Montgomery Leaders Ease Strategy on Growth

As the moratorium was initially envisioned, an estimated 72 preliminary plans -- involving 5,100 housing units and 2 million square feet of commercial space -- would have been stalled for eight months. Projects approved for construction by the Planning Board and those near Metro stations would have been exempt.

The amended proposal, suggested by the Planning Board, would allow the 72 projects to proceed under the current rules. Projects submitted after Jan. 1, however, would fall under the growth policy the council intends to write before leaving for its summer recess in July or August.

Drew Powell, executive director of Neighbors for a Better Montgomery, which supported a moratorium, said that the alternative was "not great" but that it "sends out a message that the county wants to take control of these growth issues." And, he said, it recognizes the political reality that Praisner needs to "count to five" to win approval from the nine-member council.

Praisner's move could unite the council on the first major issue of her tenure and avoid a prolonged and bitter debate. It removes opposition from the business community and Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson, who called the moratorium idea "extremely troubling."

Praisner had the initial backing of four colleagues. Council members Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda) and Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring) were among those who were uneasy about changing the rules for long-standing projects.

"None of the solutions explored were pretty or elegant, but this is the cleanest," said Berliner, who ventured that Praisner could win the support of eight members Tuesday, if not all nine.

Ervin said that although she is waiting to review the fine print before taking a position, she is "very satisfied" that Praisner "took very seriously" her questions and those of the community. "The teeth have been knocked out of it," she said.

Likewise, council member Nancy Floreen (D-At Large), who had argued that moratoriums should be reserved for emergencies, said she was convinced the revised measure would "do no harm."

"Do I think it's terribly necessary?" she said. "No. But I'm not going to throw myself in front of a train on the subject."

Stephen Elmendorf, an attorney for the real estate development firm Linowes and Blocher, said the alternative approach addresses his concerns about projects that had started the planning process.

Elmendorf predicted that giving developers an early warning would not be an all-out deterrent to filing after Jan. 1. Some might want to get in line, he said, and others could be discouraged from filing knowing that the rules are likely to change this summer.