Howard County Council hears wide-ranging debate on TOD exemptions, disability housing incentives

Councilmember Christiana Rigby introduced Council Bill 18-20-25 to accelerate residential development in three transit-oriented development (TOD) areas by exempting new TOD residential units from the county's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) school-capacity test, freezing some school-related fees at sketch-plan submission rates, and creating tax and other incentives to increase Disability Income Housing Units (DIHUs).

The bill sponsor said the proposal aligns with the county's general plan, HOCO by Design, and is intended to add housing near transit while expanding housing targeted to residents on disability income. "CB 18 incentivizes housing development in 3 transit oriented developments in Howard County," Rigby said during her presentation. "The bill aligns directly with our general plan, HOCO by Design, which calls for housing developments in specific areas, including TODs, and specifically Annapolis Junction and Laurel." (Councilmember Christiana Rigby)

Supporters, including developers and housing advocates, said TOD sites are the correct places for higher-density multifamily housing and for producing units affordable to people with disabilities. Wells Obrecht, an Annapolis Junction project proponent, said the proposed Savage MARC-adjacent project would deliver hundreds of apartments and nearly 100 affordable units and that the project would generate substantially more tax revenue than the existing office use. "Our project will not be a burden on the overall school system," Obrecht said, citing his pro forma estimates for student generation and tax revenue.

Advocates for disability housing and organizations such as Bridges to Housing Stability and the Autism Society of Maryland urged the council to adopt the bill because DIHUs are rare and serve residents who rely on transit and low monthly rents. "DIHUs are reserved for households with a disability and earn below 20 percent of area median income," Dana Soar of Bridges to Housing Stability said, noting rents that would be affordable to Social Security Disability beneficiaries and arguing incentives are needed to make such units feasible to build.

Opponents, including community associations and the PTA Council, voiced strong concern about removing APFO school-capacity reviews in areas where schools already face overcrowding. Ryan Powers of the Howard County Civic and Citizens Association said the bill combines unrelated policy changes and warned it would shift significant short-term student growth into districts that are already strained. "By granting APFO exemptions and stymieing school impact fees, you will pile on the burdens of already overcrowded schools," Powers said. Lisa Markovitz, representing grassroots groups, asked the council to limit or phase fee freezes and to require more affordability in return for APFO relief.

Multiple witnesses asked the council to restrict the bill's benefits for new projects only, not to apply retroactively to projects already submitted, and to clarify whether townhouses and hybrid projects would receive the same exemptions as multifamily buildings. The Housing Affordability Coalition suggested a pilot to allow fewer than 15 percent DIHUs for feasibility and to adopt a universal-design standard for accessibility.

Council members requested a work session to examine the pupil-yield study and the fiscal note attached to the legislation. Several members noted that the APFO review committee and master-plan updates remain underway and that passage of CB18 could preempt or complicate those processes. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is narrow in scope (three TODs) and intended to unlock projects that would otherwise be delayed by APFO timing and uncertain future fee schedules.

No final vote occurred during the public hearing; the bill was introduced and will return for future legislative consideration. The public hearing record includes extensive written and oral testimony both for and against the APFO exemptions and the DIHU incentives.

Ending: The bill remains under consideration; the council scheduled follow-up briefings and asked staff for additional fiscal and pupil-yield analysis before final action.