Saint Mary's County Planning Commission begins Saint Mary's 2050 housing review; debate centers on affordability, density bonuses and AMI targets
Loading...
Summary
At a Nov. 14 Planning Commission work session, county staff and consultants presented a housing framework that emphasizes 'attainable housing' and missing-middle types. Commissioners discussed data showing strong support for smaller homes, concerns about affordability for younger residents, and policy tools such as density bonuses, waiver or reduction of TDRs, and reconsidering the 110% area median income threshold.
Jessica Andrich, director of Land Use and Growth Management for Saint Mary's County, opened the Nov. 14 work session by saying the meeting is the first of five planned sessions to develop a draft of Saint Mary's 2050, the county's comprehensive plan update, and invited the Planning Commission to provide guidance before an initial draft is released and a 45-day public comment period follows.
Andrich and consultants from Clarion Associates framed the session around a housing framework and analysis that uses the term "attainable housing" to describe a spectrum of options distinct from traditional labels like "workforce" or "affordable." The presentation cited community engagement earlier in the year, which staff summarized as strong support for smaller homes and townhouses (reported by staff as 76% support) and significant backing for multifamily options in growth areas (reported as 66%).
Commissioners pressed for more and clearer data. "If you drop out the outliers... 35% of our young people ... can't afford to buy a home here," Commissioner Judy Gillies said, urging staff to provide additional income breakdowns and to revisit how "affordable" is being defined. Gillies and others said conversations with local small builders indicate high pre-construction costs push new homes into the upper $300,000s and $400,000s, making smaller, starter homes difficult to deliver without incentives or regulatory changes.
Policy options discussed included missing-middle housing (duplexes, townhouses, small-scale multifamily), pattern zoning, permit-ready site programs, and incentives such as density bonuses. Leanne King of Clarion described the draft list as a "menu" of options used by other jurisdictions rather than firm recommendations for Saint Mary's County. Commissioners repeatedly asked for clearer wording in the draft'for example, replacing "reducing parking, landscaping, and open space requirements" with more precise terms like "reducing undeveloped open-space requirements in designated development districts." Several commissioners said the draft should show tradeoffs visually: staff agreed to prepare sketches showing what 50%, 35% and 20% undeveloped open-space requirements would mean for unit counts and site design in development districts.
The commission also debated inclusionary approaches and the AMI threshold used to define "workforce" or "affordable" units. The draft carries forward a 110% of area median income (AMI) threshold for certain programs; several commissioners said that level may not deliver units affordable to the residents they intend to serve. Deputy County Attorney John Sterling Hauser cautioned that "if in the final comprehensive plan you do pick a number ... we are stuck with that number until there's a further amendment to the comprehensive plan," urging careful consideration before embedding a fixed AMI target.
Other implementation ideas included sequencing a housing study to inform income targets and policymaking, convening a builders' roundtable to explore barriers and incentives, and using bonus density (rather than full waivers of TDRs) as a means to incentivize smaller-unit construction. Commissioners also proposed targeted tools such as intrafamily conveyance allowances and restricted covenants to preserve long-term affordability of specific units.
Manufactured housing also came up: the group discussed a recent state change (referred to in the meeting as House Bill 538) that allows manufactured homes to be permitted in residential districts if converted to real property (typically by affixing to a foundation and removing mobility components). Staff noted that conversion and lending constraints remain considerations for financing and quality.
Senior housing and aging-in-place needs surfaced as a related theme. Laurie Jennings Harris, director of the Department of Aging and Human Services, asked the commission to consider measures that help older adults remain in place (such as expedited permits for accessibility retrofits) and recommended reframing a draft action that referenced "expedited review for senior housing developments" to explicitly include home modifications and services that support aging in place.
On enforcement and maintenance, Deputy County Attorney Hauser explained the county's blight and livability enforcement tools but said the county often lacks dedicated funding to remediate substandard conditions proactively. Commissioners asked staff to inventory existing county programs, state grant eligibility, and housing authority activities that could support rehabilitation or maintenance of existing housing stock.
Next steps: staff and consultants will revise language and provide additional data and visuals (including open-space tradeoff sketches and a proposed scope/time frame for a housing study). The Planning Commission will continue the conversation at its next work session, scheduled for next Friday at 2:00 p.m., and staff expects an initial draft of the comprehensive plan to be available for public review in the February timeframe with a 45-day public comment period thereafter.
The meeting produced directions to staff but no formal votes. Commissioners asked for more detailed data and for the consultant and staff team to return with revisions and options to inform policy choices before the draft comprehensive plan is finalized.
