Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Howard County Council adopts housing allocation chart after rejecting moratorium-style amendment
Summary
The council approved Resolution 77 adopting a housing unit allocation chart after defeating Amendment 1, which would have halted activity-center allocations until the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) formally defined activity centers. Debates centered on implementation timing and protections for property owners.
The Howard County Council voted to adopt Council Resolution 77, the county's housing unit allocation chart, after rejecting an amendment that would have prohibited activity-center allocations until the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) provided formal definitions.
Councilmember Deb Young, who introduced Amendment 1, said she filed it because allocations had been granted along the Route 1 corridor without zoning language implementing the general plan’s activity-center standards. "I was quite concerned that activity centers had not been defined in our zoning code yet," Young said, adding that the general plan contains "about 150 statements...40 of which were actual principles" describing activity centers.
Young cited a Feb. 29, 2024, letter from Linda Eisenberg, director of DPZ, that the general plan "focuses most future commercial and residential growth into activity centers," and argued DPZ should have followed up with a zoning regulation amendment. "We don't know why they are not proceeding with a ZRA at the very least," she said.
Other councilmembers opposed the amendment on timing and equity grounds. "This would create a moratorium that we didn't intend," said Councilmember Youngman, arguing that projects in process could be harmed if allocations were paused. He and others said they wanted a definition of activity centers but were wary of halting projects already underway.
Dr. Jones echoed concerns about timing and implementation, noting the workload on DPZ and related offices and saying she would not support the amendment "in fear of it holding up certain projects." Councilmember Rigby urged a measured, community-driven approach to zoning implementation and said the county should pursue small-area plans and robust engagement rather than an abrupt halt.
The council voted on Amendment 1 first; the amendment failed. The council then voted to adopt CR 77. As recorded in the session, the resolution passed by a majority vote with one councilmember opposing. The transcript records repeated calls for clearer definitions and faster follow-through from DPZ but does not record a zoning regulation amendment prepared at the meeting.
The council did not adopt a retroactive change to allocations; members said they did not want to strip existing rights from property owners who had already received allocations.
Next steps: council members said they expect DPZ to move toward producing the detailed definitions and any zoning regulation amendments needed to implement the activity-center concepts in the general plan. No specific timeline was set during the session.
