Scribd
Upload
32 views

The Annual Growth Policy: A New Vision For Managing Growth in Montgomery County

The document summarizes Montgomery County's Annual Growth Policy (AGP) which regulates the pace of private development to synchronize it with public infrastructure like roads, schools, transit. It discusses a review of the AGP which found public facilities have not kept up with growth. The Planning Board recommended continuing to pace development but making the process simpler. Proposed changes include transportation and school impact taxes on new development.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPS, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views

The Annual Growth Policy: A New Vision For Managing Growth in Montgomery County

The document summarizes Montgomery County's Annual Growth Policy (AGP) which regulates the pace of private development to synchronize it with public infrastructure like roads, schools, transit. It discusses a review of the AGP which found public facilities have not kept up with growth. The Planning Board recommended continuing to pace development but making the process simpler. Proposed changes include transportation and school impact taxes on new development.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPS, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23

The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

Commission

The Annual Growth Policy

A new vision for


managing growth in
Montgomery County
September 13, 2003
What an Annual Growth Policy
does and does not do
• It does regulate the pace of private
development
• It does seek to synchronize private
development with the creation of
adequate public facilities
• It does not regulate the types of uses
allowed on land
• It does not regulate the ultimate density
that will be created on land
Regulating development

The use of land and ultimate densities


(“build out”) are regulated by
• The General Plan
• The Master and Sector Plans
• The Zoning Ordinance
Main Themes in General Plan
• Transit Oriented Development
• I-270 Employment Corridor (emphasizing high
tech and biotech)
• An urban ring in the Downcounty
• Residential suburban “wedges”
• A permanent, low-density agricultural reserve
• Implemented through master and sector plans
The General Plan
The Regional Concept of
“Wedges and Corridors”

“Wedges and Corridors”


Today
Purpose of the
Annual Growth Policy
• New residential and commercial
development must be served by adequate
facilities – transit, roads, schools and so
forth
• It takes time and money for government
to build public facilities
• The AGP seeks to synchronize private
and public construction.
Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance
• The County adopted its APFO in 1973.
• The Planning Board may not approve a
subdivision unless it finds that public
facilities are adequate.
• Implemented through the Annual Growth
Policy (AGP) since 1986.
• The AGP is a lengthy document, approved
by the Council, that the Planning Board
uses to decide whether public facilities are
“adequate.”
For what public facilities does the
AGP Test?

• Transportation
Roads, Transit and Pedestrian Facilities
• Schools
Elementary, Middle and High Schools
• Water & Sewer
• Police, Fire and Health
October 2001: Council requests
“top-to-bottom” review of AGP
• Roads are too congested.
• Schools are too crowded.
• The methodology is too complex.
• There are too many exceptions.
• The AGP is designed for 80s-style rapid
growth, not a “mature” County.
• Other localities may now be at the
forefront of growth management.
Top to bottom review of the AGP
• October 2001: Council requests “top to
bottom” review of the AGP
• February 2003: Staff presents results of
background studies
• May – August: Planning Board holds public
forums, worksessions. Transmits
recommendations.
• September-October 2003: Council public
hearings and worksessions.
Background studies
• Effect of AGP on the pace of
development
• Traffic congestion & the AGP
• Factors affecting school enrollment
• Focus groups of residents and developers
• Profiles of growth management around
the nation
What the Planning Board
found
• The AGP does slow the pace of private
development
• Public facilities have not kept up with private
development
• Transportation and school facilities are not
perceived to be adequate Countywide.
• Although the AGP says most policy areas have
capacity for more development, this is somewhat
misleading.
• There are too many policy areas (29).
• AGP uses complex formulas not easily understood
by public or policymakers.
Planning Board’s recommended
approach
• Continue to pace private development
• Give public sector a chance to “catch up” on
transportation and schools
• Impose a “speed limit” on development, but not a
cap.
• Create a new source of funding for public facilities
• Make the AGP simpler and easier to understand
• Make the AGP consistent with smart growth
principles.
• Keep Local Area Transportation Review
Preliminary Plan Approval Rate
• Objective: reduce pace of development
approvals
• Every two years, determine the amount of
development that can be approved
• Could go up or down, depending on
congestions and crowding measures,
infrastructure, economy, etc.
“Most efficient land
use first”

Area Share Jobs Units


Metro station areas 53% 3,100 1,925
Red Line areas 26% 1,550 950
Suburban areas 13% 775 475
Rural area 7% 375 275
Total 100% 5,800 3,625
“Most efficient land use first”
Moratoriums/exceptions
• When annual allocation is reached:
• Approvals stop temporarily
• But developer can make needed improvements
• Limited exceptions:
• Limited number of projects containing affordable
housing
• Strategic Economic Development Projects
• Metro station area development
• Not available if no feasible school improvement
School test
• Individual development proposals are not
subject to a school adequacy review
• School adequacy taken into account in
setting Preliminary Plan Approval Rate
Countywide & in sub-areas
• Proposal benefits schools in two ways:
• Slows pace of residential development
approvals
• Requires payment of development
impact tax for schools.
Cost of future infrastructure
• 2030 Forecast: 146,000 jobs and 78,000
housing units (31,200 students).
• Transportation: $5.9 billion
• About $26,000 per forecast job and
housing unit
• Schools: $808 million
• About $10,000 per housing unit.
Transportation impact tax rates
Residential (proposed)
Area Detached Town Apt. Senior MPDUs
Metro station area $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0
Red Line area $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0
Suburban area $4,500 $4,500 $3,000 $1,500 $0
Rural area $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0
Residential rates per unit; “Senior” means multi-family senior housing;
“MPDU” means “moderately-priced dwelling unit” as defined by County law.
Transportation impact tax rates
Non-Residential (proposed)
Area Office Retail Ind. Bio. Other
Metro station area $2 $3 $2 $0 $2
Red Line area $4 $6 $4 $0 $4
Suburban area $6 $9 $6 $0 $6
Rural area $8 $12 $8 $0 $8
Non-residential rates per square foot.
School impact tax rates
Residential (proposed)
Detached Town Garden Hi-Rise Senior MPDUs
$8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $1,600 $0 $0
Residential rates per unit; “Senior” means multi-family senior housing;
“MPDU” means “moderately-priced dwelling unit” as defined by County law.
Conclusion
• Continue to pace development
• Slow, but do not stop development
• Work hard to close public infrastructure
gap
• Encourage development to occur where
infrastructure already exists (smart
growth)

You might also like