Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty suggested the council consider putting off a decision on a measure that allows developers to take housing allocations from future years for current projects.
“I believe this should be tabled,” said Sigaty, D-District 4, at a council work session, adding the council might not have enough time to consider changes to the bill before voting Monday.
The bill would allow a few projects to move forward by letting developers take 125 additional housing allocations.
County law allows for 1,850 housing units to be built each year; 250 of those are along the Route 1 corridor.
A few projects, such as the planned development at the Savage MARC station and the redevelopment of the Aladdin mobile home park, need these advanced allocations to secure financing, said Planning Director Marsha McLaughlin.
However, residents have rallied against the measure, saying the area lacks amenities like a community center and schools.
More residential development would add to the woes brought on by a development boom, residents said.
“There’s a lot of resistance to those projects,” said Council Chairwoman Courtney Watson, D-District 1.
Joel Gallihue, manager of school planning for the public school system, told council members that the legislation would expedite school capacity limits by about one year.
For example, Bellow Springs Elementary School in Ellicott City would reach capacity — thus the area would be closed for new residential development — by 2013, rather than 2014 as currently projected, he said.
Sigaty questioned whether the county could grant housing allocations to specific projects, rather than approving advanced allocations over such a broad area.
“Is there another way to solve it?” she asked at the work session.
Councilman Calvin Ball, D-District 2, said the way the bill is drafted has raised too many concerns.
“I would have difficulty supporting it as it is,” he said.
McLaughlin agreed to consider changes to the measure that would address these concerns. Any changes to the bill must be submitted by Thursday afternoon.
smichael@baltimoreexaminer.com



Comments from Examiner Readers
8:13 AM MST on Fri., May. 9, 2008 re: "Howard land-use group releases recommendations to involve public"
Report as inappropriate
11:25 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008
re: "Two Council proposals take aim at the ‘infill’ development"
Report as inappropriate
5:13 AM MST on Sun., Feb. 3, 2008
re: "Ulman seeks to scrap plans for new government campus"
Report as inappropriate
4:29 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 11, 2008
re: "Howard residents question traffic studies’ credibility"
Report as inappropriate
7:34 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Howard residents question traffic studies’ credibility"
Report as inappropriate
1:09 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007
re: "Council questions office-space purchase"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
This task force was heavily skewed toward the land development community.
7 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
77 agree | 70 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
87 agree | 88 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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?
89 agree | 93 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
91 agree | 83 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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...
110 agree | 107 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree