View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended