Montgomery Leaders Ease Strategy on Growth

By Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007

Elected leaders in Montgomery County have backed away from a politically charged proposal to temporarily freeze dozens of development projects but said yesterday that they remain committed to tightening controls on growth that has led to crowded roads and schools.

The change in strategy comes in the face of intense opposition from business representatives, who argued that a moratorium would harm projects in which they have invested time and money and signal that Montgomery was hostile to development.

Council President Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County) and County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) said in interviews yesterday that the proposal had been misinterpreted. But they agreed that the county could achieve similar goals without a moratorium.

"Folks got themselves tied up in the 'M-word,' and I would just as soon not have them tied in knots over something that it wasn't," Praisner said. "There are lots of way to skin the cat."

Yesterday, council aides were drafting an alternative for consideration at Tuesday's meeting that would effectively turn the proposed eight-month timeout into an FYI notice. Builders whose preliminary plans were filed after Jan. 1 would be put on notice that tougher development rules could apply to their projects as soon as this summer. Among other things, those developers might be required to pay higher impact fees for schools and roads affected by their projects.

Leggett said he would support the scaled-back measure, which he called a "better way" to prevent developers from trying to win approval of their projects before more-stringent rules take effect.

Development industry officials expressed guarded optimism about the alternative plan.

Anne C. Martin, an attorney for the District-based Central Union Mission, which is working on a plan to sell 80 acres in Olney for housing, said she was pleased that the council appeared ready to drop what her client considered the most-troubling provision.

But she added, "I'm waiting until Tuesday's meeting before breathing a sigh of relief."

The changes also appeared to appease several council members who were uneasy about stalling projects that had lined up for Planning Board approval under the county's current growth policy.

Strengthening controls on development is at the top of the agenda for Leggett and a new majority on the council elected in November. Leggett campaigned to revamp Montgomery's growth policy, and he said yesterday that the county has shifted too much of the cost of building roads and schools in recent years from developers to taxpayers.

But Praisner's moratorium proposal raised questions about projects that had been in the works for several years and spurred opposition from developers, who said it was unfair to change the rules in midcourse.

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.