I noticed there were a couple of postings regarding intent of M-UTC Zoning as well as some questions over what M-UTC zoning allows or does not allow. Here's the link to the zoning:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/riverdaleplan.htm" target="_blank">
http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/riverdaleplan.htm</a><br><br>The M-UTC is a zoning overlay created through county enabling legislation. It does provide the town with more control over what happens within the zone, which is a strong benefit. Basically, the zoning spells out the kinds of development the town would like to see, giving developers a road map for creating projects that fit our vision.
<br><br>Neither the Wachovia nor the Condominiums meet the zoning guidelines. Unless the proposals are significantly altered, moving forward will require a special permit process, which is a decision that the county makes in close consultation with the town. So, at that point, it becomes a decision that gets voted on by the town council.
<br><br>The Wachovia does not conform to guidelines because it is basically an under-use. Zoning calls for greater lot coverage, more square feet of developed space on the site, and a mix of uses. So in this case, the zoning would indeed encourage greater density than what traditional suburban development would propose.
<br><br>In the case of the condominiums, the proposed project could be seen as an over-use. The zoning calls for 3 stories in the area of the Dumm's properties, not five. <br><br>Hope that makes the zoning clearer. As to whether condos are marketable, etc. that's another issue. But, if a project is granted with a variance, because it does not conform to the zoning, there are things that the town government can extract in exchange for the variance. For instance, the town could theoretically set deadlines for occupancy or requirements regarding the percent of units that must be owner occupied.
<br><br>Alice Ewen Walker<br>(M-UTC Committee)<br><br><br>