
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Large housing developments in Anne Arundel trying to squeeze new students into nearly full public schools soon may end under a County Council proposal.
“This allows the county to look at projected enrollment and make adjustments ... so we don’t have one seat for a 1,000-house development,” said Councilman Jamie Benoit, D-District 4.
The council this week altered a bill so the Planning and Zoning Department can approve development based on actual school enrollment.
If a development would produce more students than open seats, that project would be delayed.
Under the current method, a development proceeds if a school is “open,” meaning if a development produces 20 new students, and one seat is open at the local school, the project can move forward.
The county multiples the number of new houses by a fractional number to determine how many students will come out of a housing development.
“The formula is set in law, and we feel comfortable that the formula is concrete,” said Deputy County Attorney David Plymyer.
But homebuilders oppose such a measure, fearing it would discriminate against larger housing projects, which take longer to process.
“This completely changes the way we do things, and we lose, predictability,” said Eric DeVito, president of the Anne Arundel Home Builders Association, who added he was “blindsided” by the amendment.
The bill also was amended to reduce capacity rates. Instead of allowing schools to seat 5 percent and 10 percent over the state-rated capacity, the proposal now considers a school “full” at 100 percent capacity.
Benoit and Councilman Ron Dillon Jr., R-District 3, said they were modeling other counties, but many opposed such a move.
The next battle over the proposal is the time period developers must wait if a school is closed. The current wait time is six years, while the proposal would reduce it to three years.
“The additional three years they wait means fewer impact fees collected for schools and building [age-restricted] housing that we don’t need,” Dillon said.
jflanagan@baltimoreexaminer.com
Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:10 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 19, 2008 re: "Public comment missing from fee debate in Anne Arundel"
Report as inappropriate
8:32 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 19, 2008
re: "Public comment missing from fee debate in Anne Arundel"
Report as inappropriate
9:24 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 16, 2008
re: "Higher fees could deter businesses eyeing county"
Report as inappropriate
5:17 PM MST on Mon., Jan. 7, 2008
re: "Anne Arundel Council divided over impact fees for developers"
Report as inappropriate
Ditto said:
Well, thanks for debate 101. Of course affordable housing is the answer. Yes, time is money. The rocket scientist plan only benifits whom?? The housing market pick up in the spring, regardless of recesion.
80 agree | 82 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It is misleading to describe these fees as imposed on developers. They do not punish developers, they do not diminish the amount of land developed, they raise the prices of homes, the end user pays them. And because they are part of the cost of doing business, because profit is calculated on cost, developers and builders actually make money on these fees--and they must, if you understand how profit works. Builders and developers oppose these fees because they raise the price of homes, which reduces the market in size--fewer people have the money or appetite to buy the homes, which means the homes stay on the market longer and thus prices go up further--time = money. How sad that all of this is going on.
75 agree | 76 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How much can everyone pay to Maryland. I believe this will slow everything down even more. Which hurts contractors in the building industry. We already pay enough for permits. Which we can't even get in a timely matter.
87 agree | 87 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jen W said:
Another reason I LOVE Leopold. Developers are slime balls who could care less about the environment or anything else besides making money. It is about time they have to pay. Why should the tax payers bear the burden of more congestion and traffic while the developers keep getting richer?
98 agree | 107 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree