Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds bill on senior-housing parking in transit zones to refine standards
Summary
CB-26, which would set a 1-space-per-unit parking minimum for senior-serving developments in transit-oriented zones and require a parking-demand study, was held for further work; members discussed balancing reduced parking in TOD with seniors' mobility needs.
The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee on July 3 held CB-26 (2025), a proposed ordinance that would require a minimum of one off-street parking space per dwelling unit for senior-serving developments in transit-oriented zones and would require a parking-demand study for such projects.
Sponsor Council Member Ivy said the proposed Draft 2B would ensure seniors living in transit-oriented developments retain parking that meets their needs: "If you are a senior building and you are in a transit zone, you should still get the same amount of parking spaces you would have had had you been somewhere else," she said, citing a Suitland development where residents reported insufficient parking and a Metro station nearly a mile away.
Planning staff and other members discussed the tension between transit-oriented development (TOD) goals — which often reduce parking to encourage transit use — and seniors' greater need for nearby parking because of mobility limitations. James Hunt, deputy planning director, said planning would review Draft 2B and provide comments. Parking and planning staff noted that multifamily buildings in RTO/LTO core zones currently have no minimum parking standard, while edge zones typically have a one-space-per-unit minimum that may be reduced by up to 50% upon request.
Council members proposed additional work over the summer to develop a more comprehensive package that might address handicapped parking requirements, transportation access, and whether mandatory transit connections should be required in certain developments. Calvin Tyson, liaison for the County Executive's office, said the administration had no position at the time. After debate, members moved to hold the bill so staff and sponsors could refine technical elements; the motion to hold passed on a roll call, 4-0-1 (one no vote recorded). The committee directed Park and Planning staff to work with sponsors on revisions and to return the item to the committee on Sept. 4.
