Category: PRA

This is an update on housing from Joe Harkins, Co-Chair of the PRA Housing Committee.

Governor Moore’s Housing for Jobs Act, HB 503, was recently overhauled and approved in the Maryland House of Delegates Committee on Environment and Transportation. PRA News previously reported on the potential for the bill, as originally drafted, to preempt county and local zoning and permitting requirements. At the urging of the Maryland Association of Counties, those provisions have now been removed. 

Instead, the committee draft now creates a housing commission to study the perceived housing crisis in the state and to make recommendations to increase affordable housing. The bill also provides for the Housing Secretary to set a 10-year target for housing production, including sub-targets by region. In addition, developers would be provided “vesting rights” such that, for five years after approval, projects must be governed by zoning and permitting requirements in effect at the time of application. An updated version of the Senate bill, SB 430, would have to be conformed to the House bill before final passage. 

Time may run out on any version of this legislation (by the April 7 end of session), but it would be unusual for a Governor’s Bill not to pass in some form, especially given the Democratic majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

The PRA Housing Committee, and its neighboring partner associations*, want to alert residents to legislation now pending before the Maryland General Assembly. The Housing for Jobs bills, HB 503 and SB 430, seek to accelerate county and municipality approvals of building permits in order to increase new housing.

The bills do so by identifying counties with a housing “deficit,” such that those counties would be required to expedite approvals of building permits unless a denial would fit six narrow exceptions. Even then, an exception can be overridden by “the need for more housing.” Montgomery County would be in the building deficit category until it achieves 33,000 new approvals, without regard to its current “pipeline” of some 35,000 housing permit approvals yet to be built. Under this formula, Montgomery County could remain in deficit indefinitely.

Under the proposed state legislation, in order for a county or local authority to deny new or substantially new housing permits, the authority would have to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the housing would: adversely impact health or safety of occupants; fail to comply with other state or federal law; lack adequate water or wastewater facilities; be located on inappropriate land, such as industrial or agricultural space; cause local school enrollment to exceed 100% of capacity; not comply with objective written development standards in existence at the time of application.

Proponents of the legislation claim that this last exception preserves county and local zoning and permitting requirements. Opponents point out that the override for “the need for more housing” could preempt this and the other exceptions. In any event, traditional neighborhood considerations, such as traffic, parking and compatibility, do not figure into any of the provisions of the bill as currently proposed. 

The General Assembly is in session until April 7, 2025. Insiders in Annapolis expect substantial amendments to be advanced to these bills. But, due to the widespread perception of a housing crisis in the state, some form of the legislation is likely to be enacted by the General Assembly this year. We will update residents as the “sausage-making” progresses in the state capital.

*Kensington Estates Civic Association and Byeforde-Rock Creek Highlands Citizens Association.

This is an update from the Committee on Housing, a collaborative effort of the Parkwood Residents Association, the Kensington Estates Civic Association, and the  Byeforde-Rock Creek Highlands Citizens Association.

The Council has concluded its formal hearings on NOW, the group of proposals for addressing the County’s housing challenges.  Notes summarizing some of the residents’ pro and con statements at the hearings are here. 

Briefly stated, at the hearings residents who support NOW pointed to the significant need for more, and especially more affordable housing.  Opponents said that while the proposals may result in more housing, they have doubts that they will achieve the goal of affordability.  They also have concerns about the impact on the County’s schools and on its infrastructure for dealing with stormwater, increased traffic, and environmental impacts.

The County Executive and County Vice President Jawando have also expressed the need for more community engagement, such as occurs in the master planning process.

With six members of the Council already signed on as sponsors or cosponsors, it appears likely that some version of the current proposals will pass.  However, the Council is about to deal with the 2025/26 budget, which will undoubtedly take considerable time, especially given the uncertainties surrounding the impact of state and federal actions.  It is possible, therefore that final action on NOW might be deferred to later this year, possibly even into the fall. 

But for the moment, we should anticipate final action by the Council sometime in April or early May. 

NEXT STEPS

• On March 24 at 6:30 p.m., the Montgomery County Civic Federation will host Councilmember Andrew Friedson for further discussion of More Housing NOW and housing future plans; the meeting is open to all.

• The Zoom link is here.

Meeting ID: 823 1689 7559
Passcode: 424109 

• On March 24 and 31, the County’s Planning, Housing, and Parks Committee [PHP] will hold work sessions on the proposed ZTAs and legislation.  More information about these work sessions is here.  When viewing this page, it is necessary to scroll down to see the agenda for the PHP committee on these dates.  Committee meetings are televised live on County Cable Montgomery or streamed live via this link .  Videos are archived and available on-demand 24 hours after the meeting concludes.

The PRA Housing Committee will post summaries of these sessions in PRA News on the listserv.

• After the PHP work sessions are concluded, the committee will [presumably] pass the measures to the Council for final action.  This may include a Council work session before a final vote.

As previously reported in PRA News, the Town of Kensington will host a public meeting with Council President Kate Stewart (District 4), Councilmember Andrew Friedson (District 1), and Councilmember Natali Fani-Gonzalez (District 6) on new housing legislation entitled More Housing N.O.W., New Options for Workers. 

