’s failure to file a timely request for extension, the Board may reinstate the preliminary plan and establish a new validity period if practical difficulty or undue hardship is demonstrated by the applicant. The Board may require the applicant to get a new APF review and approval by the Board as a prerequisite or condition of its action to extend an expired plan.
3. Grounds for extension.
a. The Board may only grant a request to extend the validity period of a preliminary plan if the Board finds that:
i. delays by the government or some other party after the plan approval have prevented the applicant from meeting terms or conditions of the plan approval and validating the plan, provided such delays are not caused by the applicant; or
ii. the occurrence of significant, unusual and unanticipated events, beyond the applicant’s control and not caused by the applicant, have substantially impaired the applicant’s ability to validate the plan, and exceptional or undue hardship (as evidenced, in part, by the efforts undertaken by the applicant to implement the terms and conditions of the plan approval in order to validate the plan) would result to the applicant if the plan were not extended.
b. The applicant bears the burden of establishing the grounds in support of the requested extension.
4. Planning Board considerations for extension.
a. The Board may condition the grant of an extension on a requirement that the applicant revise the plan to conform with changes to the requirements of this Chapter since the plan was approved.
b. The Board may deny the extension request if it finds that the project, as approved and conditioned, is no longer viable. The Board must consider whether the project is capable of being financed, constructed, and marketed within a reasonable time frame. The Applicant must demonstrate the project’s viability upon request by the Board or the Director.
5. Planning Board Action.
a. After a duly noticed public hearing, the Board must determine whether it should grant a request for an extension. The requirements for noticing and conducting a public hearing must follow the requirements for a preliminary plan.
b. If voting to approve an extension, the Board must only grant the minimum time it deems necessary for the applicant to validate the plan.
c. The Board may only grant an extension to a preliminary plan within the plan’s APF validity period, unless a further extension is allowed by law.
d. An applicant may request, and the Board may approve, more than one extension.
e. Once a phasing schedule is approved by the Board as part of a preliminary plan approval, the Board must treat any revision or alteration to the schedule other than an amendment approved under Section 4.3.J.7 as a minor amendment to the preliminary plan. Board approval of a revised phasing schedule is required to extend the total length of the validity period.
I. Effect of failure to timely validate plan or secure an extension.
1. If a preliminary plan is not timely validated in whole or in part before the expiration of the validity period, any remaining portion of the plan is void. For multi-phased plans, the failure on the part of an applicant to timely validate a phase, in whole or in part, voids the balance of the preliminary plan approval for that phase and all subsequent non-validated phases.
2. In those instances where an applicant has timely validated only a portion of a plan and no extension is granted, the applicant seeking to develop only that portion of the project remains responsible for fully complying with all of the terms, conditions, and other requirements associated with the portion of the plan approval that has been implemented.
3. If a preliminary plan or a phase of the plan is not timely validated, any APF determination made by the Board associated with the void portion of the preliminary plan is also void. In such event, the applicant loses any further rights to claim any vehicle trips associated with the expired APF approval. The filing of a new preliminary plan application does not provide the basis for reclaiming vehicle trips lost by the termination of the APF approval.
4. A preliminary plan approval conditionally linked to a sketch plan or project plan approval under Chapter 59 expires if the sketch plan or project plan expires.
J. Revocation of approval.
1. The Board may revoke approval of a preliminary plan by resolution at any time before the Board approves the final plat covering the proposed preliminary plan.
2. To revoke a preliminary plan approval, except in response to a violation of this Chapter, the Board must find that completing a portion of the plan has been rendered impractical by reason of an amendment to the General Plan, or by a conflict with a proposed public improvement or other conditions or circumstances not previously considered by the Board that make the plan contrary to public health, safety, or welfare.
3. The Board must give a subdivider notice and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before taking any action to revoke approval of a preliminary plan. Notice to the owner and subdivider must be sent by certified mail at least 30 days before the date of the proposed action giving the time and place of the hearing. The notice must state the reasons for the proposed revocation.
