BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT INSIDE MARYLAND’S PRIORITY FUNDING AREAS Perspectives of Planners, Developers, and Advocates

HOUSING STRATEGIES GROUP AT THE

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SMART GROWTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

JANUARY 30, 2012

www.smartgrowth.umd.edu

Study Purpose

• Study does not present new empirical analysis of the influence of PFAs on development patterns across the State.

• It does present new information on how critical stakeholders view the efficacy of PFAs and the barriers to development inside PFAs.

Study Sponsors

Methodology

• Conducted 47 telephone interviews: – 20 county and municipal planner interviews – 12 developer interviews – 15 policy advocate interviews

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Anne

Aru

ndel

Balti

mor

e

Calv

ert

Carr

oll

Char

les

Fred

eric

k

Harf

ord

How

ard

Mon

tgom

ery

Prin

ce G

eorg

e's

St. M

ary'

s

Balti

mor

e Ci

ty

Stat

ewid

e% o

f Sur

vey

Resp

onde

nts

Wor

king

in E

ach

Juris

dict

ion

Respondent Geographic Areas of Expertise

Maryland’s PFAs

Source: Maryland Department of Planning

Familiarity with PFAs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Planners Developers Advocates

Respondent Familiarity with PFAs

Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Familiar

Very familiar

55%

45%

17%

17%

25%

42%

7%

21%

36%

36%

Overall, 81% were either

“Familiar” or “Very Familiar”

with PFAs.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Planners Developers Advocates

PFA Effectiveness as an Urban Growth Management Tool

Very effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not at all effective

PFA Effectiveness as an Urban Growth Management Tool

9%

36%

55%

7%

64%

29%

Overall, only 22% responded “very effective” or “effective.”

31% responded

“not at all effective.”

15%

25%

40%

20%

Why Development Has Occurred Outside PFAs

• Consumer preferences • PFAs are intrinsically weak • It’s not us, it’s them… • Impacts of regulations and other obstacles • Higher development costs • Grandfathered approvals and “legacy

zoning”

Relationship Between PFAs, Designated Growth Areas, and Comprehensive Plans

• 5 of 12: PFAs are smaller than designated growth areas. • 7 of 12: They are identical.

• Some planners: PFA boundaries have not changed, despite having

adjusted growth areas through the comprehensive planning process. • One planner: county paid no attention to the PFA boundaries when

it designated its growth areas. • Planners from another county: PFAs are an “after thought” in the

comprehensive planning process and the comp plan makes no mention of PFAs at all.

• Planners from two counties amend PFA boundaries after comprehensive plans are adopted.

• Planners from another county use PFAs to define growth areas in their comp plan.

Where is it More Difficult to Develop Land, Inside or Outside PFAs?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Planners Developers Advocates

Where is it More Difficult to Develop Land?

Outside

No difference/depends

Inside

24%

35%

41%

15%

15%

69%

36%

64%

Overall, respondents citing

“inside” PFAs outnumbered those citing “outside” by

almost four to one.

Top 3 Impediments to Growth Inside PFAs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Zoning code restrictions

Difficulty obtaining financing

Development impact fees

Scarcity of zoned land

Stormwater management requirements

Inadequacy of infrastructure

APFO requirements

Citizen opposition

Market or consumer preferences

Percent of Respondents

Top 3 Impediments to Development or Redevelopment Inside PFAs (Most Frequent Responses)

Planner Developer Advocate

Other Findings

• 8 of 12 developers: Projects delayed by APFO moratoria.

• Planners, developers and advocates agree that high-rise and mixed-use projects are most difficult to develop.

• The most important determinants of development approval are the parcel’s zoning and the existence of adequate infrastructure.

Policies for Improvement

• Require that PFAs be consistent with growth areas, incorporated into comprehensive plans and be reviewed as part of the comprehensive plan review process every ten years.

• Require that PFAs contain sufficient development capacity for 20 years of residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial growth.

Policies for Improvement

• Provide local governments with greater flexibility in constructing PFAs if they place greater restrictions on development outside PFAs.

• Require local governments to include a housing element in their comprehensive plans that permits, but does not require, high density and mixed use development.

Policies for Improvement

• Establish minimum zoned density requirements that vary for urban, suburban, and rural PFA communities.

• Enable local governments to reduce regulatory restrictions (e.g., road service standards, stormwater management and forest preservation requirements) inside PFAs, especially in transit station areas.

Policies for Improvement

• Limit development moratoria from APFOs to four years. If moratoria cannot be lifted in four years, require local governments to increase development capacity elsewhere.

• Target state infrastructure spending in areas within PFAs under APFO moratoria.

Policies for Improvement

• The State should work with local governments and other stakeholders to further identify barriers to growth specific to the PFAs within each jurisdiction. Collectively they should work to identify options for overcoming the barriers.

• The State should work with local governments to conduct a periodic statewide infrastructure needs assessment as well as a review of growth related capital funding approved and planned by the state and local governments.

Casey Dawkins dawkins1@umd.edu

301-405-2158

Jason Sartori jason@ipcllc.net

240-305-9402

Gerrit Knaap gknaap@umd.edu

301-405-6083