Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and developers clash over Route 1 redevelopment, PILOT and affordable units at Annapolis Junction project
Summary
Council heard extensive testimony on a 623‑unit Annapolis Junction redevelopment (Midway 32 LLC) that would include a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes pilot and 95 affordable units; supporters argued the project converts underused commercial property into housing and jobs, while opponents raised concerns about infrastructure, student yield projections and transparency of pilot terms.
The Howard County Council heard extended testimony Wednesday on redevelopment proposals tied to the Route 1 corridor, including a 623‑unit Annapolis Junction project and broader zoning changes to encourage adaptive reuse of motel and hotel sites.
Kelly Simino, director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, summarized the Midway 32 LLC proposal: demolition of an office building near Annapolis Junction to build two residential buildings (325 and 298 units) totaling 623 units, and an offering of 95 affordable rental units across three tiers — 32 deeply affordable disability income housing units (about 20% of AMI), 32 low‑income units (about 40% AMI) and 31 moderate‑income units (about 60% AMI). Simino said the developer requested a pilot consistent with the county's TOD and housing strategies.
Mandy Heinel, attorney for the developer, said the pilot sets a county property tax at $200 per unit during the pilot term while the project continues to pay other applicable taxes; she said the project would produce net tax revenue compared with the site's current assessed value and deliver more affordable units than any single prior project in the county. Heinel told the council the average cost to build each unit is about $331,000 and argued that without pilot incentives the underused office parcel (assessed at roughly $7 million) might remain vacant.
Several public speakers, including Stu Cohen (Howard County Citizens Association) and Alan Schneider, urged more transparency and detailed milestones before the council endorses tax incentives. Key concerns included the pilot’s fiscal effect on county services, the adequacy of school capacity and student‑yield estimates for the area, and whether such a large housing conversion would divert land from employment uses. "We strongly suggest...this resolution be tabled," Stu Cohen said, requesting milestones and a detailed conditional‑loan explanation.
Councilmembers and community members discussed prior pilot projects and the need for post‑project reporting on actual student yields. Some council members said they would consider amendments requiring reporting and accountability measures tied to student counts and infrastructure impact.
Separately, petitioners and commenters addressed two zoning reform proposals (CB23 and CB24) intended to create pathways for adaptive reuse of motel and hotel properties along Route 1 and to expand eligibility for an optional design project process for smaller commercial parcels. Supporters described the bills as targeted tools to redevelop blighted properties; opponents warned that converting commercial corridors to residential could strain infrastructure and reduce employment land.
The council concluded the public hearing; staff and petitioners were asked to provide additional details and potential amendments for the legislative review process.