K. Vacating an approved subdivision.
1. An applicant may request that the approval of a subdivision plan, for which no subsequent plats have been recorded, be vacated.
2. A request to vacate an approved subdivision plan must include proof of ownership and notarized signatures of all property owners or other persons who are authorized by the property owner.
3. The Director must approve the request to vacate the approved subdivision plan if the Director finds that the request is not contrary to the public interest.
(Mont. Co. Code 1965, §104-24; Ord. No. 6-39; Ord. No. 7-41, §§1, 2; 1973 L.M.C., ch. 25, §8; Ord. No. 8-46, §1; Ord. No. 8-73, §2; Ord. No. 8-92, §2; Ord. No. 10-12, §2; Ord. No. 10-60, §3; Ord. No. 10-71, §1; Ord. No. 11-18, §2; Ord. No. 11-28, §3; Ord. No. 11-63, §3; Ord. No. 12-16, §1; Ord. No. 12-19, §5.; Ord. No. 12-31, §1; Ord. No. 12-60, §§2, 3; Ord. No. 12-83, §2; 1995 L.M.C., ch. 13, §1; Ord. No. 13-26, §1; Ord. No. 13-36, §1; Ord. No. 13-51, §2; Ord No. 13-113, §1; Ord. No. 14-8, §2; Ord. No. 14-37, §1; Ord. No. 14-50, §1; Ord. No. 15-39, §1; Ord. No. 15-50, §1; Ord. No. 15-66, §1; Ord. No. 15-67, §1; Ord. No. 16-05, §1; Ord. No. 16-16, §1; Ord. No. 16-26, §1; Ord. No. 16-27, §1; Ord. No. 16-33, §1; Ord. No. 16-35, §1; Ord. No. 17-04, §1; Ord. No. 17-20, §1, Ord. No. 17-31, §1; Ord. No. 18-04, §2; Ord. No. 18-19, §2; Ord. No. 18-31, §1; Ord. No. 19-22, §3; Ord. No. 20-10, §1.)
Editor’s note—Portions of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 [formerly §50-35] are quoted in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37; 968 A.2d 552 (2009) and cited in Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 173 Md. App. 349, 918 A.2d 1254 (2007). In Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Silkor Development Corp., 246 Md. 516, 229 A.2d 135 (1967), the court held that the 1963 amendments to the Maryland-Washington Regional District Act eliminated the right to require approval of a development plan within sixty days of submission. The “default provisions” of the Act only apply if the County adopts them. Section 4.2.D.3 [formerly §50-35(k)] is cited in Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County, 337 Md. 15, 650 A.2d 712 (1994). Portions of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 [formerly §50-35] are cited in Montgomery County v. Waters Landing Limited Partnership, 99 Md.App. 1, 635 A.2d 48, wherein the court held development impact tax valid. Portions of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 [formerly §50-35] are cited in Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 376 A.2d 505 (1971). Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 8.1 [formerly §§50-34 to 50-36 and, prior to that, §§104-23 through 104-25] are quoted in Gruver-Cooley Jade Corporation v. Perlis, 252 Md. 684, 251 A.2d 589 (1969).
The requirement in §4.2.D.3 [formerly §50-35(k)] concerning a determination of adequate public facilities prior to approval of a subdivision plan is mentioned in connection with a discussion of Montgomery County’s growth policy in P. J. Tierney, Maryland’s Growing Pains: The Need for State Regulation, 16 U. of Balt. L. Rev. 201 (1987), at p. 237.
See County Attorney Opinion dated 9/7/07 discussing methods of acquiring the construction of infrastructure for development districts. See County Attorney Opinion dated 7/26/07 discussing multiple issues deriving from the Clarksburg Master Plan and related issues regarding development districts. See County Attorney Opinion dated 11/5/99 describing the authorization for the Department of Public Work and Transportation to provide a recommendation to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission regarding road access.
