Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Office To Residential Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County hearing supports expedited office-to-residential conversions but raises questions about incentives
Summary
Advocates urged Montgomery County to use expedited approvals to convert idle commercial buildings into housing; some residents worried incentives favor property owners over affordability.
Montgomery County’s proposed Zoning Text Amendment 25-03, which would create an expedited approval process for commercial-to-residential conversions, received generally positive testimony from housing advocates and conversion proponents, while some residents questioned whether accelerated approvals and tax incentives would deliver long-term affordable housing.
Rob Muter, a local homeowner and volunteer affiliated with Action in Montgomery, said the county’s housing deficit is substantial and that office-to-residential conversion is an important tool to add homes in the near term. “The More Housing Now bill provides a good starting point in solving these problems,” he said, asking the council to pair expedited approvals with targeted subsidies for historically underserved communities.
Speakers from Montgomery for All and other housing advocates urged the council to include corner lots and increase corridor coverage near transit; Carter Doherty and other advocates recommended expanding eligibility to areas within a mile of transit stations and urged fewer technical barriers for conversions. Michael Larkin of the Action Committee for Transit described conversions as a deserved priority, while urging the county to make it easier for affordable-housing developers to complete projects.
Residents and some civic groups urged caution. James Keller said he supports converting underutilized office space but said he did not see how the proposed amendments would lower housing costs and expressed concern that incentives would primarily assist landowners who have not maintained properties. Several speakers reiterated concerns about infrastructure, school impacts and whether a 25-year tax abatement proposed in a separate bill (Bill 2-25) is an appropriate incentive.
County staff reiterated the committee schedule and deadlines for written testimony; no formal votes were taken at the hearing. Supporters asked the council to refine eligibility maps and to pair expedited approvals with requirements or incentives that produce deeply affordable units rather than primarily market-rate housing.
The council closed the public hearing and scheduled further committee work sessions for the package.
