Reply to Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House.  You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit.  That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station.  (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about [i]anything[/i] that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent.  For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others.  There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, [b]forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). [/b] Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates.  The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.[/quote]

Thank you for this detailed post.  I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least).  And, maybe share this information with others.  [/quote]

Except that it is wrong.  The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects.  This is section 7-501.  This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.[/quote]

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong.  It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute.  The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

[b]It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure,[/b] including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not.  One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned.  For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.[/quote]

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating [u]for[/u] more schools instead of [u]against[/u] more housing.[/quote]

We lack sufficient schools for the population we currently have. There isn't even a single high-school inside the beltway east of the park . There just isn't sufficient land that meets their requirements where they need it.

[/quote]

If they can’t find a place to build new schools, then they should focus on building more housing in areas they can.  Or they need to get creative and secure funding to buy land and find a way to do it.  Building housing without the infrastructure to support it is not the answer.[/quote]

They also need to plan when they rebuild schools. They just completed the new Woodlin rebuild which pulls from DTSS apartments. But with the new Falkland chase development and others in DTSS it will have portables in 2 years. Should have just added another floor to the school they were planning/building. The foundation and roof are the priciest, adding another floor is a much smaller cost. And it could have been used it for central office staff while its not needed for students. Planning by MCPS is in a vacuum from development in the county and nothing is ever aligned. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics