Planning commission hears Board of Education on annual growth policy, seeks direction on school-seat splits

The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on May 12 continued a public hearing on proposed changes to the county's Adequate Public Facilities (APF) rules and the annual growth policy, hearing detailed enrollment and capacity analysis from the Board of Education before asking staff to draft a recommendation for the commission to consider.

Why it matters: The APF and the annual growth policy determine how new residential development is allocated across the county and whether new lots can be approved when school capacity is constrained. Changes to the policy affect where developers can build and how the Board of Education plans for new schools, redistricting and capital projects.

Board of Education staff presented enrollment modeling and a range of capacity scenarios. Brad Clemons, identified as with the school system, told the commission the district averages roughly 1,200 new students each year and uses a planning student-yield of 0.476 students per new housing unit; using last year's 848 occupancy permits, school staff estimated about 404 students came from new housing in that year. Clemons said the yield breaks down to approximately 182 new elementary students, 91 middle-school students and 131 high-school students from new homes.

Kimberly (Kim) Howe (Board of Education staff) walked the commission through scenarios using the task force's allocation proposal (a 30% rural / 70% growth-area split) and two service-district approaches: a single-county district and a split (north/south) district for elementary schools with a single district at middle and high school levels. Howe said the single-district projection runs short of capacity sooner at elementary level, while a two-district approach aligns more closely with the current Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and would better target relief to overcrowded adjacent elementary schools.

Howe described the Board's recommended overcapacity targets under the split approach as roughly 103% at elementary schools in rural areas and 8% in growth areas, 10% over capacity at middle schools and 16% over capacity at high schools. She said including planned CIP projects (for example an early childhood center at Evergreen and one or two new elementary schools) extends the time the county can allocate lots under the policy through about 2014 in the models she presented.

Several commissioners and task-force members repeatedly asked for time to digest the six-page school presentation. Commissioner (Planning Commission member) comments in the hearing stressed they support a growth policy but sought clarity before formalizing zoning text amendments tied to specific percentages. One commissioner urged staff not to transmit the package to the Board of County Commissioners until outstanding questions raised by Commissioner Raley are answered.

Public and stakeholder input: The Development industry's representative Ralph Short (Building Industry Association) recommended creation of a capital-credit mitigation program to allow developers who donate a school site or funding for a capital project to receive a predictable allotment of lot allocations so their projects can proceed and lenders obtain certainty. Short proposed a mechanism that would limit the amount of lots granted per year for mitigation so donations do not jump ahead of other applicants.

Task force and next steps: Task force representative Bill Dean told the commission the task force will reconvene after the planning commission issues its recommendation and respond as appropriate. Planning staff said they will draft a formal recommendation on zoning text amendments (which change regulatory percentages) and the annual growth policy (adopted as a planning commission resolution) to forward to the Board of County Commissioners, and will include any remaining task-force materials in the public record. The commission left the hearing record open to receive task-force follow-up and requested additional time to review the school presentation before taking a formal vote or adopting regulatory text.

What commissioners pressed staff to clarify included: (1) the effect of moving from a single-district to a split-district approach for elementary schools, (2) how CIP projects and the presence or absence of a buildable school site alter the mitigation timetable, (3) whether mitigation credits tied to donated sites should be limited to projects on the Board's three-year CIP list, and (4) how the 30/70 rural/growth split would be applied in practice.

The commission did not take a final vote on APF text changes at the May 12 session. Instead it asked staff to produce a draft recommendation reflecting the discussion and to add the Board of Education correspondence and the task-force response to the record before the commission meets again to vote.

Ending: The commission signaled support for moving forward but emphasized it wanted clearer answers to Commissioner Raley's and other members' questions before recommending any zoning text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. The record will remain open for the task force's written follow-up and for staff's drafted recommendation.