Committee gives positive review to zoning text amendment overhauling incentive-density public benefits

A county council committee gave a positive review, 3-0, to Zoning Text Amendment 25-05 (the CTA/ZTA implementing the incentive-zoning update) and forwarded the measure to the full council for consideration. The amendment replaces the existing point-based incentive system with a four-tier, menu-based public-benefits framework tied to “incentive density,” lowers the optional-method threshold in the CRT zone from 1.0 FAR to 0.5 FAR, and requires applicants to purchase Building Lot Terminations (BLTs) or transfer-development-rights (TDRs) equivalent payments to the Agricultural Land Preservation Fund (ALPF).

The change matters because it rewrites how developers earn the right to build up to mapped FARs: under the new system applicants must provide at least one countywide benefit (housing or energy/renewables) and at least one locally prioritized benefit from applicable master plans unless they supply a high‑intensity Tier 4 benefit or request 0.25 FAR or less of incentive density. Planning Department project manager Atul Sharma said, “We've been working on this since 2023,” and described the effort as a multi‑year, data‑driven calibration of benefits and feasibility with consultant Heid Brown.

The committee and planning staff presented the ZTA as an effort to make public-benefit expectations more predictable, transparent and proportional to density. Jay Brown, managing director at consultant Heid Brown, said the team aimed to “calibrate feasibility with benefits” and described the final menu and four tiers as the result of iterative modeling against representative development prototypes. The new system defines tiers that award incentive density in set increments (Tier 1 = 0.25 FAR; Tier 2 = 1.0 FAR; Tier 3 = 1.5 FAR; Tier 4 satisfies the full requested incentive density) and ties each public-benefit category to tier thresholds in the implementation guidelines.

Key decisions and provisions discussed and agreed in the session include:

- Lowering the CRT optional-method threshold from 1.0 FAR to 0.5 FAR to capture more projects in that zone and require public benefits for developments closer to residential neighborhoods.

- Making purchase or payment to the ALPF (via BLTs or an equivalent dollar amount of TDRs) mandatory for optional-method projects; the ALPF payment amount will be set and updated in Office of Agriculture regulations.

- Removing optional-method development from the LSC and EOF zones; site-plan review will be required above 0.5 FAR in those zones.

- Replacing the existing points system with four public-benefit categories (two countywide: Housing for All and Environmental Resilience; two local: Infrastructure for Compact Growth and Complete Community Amenities) and 13 specific benefit types with four tier levels for each benefit.

- Preserving existing baseline regulatory requirements (forest conservation, growth and infrastructure policy, master plan conformance, Chapter 25A MPDU obligations and agency approvals) as the base; incentive-density benefits are on top of those requirements.

- Establishing a 12‑month “crosswalk” window after the ZTA’s effective date during which applicants may elect to use the prior system if they have not yet filed a ready regulatory application; applications filed and accepted before the ZTA effective date will be reviewed under the prior system unless the applicant opts in to the new system.

- Adopting grandfathering language for projects already in process in the CRT zone, as amended in committee: projects with an approved or filed-for-approval sketch plan, preliminary plan, site plan, conditional use, local map amendment, record plat, or building permit on or before the ZTA effective date will be reviewed using the maximum total standard-method FAR that applied at the time of the original approval (the committee replaced the original reference to “concept plan” with “sketch plan” and clarified the FAR reference to the original approval). The committee adopted that amendment and related technical edits without objection.

- Allowing payment‑in‑lieu for a limited set of public-benefit categories (off-site improvements, public facilities, street grid and multimodal extensions, art/place-making and great public realm) when a master plan recommends the work and there is a CIP project able to accept the funds; payment-in-lieu rates will use the Baltimore construction cost index for consistency with other county programs.

During discussion committee members repeatedly asked planning staff and the consultant to quantify the cost and feasibility impacts—especially for office-to-residential conversions that qualify for a 20‑year property-tax abatement under a recently passed council bill. Planning staff agreed to return to full council with scenario analysis and modeling that illustrate how an office conversion taking the abatement would interact with the new incentive-density tiers and whether the abatement plus tiers would effectively permit applicants to reach mapped FAR without additional public benefits. Council staff and planning will produce “case study” scenarios and cost modeling for the full-council briefing.

The committee also reviewed implementation guidelines that will define terms, application requirements, and objective criteria for approving alternative‑compliance requests and Tier 4 benefits; planning staff noted the guidelines are administrative and not subject to Council approval, but they will be published and used by reviewers and applicants. The Planning Board, Office of Agriculture, Department of Permitting Services (DPS), Department of Housing and Community Affairs (DHCA), Office of Legislative Oversight (OLLO) and other agencies were engaged during drafting, and planning said the implementation guidelines will be coordinated with those agencies during adoption.

Committee members flagged the Adventist Hospital exemption issue that surfaced in a prior committee and noted that the hospital’s land use and overlay-zone status means the exemption question is effectively moot for most hospitals; the committee asked that overlay-zone implementation work consider that issue prior to full council. Planning noted that overlay zones are not changed in ZTA 25‑05 and that a follow-up ZTA will apply the new menu to overlay zones in a methodical implementation phase.

After debate and technical cleanups the committee voted 3-0 to positively review ZTA 25-05 and forward it to full council with the staff and committee amendments discussed in the session. Planning was directed to return to full council with scenario analysis on office conversions and MPDU interactions; the committee will take final action at the full‑council stage.