Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning commission adopts 'attainable housing' language in draft comp plan; commissioners debate bonus density
Loading...
Summary
At a May work session, St. Mary's County Planning Commission reviewed a red‑line comprehensive plan draft that replaces multiple housing labels with an overarching 'attainable housing' definition; commissioners pressed staff to retain 'affordable' in places and said incentives such as bonus density should be decided in the zoning update.
The St. Mary's County Planning Commission on May 18 reviewed a red‑line draft of the county comprehensive plan that inserts a new, umbrella definition of "attainable housing" and clarifies how the plan will feed later zoning and implementation work.
The presenter leading the draft review said the proposed glossary defines attainable housing as "a wide variety of housing options, and in particular, we're talking about both owner occupied and rental, that reflect the needs of county residents, including those that struggle to afford market rate housing without the use of subsidies." The presenter told commissioners that workforce, missing‑middle and affordable housing remain defined in the appendix but that 'attainable' will serve as the overarching term.
Commissioners pressed staff on how incentives would actually produce lower‑cost units. Joe Van Kirk, a Planning Commission member, warned against giving bonus density simply for market‑rate projects: "I don't I don't think that's something that they should get a a bonus for," he said, arguing bonus density should return public benefit or deeper affordability. The presenter acknowledged that the detailed incentives — what bonus density earns and what requirements accompany it — will be decided when the county updates the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO).
Judy Philias, a commission member, asked for clarity about affordability benchmarks and a replacement glossary page. The presenter said staff would add footnotes linking to state law and the housing and community development article (the draft references section 2‑401) and promised to provide a corrected page when the glossary is finalized. The presenter also summarized the commonly used metric discussed in the session: housing is generally considered affordable when occupants spend no more than 30% of gross income on housing costs, and programs often use a percentage of area median income (for example, 70% of AMI) as a benchmark.
Staff said the red‑line document and related materials were uploaded for public viewing and that, if posted promptly, the timeline would allow a public‑hearing draft to be circulated to adjacent jurisdictions and a county public hearing to be scheduled under the required noticing clock. No votes were taken during the work session; staff framed the draft as a "public‑hearing draft" subject to further changes after public comment.
The review emphasized process boundaries: the comprehensive plan defines goals and general policy direction, while details about incentives and specific regulatory requirements will be settled in the CZO update and through implementation work groups.
