Council criticism grows over Howard County housing allocation map and 'activity center' designations

Department of Planning and Zoning staff presented the county’s updated housing allocation chart and an interactive map at a Howard County Council work session; the presentation prompted heated questions from several councilmembers who said the chart’s activity‑center designations are being used to channel large allocations without accompanying regulatory definitions or promised amenities.

Director Eisenberg and staff explained that the housing allocation chart is the mechanism by which the general‑plan growth target (PlanHoward/Hoco by Design) is translated into a yearly distribution of new residential units across five columns: Downtown Columbia, activity centers (constrained geographic areas), established communities/other character areas, rural West and a designated affordable housing column that functions as a bonus. Eisenberg said the chart and its interactive map are intended to provide “orderly and predictable planning environment for schools and other public facilities” and that the activity‑center boundaries are derived from the future‑land‑use mapping adopted with Hoco by Design.

Several councilmembers disputed that presentation. Multiple speakers said activity‑center allocations have effectively become an easier path for large apartment projects—particularly along Route 1 in the county—without guaranteed delivery of mixed‑use design, pedestrian connectivity, or affordable‑for‑sale housing the general plan listed as goals. One councilmember argued, “These are not activity centers. These are apartment buildings,” and several members said the county has not produced zoning or text‑amendment language that would define and enforce the activity‑center elements the plan lists.

DPZ staff said activity‑center boundaries in the allocation map are not the same as a new zoning district; they are geographic designations used to place units on the chart, and they do not by themselves change property zoning. Staff reiterated the chart’s purpose: to channel annual unit allocations by policy area so school and infrastructure planning can anticipate where residential completions are likely to appear. The department also noted that since adoption of Hoco by Design several applications in activity‑center areas have sought allocations; a small number of projects have completed school‑adequacy tests and received allocations.

The discussion moved to school capacity and pre‑K. Howard County Public Schools officials explained that projection methodology for enrollment uses the most recent official September 30 enrollment as a baseline and incorporates cohort survival rates, births five years earlier and resales yield from existing housing. Tim Rogers (HCPS) said projections can change year to year because actual enrollments and local housing activity shift the starting point. School operations and capital staff described how some capacity changes reflect repurposing rooms for full‑day pre‑K or special‑education programming; Cornell Brown and Dan Lubley told council members the system will conduct a facilities audit and space sufficiency evaluation, with consultant work and a multi‑year timeline.

Councilmembers raised two practical concerns: (1) if activity‑center allocations are producing mostly apartments along key corridors, will the county get the mixed‑use design and local retail the plan intended; and (2) how will allocations that increase housing density affect school capacity and the APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance) calculations when pre‑K and special‑education spaces reduce flexible classroom capacity. DPZ said the APFO task force will present recommendations in August and DPZ will continue to refine mapping and allocation practices.

Why this matters: the housing allocation chart determines where the county expects new residential completions and therefore influences developer plans, school‑capacity forecasts and infrastructure planning. Councilmembers said an allocation system that channels hundreds of units to limited corridors without binding design or community‑benefit requirements risks producing housing without the amenities and school‑capacity planning that the general plan promised.

Next steps: DPZ will continue to administer the allocation chart; the APFO task force will deliver recommendations to the council in August; councilmembers indicated they will pursue zoning‑text amendments or other legislative fixes to define activity centers and attach implementation requirements if DPZ does not supply definitional guidance and regulatory tools.