Changes in store for Montgomery’s proposed building moratorium

Council members say they are concerned about exemptions and fairness

Friday, Jan. 19, 2007

Changes to a proposed building moratorium in Montgomery County are all but certain, following reservations from the county’s planning chief and numerous appeals for project exemptions.

The biggest question will be whether to continue with some sort of development freeze with an exemption policy versus not instituting a moratorium, but notifying builders that projects filed after a certain date will be subject to new growth policy rules, said Michael Faden, the council’s deputy staff director.

Faden and other staff members are working on options to present to council members next week.

During a four-hour public hearing this week, county Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson told the council that the moratorium in its current form is unnecessary and not recommended.

The original proposal, sponsored by Council President Marilyn J. Praisner, is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation since the 1990-1994 administration of Montgomery County Executive Neal Potter (D), who, like Praisner, was conservative on growth and development. Praisner, and several other council members who also support the moratorium, campaigned on slow-growth platforms last year, vowing to change the growth policies in the state’s largest jurisdiction. Praisner’s proposal would prohibit the Planning Board from approving any preliminary subdivision plans through Aug. 15.

About 72 pending developments would be affected, accounting for about 5,400 residential units and 3 million square feet of commercial development. Included are 288 affordable housing units, which would be delayed, housing officials testified. Developments near Metro stations and enterprise zones would be exempt from the moratorium.

On Thursday, Praisner (D-Dist. 4) of Calverton said she has always been open to changes to the proposal and expects amendments during a council committee discussion on Monday.

‘‘I doubt that anybody on the council is prepared to vote for the bill as currently drafted,” said Councilman Roger Berliner (D-Dist. 1) of Chevy Chase. ‘‘I think we are grappling with whether or not the new rules should be applicable to people that have played by the old rules.”

Representatives for 30 of the 72 projects that would be affected have asked for exemptions, Faden said. Although no formal amendments have been proposed by any council member, council members have discussed changes with council staffers.

On Monday, Councilman Marc Elrich (D-At large) of Takoma Park, who co-sponsored the moratorium, plans to present an amendment that would establish a test for overcrowding. His amendment would permit pending projects that do not contribute to school overcrowding or more traffic congestion to be exempted from the moratorium. ‘‘I would vote for [the bill] as originally put out there, and I would vote for it with modifications after the committee process,” he said.

Elrich acknowledged that many of 72 pending projects probably would not fail his overcrowding test, but he insisted that a moratorium is still necessary.

‘‘There is no other way to be able to review these projects to make sure no harm goes forward,” Elrich said. ‘‘My position all along has been trying to get us some time to come up with a new growth policy.”

For Councilman Philip M. Andrews, who also co-sponsored the bill, the moratorium is about ensuring that the county collects adequate development taxes. Council members have discussed the need for increasing the fees paid by developers, an issue likely be addressed during the growth policy review.

‘‘It is critical that we reform the [growth policy] in order to avoid have projects go through that don’t pay for the mitigation of traffic they cause. That’s why this needs to be done now,” said Andrews (D-Dist. 3) of Gaithersburg. ‘‘What’s at stake is who pays.”

‘‘I don’t think the conversation was focused enough on the million-dollar question: Who is going to pay for our infrastrucre needs?” said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda. ‘‘[The business community is] going to have to work with the council to come up with some changes so that we have more adequate revenue on what needs to be built and what needs to be paid for. We are not going to get the money from the backs of taxpayers.”

Trachtenberg said she did not plan to submit any amendments to Praisner’s plan.

The most vocal opponent of the moratorium has been Councilwoman Nancy M. Floreen (D-At large) of Garrett Park, who said she would not vote for the proposal in its current form.

‘‘The presentation [Tuesday night] and communications we’re getting fast and furious are outlining real-life issues. So the questions for us are can the damage be limited and can some kind of fairness be achieved,” she said.

For Floreen, that balance can be achieved only with an equal investment in the county’s roads and school construction needs.

‘‘If we’re going to slow down, let’s catch up with positive forward thinking and action on transportation. I think that’s the basis of the public’s frustration,” she said.

Councilman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park, who would not say whether he would vote for the moratorium before he hears the committee discussion, said he would be concerned about a policy with several exemptions.

‘‘If we end up with a moratorium with so many exemptions that the burden is increased on the Planning Board, I don’t see how it will make their work any clearer ... I wouldn’t want to be working at the Planning Board,” he said.

The Planning Board is already working on an expedited schedule, ordered by the council, to complete a growth policy review by May 21, two and a half months earlier than the normal Aug. 1 review deadline. The planning department would be in charge of implementing a moratorium policy, if approved.

‘‘We will have a discussion of the growth policy, and I’m open to recalibrating our growth policy,” Leventhal said. ‘‘I don’t see where this six-month moratorium accomplishes much.”

The proposal now moves to the council’s Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee for discussion on Monday afternoon. The policy is expected to come before the full council for a vote on Jan. 30.