Ord. No. 19-12, § 3, states: Automatic Extensions.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2009, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2009 is automatically extended for 8 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 8-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2011, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2011, is automatically extended for 6 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 6-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2013, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2013, is automatically extended for 4 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 4-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on March 31, 2015 or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2015, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of portions of Section 4.3.J to the contrary, the validity period of any determination of adequate public facilities that was valid on July 28, 2020, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on July 28, 2020, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
Ord. No. 19-12, § 4, states: Automatic Extensions:
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2009, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2009, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 8 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 8-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2011, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2011, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 6 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 6-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2013, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2013, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 4 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 4-year extension includes any extension granted automatically by any previous subdivision amendment and must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on March 31, 2015, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on March 31, 2015, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 4.2.G to the contrary, the validity period of any preliminary subdivision plan that was valid on July 28, 2020, or for which a timely application for an extension of the validity period was pending on July 28, 2020, including any separate phase of a multi-phase plan, is automatically extended for 2 years after the date when the validity period would otherwise have expired. This 2-year extension must be treated for all purposes as part of the validity period that was extended.
Ord. No. 17-20, §2, concerning Tier 4 density, and §4, concerning effective dates, state:
Sec. 2. Certification of Tier 4 density. Within 5 days after this ordinance becomes law [September 18, 2012], the Planning Director must submit the Tier Map to the Maryland Department of Planning, with all data required by Maryland’s Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, to verify that the average density of the Tier IV area is no greater than one unit for every 20 acres.
Sec. 4. Effective date. This ordinance takes effect as follows:
(a) Except for Section 4.3.F.3.f [formerly §50-35(e)(7)], this ordinance takes effect on the date the ordinance becomes law [September 18, 2012].
(b) Section 4.3.F.3.f [formerly §50-35(e)(7)] takes effect on the date the Maryland Department of Planning certifies the Tier IV area as being less dense than one dwelling unit for every 20 acres. [Maryland Department of Planning letter of December 21, 2012 to the Montgomery County Planning Department, states: “MDP’s finding is that the County’s established zoning and subdivision rules already adequately limit residential subdivision sufficiently so there is no need for the additional restrictions that would be imposed by Tier IV restriction.”]
Subsection 4.3.E.5.c is derived, in part, from Subsection 50-35(q), which was added by Ord. No. 12-31, §1. Section 2 of that ordinance reads as follows:
“Sec. 2. Interim protection of roads.
“(a) This Ordinance applies to the roads identified on Exhibit A [following §49-80] as rustic roads and exceptional rustic roads as if the County Council had so classified the roads under Section 49-78.
“(b) The Rustic Roads Advisory Committee must advise the Planning Board regarding the significant features of these roads that must be preserved when the roads are improved. These significant features have the same status as those identified by the County Council under Section 49-78.
“(c) The County Council may add or delete all or part of a road from the list on Exhibit A by resolution after a public hearing if:
“(1) the Planning Board asks the Council to delete a road from the list so that the Board can require roadway improvements not permitted by this Act;
“(2) the Rustic Roads Advisory Committee asks the Council to add or delete a road from the list; or
“(3) an applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision asks the Council to delete a road from the list so that the applicant can make roadway improvements not permitted by this Act.
“(d) This Section is not effective after December 31, 1996.”
Subsection 4.3.J.5 is derived, in part, from Subsection 50-35(h), which was amended by Section 2 of Ord. No. 12-60. Section 3 of that ordinance reads as follows:
Sec. 3. For preliminary plans and record plats approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which remain valid, the validity period and procedural requirements and limitations for plan extensions are as established under this ordinance.
Section 5 of 1995 L.M.C., ch. 13, reads as follows: “Sec. 5. A regulation that implements a function assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services by 1995 LMC ch. 13 continues in effect but is amended to the extent necessary to provide that the regulation is administered by the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services.”
Loading...