Planning Commission moves parts of APF task force recommendations to County Commissioners, ties enrollment increases to annual growth policy

Saint Mary's County Planning Commission — March 12, 2007 — The Planning Commission spent the bulk of its March 12 meeting reviewing an Adequate Public Facilities (APF) task force report and the commission’s own recommendations. The discussion covered the task force’s recommended annual growth rate, allocation of dwelling-unit entitlements across growth areas and Rural Preservation Districts (RPDs), proposed unit allocations per project size, a recommended change to the school portion of the impact fee, and whether to restore mitigation as an option in the zoning ordinance.

Phil Shydas (task force/commission member) summarized handouts comparing the task force’s recommendations with the Planning Commission’s preferred numbers. The task force had proposed an annual growth-rate assumption; the Planning Commission expressed concurrence with a 2.25% annual growth-rate assumption in general and with proposed allocation percentages broken into growth areas and RPDs. The commission’s summary of recommended allocations included: 70% of annual allocations to growth areas (town centers, village centers, development/growth districts) and 30% to RPDs; within growth-area allocations, 35% of units targeted for multifamily and 65% for single-family; within the RPD allocation, staff reported a proposed 40% allocation for minor subdivisions and 60% for major subdivisions, although some commissioners suggested a 30/70 split (minor/major) instead.

Shydas and staff outlined the allocation-by-project-size concept: projects under 100 lots could be allocated 25 units per year, projects of 100–200 lots 30 units per year, projects over 200 lots 40 units per year, and multifamily projects could receive up to 100 units per year (figures represent per‑year allocation options tied to the annual growth-rate framework). The commission discussed a one-way reversion rule: unused RPD allocations could be transferred to growth-area allocations, but not vice versa.

On school capacity, the commission noted differing numbers between the task force and Planning Commission recommendations. The commission recorded its position to keep elementary school enrollment at 107% of state-rated capacity and to raise middle and high-school thresholds modestly (the draft discussion referenced 110% for middle schools and 111% for high schools in the work-session materials). Commissioners and school-system staff discussed the risk that raising those thresholds before an annual growth policy is adopted could “open up” seats prematurely; Planning staff and several commissioners said increases in the enrollment percentages should be tied to — and occur commensurate with or following — adoption of an annual growth policy so the county has a clear mechanism to direct where growth will occur.

Planning staff reported that, based on updated finance office input, the Planning Commission voted to recommend raising the school component of the impact fee from $3,000 (task force baseline) to $3,600. The commission also moved to recommend eliminating the impact-fee exemption for family members; staff cited a historical count of exemptions and presented a staff calculation of the fiscal effect by multiplying a per‑exemption fee ($4,500) by that count to illustrate budgetary impact (staff figure cited in the meeting: approximately $1,071,000). Commissioners noted the mitigation concept (reintroducing mitigation as an option in the zoning ordinance) had been discussed in concept by the task force but without firm numbers; the commission agreed to revisit mitigation and other tax/funding items later.

The commission voted to forward recommendations 1 through 3 from the task force (allocation percentages, unit-allocation framework, and related implementation notes) to the County Commissioners and agreed to take up recommendations 4 and 5 at a later time. Phil Shydas moved to make explicit that any elevation of enrollment-percentage thresholds would occur only commensurate with or following adoption of an annual growth policy; the motion carried with an affirmative voice vote. The commission asked staff to draft a resolution capturing the commission’s actions, attach relevant minutes and motion excerpts from the work sessions, and present that resolution to the commission for vote at the next meeting before forwarding the package to the County Commissioners.

Ending: The commission prepared to send the packet of recommendations and supporting materials to the County Commissioners while reserving further decisions on mitigation, transfer taxes and more detailed funding mechanisms for future consideration. Several commissioners said they expect the numbers to be refined further as Board of Education and finance staff provide updated data and as the annual growth policy is developed.