CBS2-KCAL // 27 mins ago
CBS2-KCAL // 1 hr 29 mins ago
KTLA.com // 1 hr 29 mins ago
Los Angeles Times // 1 hr 30 mins ago
Daily News // 1 hr 44 mins ago
NBC 4 // 2 hrs 7 mins ago
NBC 4 //
Playbill Online //
Playbill Online // 16 hrs ago
Playbill Online // 16 hrs ago
 
   
County weighs easing housing limits along Route 1
Article History
There are updates to this article.

BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Howard’s strict housing limits are hindering revitalization along the Route 1 corridor, county officials said.

To boost development from Elkridge to Laurel, the County Council is considering a measure that would allow developers to take housing allocations from future years to use for current projects.

“The intent is ... to give an opportunity for the residential components of projects to move ahead,” said Steve Lafferty, deputy director of the County Department of Planning and Zoning.

County law allows for 1,850 housing units to be built each year; 250 of those are along the Route 1 corridor.

The bill, introduced this week, would free up 125 additional units from future years, at least until the county’s growth guidelines, know as the General Plan, are revisited in 2010.

A few larger residential developments are awaiting housing allocations to proceed, Lafferty said.

For example, Petrie-Ross Ventures plans to build about 400 residential units, retail and office space, a hotel and a parking garage on a 13-acre site at the Savage MARC station.

But the change would not increase the number of houses built, and developers would still have to follow other adequate facilities limits, such as roads and school capacity, Lafferty said.

Patuxent Square, which opened last month, is the first project developed under the county’s 2004 revitalization plan for the corridor. The mixed-use project, built by Orchard Development, includes 80 apartments with retail space on the first floor.

Although obtaining housing allocation wasn’t a problem for Patuxent Square, any change would boost Route 1 revitalization, said Scott Armiger, vice president of Orchard Development. “If people are going to look to redevelop the corridor, the county needs to relieve some more allocations and streamline the process a bit,” he said.

smichael@baltimoreexaminer.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

8:13 AM MST on Fri., May. 9, 2008 re: "Howard land-use group releases recommendations to involve public"

Examiner Reader said:
This task force was heavily skewed toward the land development community.

2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

11:25 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "Two Council proposals take aim at the ‘infill’ development"

Examiner Reader said:
We are an extremly confused nation. We are not creating new urban areas, we are growing by about 2 million people a year, we want affordable housing, we want long time resident to never have to move, we don't want change or more density with 'infill', we want continued mass immigration -- often the same people and political parties are for all these things.

71 agree | 65 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:13 AM MST on Sun., Feb. 3, 2008 re: "Ulman seeks to scrap plans for new government campus"

Examiner Reader said:
I can't believe Ulman would waste over $7 million by abandoning plans, while at the same time giving his donor buddy a sweetheart lease with County funds. Wait a minute - I can believe it because Ulman is a deceptive arrogant jerk who slanders Mary Kay Sigaty to steal an election.

84 agree | 84 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:29 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 11, 2008 re: "Howard residents question traffic studies’ credibility"

Examiner Reader said:
"Traffic engineers wouldn’t stay in business if they used false assumptions or data" Why not? Politicians stay in business when they use false data on their resumes. "Secretary of the Cabinet" anyone?

86 agree | 89 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:34 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Howard residents question traffic studies’ credibility"

Examiner Reader said:
Any protests to traffic conditions, etc., under Howard County's new administration will be ignored. What Mr. Ulman wants, Mr. Ulman will get. Remember this the next time you go to the polls.

86 agree | 80 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:09 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007 re: "Council questions office-space purchase"

Examiner Reader said:
Doesn't a contributor to Ulman own the building where Ulman wants to sign an overpriced lease? But, just because someone fakes their resume to get elected, doesn't mean they will continue their dishonesty once in office...

106 agree | 103 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.17 seconds)