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)