The meeting is open to the public and will be held both in-person at the Kensington Town Hall and also virtually on Zoom.  The zoom link is contained in this flyer from the town.  

Meeting date and time: Monday, March 3, 2025, from 7:00-8:30 p.m.

At our upcoming PRA winter meeting on February 24 we will have the opportunity to raise any questions about the N.O.W proposals so that we can forward them to the Councilmembers in advance of the Town Hall meeting on March 3.

[This is an update from the PRA Housing Committee, formerly the PRA AHS Committee.] 

1. Public meeting on housing proposals with Councilmembers:  On Monday, March 3, 7-9:00 PM there will be a public meeting to discuss the new housing proposals with Councilmembers Friedson and Fani-Gonzalez (sponsors), and Council President Stewart (cosponsor).  [See this previous PRA News article.]  It will be both an in-person and a virtual meeting on Zoom hosted by the Town of Kensington at the town hall.  Parkwood residents are invited to join along with other Kensington residents associations.  The meeting will be recorded and made available on YouTube a few days later.  More details will follow when available.

2. PRA meeting agenda item on housing proposals. At our forthcoming PRA meeting on February 24 there will be an opportunity for residents to raise questions and voice their concerns about the proposals so that we can share them with Council President Stewart, as well as with Councilmembers Friedson and Fani-Gonzalez in advance of the meeting on March 3.

3. Issues raised.  Both the County Executive and the Montgomery County Civic Federation [MCCF] have raised questions about the new housing proposals. The MCCF has voiced concerns in a letter to the Council that there is inadequate time for residents to study the new proposals and  has requested that the Council postpone its public hearings currently scheduled for March 11 to a later date.  See the County Executive statement here and the MCCF letter here.

4. To testify or submit testimony. Anyone who may want to testify live [limited to three minutes] at the Council’s currently scheduled hearings on March 11 may sign up at this link [Go to the calendar for March 11 and select the 1:30 or 7:00 hearing time]. Testimony can also be submitted as a document, audio, or video file using this link.

[This is an update from the PRA Committee on Housing, formerly the AHS Committee]

On Tuesday, February 4^th, Councilmembers Friedson and Fani-Gonzalez introduced several measures to address the housing challenges the county currently faces.  In response to the feedback they had received from residents regarding the recommendations of the Planning Board in its Attainable Housing Strategies Report, CMs Friedson and Fani-Gonzalez developed proposals that differ in significant ways from the approach taken by the Board.

The proposal is comprised of five parts:

1. Allowing more residential building types, including duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and apartment buildings in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones along growth corridors [see note 1 below] if they meet a workforce housing requirement [see note 2 below};
2. Providing $4 Million to initiate funding intended to incentivize the construction of workforce units;
3. Creating an expedited approval process for projects that convert high-vacancy commercial properties to residential use;
4. Establishing a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for conversion of high-vacancy commercial properties to residential use; and
5. Doubling the County’s investment in the Homeowner Assistance Program from $4 million to $8 million.

Note 1:  Growth Corridors. The corridors referenced above in item 1 include Boulevards, Downtown Boulevards, Downtown Streets, Controlled Major Highways, and Town Center Boulevards that have a master-planned width greater than 100 feet and 3+ existing travel lanes.  By these definitions, we are assuming that neither Cedar Lane nor Parkwood Drive are considered corridors and that multiplexes would therefore not be permitted in Parkwood.  Connecticut Avenue and Rockville Pike are considered growth corridors, but this should not affect Parkwood directly.  For clarity, we will ask that the legislation on housing specify the names of these growth corridors.

Note 2:  Workforce housing requirement.  15% of the units, with a minimum of 1 workforce housing unit if an application included at least 3 units, must meet the requirements for workforce housing, which is defined as 120% of average median income (AMI) in the County Code.

These measures are cosponsored by Council President Kate Stewart, Councilmembers Dawn Luedtke, Marilyn Balcombe, and Laurie-Anne Sayles.  The two primary sponsors and four cosponsors represent a majority of the Council’s 11 members.  

Councilmember Stewart has indicated that she will be available to discuss these proposals with residents. The PRA will post information about her meeting plans when they are available.

Public hearings by the Council on these measures are tentatively scheduled for March 11, 2025, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. 

The PRA AHS Committee will continue to keep Parkwood residents informed as more information becomes available. 

Additional details are in this document.

This is an update from the PRA Committee on Attainable Housing Strategies.

Proposed housing legislation will be posted on the County Council website this week and formally introduced on Tuesday, February 4.  The legislative package has been developed by Council Member Andrew Friedson, working with the chair of the Council’s Economic Development Committee, Councilmember Fani-Gonzalez.  In a letter by CM Friedson sent on Tuesday, January 28,2025, the proposals are referred to as the “More Housing N.O.W. (New Options for Workers) package with five bold steps to increase housing supply, reduce costs, and increase pathways to home ownership.”  See Friedson’s letter for details.

