By Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Montgomery County's elected officials retreated yesterday from a plan to temporarily freeze dozens of development projects, passing a weaker version that they said would still open the door to ensuring that roadways and schools in the state's largest jurisdiction keep pace with growth.

The County Council decided not to impose a moratorium as it confronted opposition from the business community and some nonprofit groups, and instead voted unanimously for a measure that warns developers that applications for new construction probably will face more stringent standards this summer.

The significant revision reflected the complexity of building a consensus on the council on an issue that has dominated county politics in recent years. Although a majority of council members elected in November and County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) share a commitment to strengthening the county's controls on development, they demonstrated that they will not be monolithic in their approach to the thorny issue.

The debate also underscored new council President Marilyn Praisner's willingness to compromise on a key issue to build a voting majority.

"I want to assure our residents that we have heard the call to moderate growth," Praisner (D-Eastern County) said in a statement after the council's vote. "I also want to be certain that we proceed in an informed and prudent way."

Wavering council members said their decision to support an alternative to the moratorium was influenced by several factors: a critical assessment from the Planning Board chairman, a tepid embrace from Leggett, concerns raised by nonprofit groups and political pragmatism.

From the beginning, Praisner said her initiative was intended to apply a new, probably tougher growth policy to as many projects as possible. The moratorium, she said, was meant to put projects on hold to prevent developers from rushing to seek approval under the current, less restrictive rules.

The moratorium could have delayed 2,400 housing units and 2 million square feet of nonresidential space. It would not have applied to projects near Metro stations or to those already approved for construction.

Under the consensus measure, which Leggett said he would sign, projects already in the works will be allowed to proceed. Builders whose preliminary plans were filed after Jan. 1, however, will be put on notice that stricter rules -- such as higher impact fees for schools and roads -- could apply even if they are approved before the council completes its work on the county's growth policy.

The council has given itself until Aug. 15 to debate the broader policy, which determines how and when development occurs and who pays to build roads and schools affected by new construction.

But it was the initial suggestion of a moratorium last month that galvanized opposition from the business community. Representatives contended that the measure was unfair to developers who had made hefty investments in planning under one set of rules and that it would send a signal to the region that Montgomery was closed for business.

Intense opposition from developers was expected. But that opposition was bolstered by letters from hospitals and churches with expansion projects on the horizon; the Tech Council of Maryland; and academic institutions such as Johns Hopkins University.

"I've never seen so many interest groups mobilize and get so energized so fast," said Gus Bauman, a former Planning Board chairman who worked on behalf of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce to fight the moratorium.

Council members said they took further notice when Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson -- a land-use expert brought in last year to help restore confidence in the agency -- skewered the idea of a moratorium as ineffective, largely symbolic and a severe measure that should be reserved for emergencies.

On the day Praisner announced the moratorium, she could count on two other votes on the nine-member council: Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) and Marc Elrich (D-At Large). A third, Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), would ask to be added as a co-sponsor after the council's four-hour public hearing.

Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda), who campaigned on tightening the growth policy, emerged as one of the swing votes. Berliner met with Hanson one-on-one and was persuaded by the argument that the moratorium would not be worth the effort once the council had made exceptions for worthy projects already in the queue. His position was reinforced when he bumped into Leggett at a recent awards dinner.

Leggett had been generally supportive of Praisner's proposal but pressed for flexibility for certain projects and eventually concluded that a warning was "a better way."

The compromise reached yesterday left neither developers nor civic activists completely satisfied. Timothy Dugan, a land-use lawyer, called the measure "less onerous" than what was initially considered but said, "I can't say I favor the bill."

Drew Powell, executive director of Neighbors for a Better Montgomery, said that his preference was for a "stronger policy" but that the alternative still prevented a rush of applications for new projects.

Three of the moratorium's supporters -- Andrews, Elrich and Trachtenberg -- said they remain convinced that a timeout was the most efficient approach and that they were not swayed by Hanson's assessment. But the compromise acknowledged the reality of needing five votes.

To Elrich, "blowing this thing up wasn't worth it." The real test of the new council's philosophy, he said, will come down to the debate over the next six months.