Proposed Growth Moratorium Sets Up Clash in Montgomery

At its hearing last week, the board expressed concern for projects that have been in the queue for several years and recommended that changes to the county's growth policy apply prospectively, perhaps to projects filed after Dec. 5 -- the day Praisner introduced the proposal.

Praisner disagreed with Hanson's assessment and took issue with rhetoric from developers that suggests "we've shut down the county."

"With all due respect to Royce, he has to look at the election returns," she said in an interview. "Voters are saying traffic congestion and development are a problem."

Leggett has said he is generally supportive of Praisner's initiative, which would last through August. He was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment.

The moratorium would apply to 5,100 residential units and 2 million square feet of nonresidential construction. It would not affect certain small-scale projects, those near Metro stations or projects slated for construction this year that have been approved by the Planning Board.

Praisner said a "targeted timeout" is critical to preventing a crush of developers from winning approval of their projects before tougher rules take effect. A glut of projects approved under the current, less stringent rules, she said, would limit the effectiveness of the likely changes.

Praisner and Planning Board members said the rush to get in under the wire has often been a problem when the county tries to change its land-use policies. When the county announced it would begin imposing a new tax on development, for instance, builders rushed to beat the deadline, and tax collections fell significantly short of projections

As the council begins its formal debate tomorrow with a public hearing, members said they have taken notice of Hanson's critique and the Planning Board's lack of consensus. The measure could come up for a vote by the full council as soon as the last week of this month.

"What's the problem we're trying to cure here, and what's the goal we're trying to achieve?" asked council member Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring). "If either of those things aren't clear, then what is the purpose?"

Council member Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda), who campaigned as a slow-growth candidate, said he is grappling with whether the new standards should apply to projects before the Planning Board or to those that will be filed.

"The division that exists within the board," he said, "reflects a division within the larger community and potentially on the council."