Councilmember Stewart, who represents Parkwood, has stated in a letter emailed on Monday, January 27, 2025 discussing the proposed package that based on her “…initial review of the legislation, I believe the proposed legislation moves us in the right direction to address our housing needs, especially for working families such as our teachers, firefighters, nurses, and police officers.” 

In her letter she goes on to say “…it also addresses many concerns raised by community members”, such as “considering infrastructure capacity,  building housing near transit, parking in single family neighborhoods, focusing on affordability, including office to residential conversions, and prioritizing public input and not permitting ‘by right’ construction.” 

She states further that these proposals “… will go through the full process of review at the Council…”  and that she looks forward “…to discussing the details with you, and if there are ways we can improve the legislation I want to have those conversations with you.”

See CM Stewart’s letter here.

This is an update from the PRA Committee on Attainable Housing Strategies.

The County Council began its 2025 legislative session on January 14.  As of January 20, no legislation had been introduced specifically addressing  what actions the Council should take regarding the Attainable Housing Strategies [AHS], as drafted by the County’s Planning Board.  [Residents can review all PRA News articles about the AHS here.]

However, some Councilmembers have recently made public statements about the AHS.  As reported in a previous PRA News article, CM Jawando has urged the Council to “pause” its deliberations of the AHS proposals based on the “…outpouring of concern from the community regarding the recommendations”.  That same article noted that CM Kate Stewart is committed to “…boosting the availability of housing and affordable housing, especially along our transit corridors and near job centers.”  CM Mink has stated that “Tackling the housing affordability crisis is necessary and urgent, but we have other, better tools available than the AHS’s far-reaching and relatively low-yield recommendations.” [See this PRA News article.]. CM Friedson said in a public session with the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Breakfast Club that while the County does have a housing challenge, the Council should focus on the areas that would have the biggest impact such as the Growth Corridors.  He also expressed concern about the effect that some of the proposals could have on infrastructure, parking, and the environment.

However, other organizations have continued to express support for the AHS proposals.  For example Greater Greater Washington [GGW] has stated on its website that “…last week, two Montgomery County councilmembers called for “a pause” on Attainable Housing Strategies, a set of recommendations the County Council’s reviewing to legalize lower-cost house types–like duplexes, townhomes, and apartments–that aren’t allowed in most of the county today. … We still think it’s important for councilmembers to hear from people like you who want them to do something about high housing costs, because they’re hearing from a lot of people who feel differently.”   GGW urged its members to write to Councilmembers to express support for the proposals but unfortunately the link to the sample letter was disabled.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, long a supporter of the AHS proposals, stated on its webpage that “The housing crisis is real, it is here today, and cannot be ignored. We encourage the Council to carry on its work on the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative. The AHSI is based on years of research and community outreach, and the time to act is now.”

Finally, the Montgomery County Civic Federation [MCCF], of which the PRA is a member, noted that a majority of the 11 Councilmembers have not yet expressed their opinions publicly. In a legislative alert, the MCCF repeated its concerns with the AHS proposals, citing its resolution of November 2024 and its accompanying  letter to the Council. It urged residents to “ask the Council to suspend consideration of this ill-conceived proposal.” 

In keeping with the purposes of the PRA AHS Committee to provide timely, objective, and balanced information about the AHS to Parkwood residents, we have included in this article links or excerpts from groups that have varying opinions about the AHS proposals.

In accordance with its guidelines, the PRA committee will not take a position pro or con.  However, we urge residents to decide for themselves what they think about the AHS proposals and write to the Councilmembers listed below to express their views about this initiative. 

 The email addresses for all 11 members of the Council are here.

councilmember.jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.sayles@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.balcombe@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.katz@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.stewart@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.mink@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.fani-gonzalez@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.luedtke@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.glass@montgomerycountymd.gov

Update from the PRA AHS Committee

Councilmember Kristin Mink (D-5) has issued a statement in which she says that “I appreciate the Planning Board and Planning staff for their work on the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative. Tackling the housing affordability crisis is necessary and urgent, but we have other, better tools available than the AHS’s far-reaching and relatively low-yield recommendations. I look forward to leaning into those other possibilities with colleagues and the community.”

She expresses doubts that replacing a single-family home with one- to two-bedroom 6-plexes and 8-plexes would “… make a meaningful dent in our housing crisis and would continue to leave low- and middle-income families behind.”

“We should be prioritizing high-yield strategies that can earn the support of our communities.”  Examples she cites include:

• The Housing Production Fund [HPF] which”… is already helping to fund mixed-income projects across the county, like District 5’s Hillandale Gateway — 496 units, nearly a third senior housing, being sustainably built to some of the highest above-code building standards in the world.”
• “Establishing a modest new excise tax on residential tear-downs could generate a meaningful increase in funding available for the HPF, while disincentivizing construction of enormous new single-family homes that are typically sold at more than double their pre-tear-down value.”
• “Finally, we do need more housing density as a county, and we are already expanding areas for dense redevelopment through the traditional master planning process. In District 5 alone, we greatly increased areas eligible for mixed-use development along Route 29 and Old Columbia Pike through the 2024 Fairland Briggs Chaney Master Plan, and we are close to realizing thousands of housing units through the Viva White Oak project as part of the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan.”