Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Age Restricted Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council considers requiring affordable units on-site for age-restricted housing; developers warn of higher costs
Summary
Howard County Council heard extensive testimony on two related zoning measures — CB55 would expand where age‑restricted housing is allowed and add affordable‑unit requirements; CB56 would require those affordable units be built on-site for age‑restricted developments.
Howard County Council heard extensive testimony on two related zoning measures — Council Bill 55-2025 (permitting age-restricted adult housing in the Planned Employment Center zoning district and adding moderate-, low-, and disability-income requirements) and Council Bill 56-2025 (requiring on-site MIHU/LIHU/DIHU units for age‑restricted developments).
Proponents, including Fran Lepresti and the Housing Affordability Coalition, argued the bills would help address an urgent shortage of age‑appropriate and affordable housing for older residents. Lepresti said the county’s inventory of age-restricted affordable units built between 2020 and 2024 was far too small and urged adding PEC as an allowed location and requiring affordable units where age-restricted housing is built: “Any legislation that potentially increases the supply is welcome,” she said.
The Housing Affordability Coalition asked for some refinements — for example, they urged excluding the community enhancement floating zone (CEF) from the new affordable‑unit requirements and recommended that owner-occupied age‑restricted units keep a lower low‑income requirement (they proposed 10% MIHU plus 5% LIHU for ownership).
Developers and land‑use professionals raised concerns about cost and feasibility. Jason Van Kirk and other developers said age‑restricted communities often have unusually high homeowners‑association or condo fees because of included private amenities, maintenance, insurance and private roads; those costs, they said, make LIHU or DIHU buyers unlikely. Will Pippen and other speakers warned that stringent on-site affordability requirements could deter construction of age‑restricted market units entirely.
Several commenters suggested trade-offs: allow MIHUs on-site while retaining a fee-in‑lieu option for LIHUs/DIHUs, or earmark MIHU fee‑in‑lieu revenue specifically for age‑restricted housing. Council members probed technical issues including whether DIHUs were feasible as ownership units and whether PEC and POR zoning districts could accommodate the densities needed to make affordable units financially viable.
No final votes were taken. Council members said they would consider amendments suggested by staff and stakeholders and requested further analysis of the fiscal and practical impacts on development feasibility.
