ULI PlanMD Final Report_Nov2011

8/10/2019 ULI PlanMD Final Report_Nov2011

1/22


2/22

PlanMary land Workshops The Urban Land Ins t i tu te Ba l t imore & Washing ton DC D is t r ic t Counc i ls

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

2 November 08, 2011

The Urban Land Institutes mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and increating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. This mission is accomplished by bringing

leaders together, fostering collaboration, exploring land use and development issues, advancingpolicies and practices, sharing knowledge, and creating a global network with local impact.

The purpose of the ULI workshops and this report is to provide an objective voice for the real estatedevelopment community in PlanMaryland (PlanMD) and to recommend ways that the State can

provide positive leadership to make a change for the better. As this is a State policy plan, we havefocused on roles and actions that State agencies can take. Our comments are not intended to imply achange in the balance of State and local powers on these issues. ULI Baltimore and Washington DCoffer to be partners for positive change and a part of the process going forward.

While there are some issues of specific concern to each area of the State, the development communityconsistently offered several basic messages:

Developers follow the market, they do not create it. They build where people want to live and

work and play and where businesses want to be. Communities and the State need to work atmaking themselves attractive to residents and businesses. Developers can help but cannot doit alone.


3/22


4/22


O U R P R O C E S S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

4 November 08, 2011

Between May 25 and June 14, 2011 the Urban Land Institute Baltimore and Washington, DC DistrictCouncils, at the request of and in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Planning, held five

workshops throughout the State to solicit feedback from representatives of the developmentcommunity about PlanMD.

The goal of these workshops was to answer three questions:

1. Why dont we have more growth in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) and more infill development?

2. How do State and Local infrastructure funding and entitlement programs influence wheredevelopment occurs? And,

3. What should the State include in PlanMD to make the goals happen?

To ensure that the inputrepresented the diversity of

Maryland, each workshopfocused on a separate region

of the State, including(in chronological order):

1. Baltimore and North

2. The Eastern Shore

3. Baltimore and South

4. Western Maryland

5. The Washington, DCRegion

In order to get meaningful input, the selection of the right panelists was critical. We were fortunate togather a group of professionals at each workshop that we cannot thank enough for their expertise and

candid feedback. It is also important to recognize the members and staff of both the ULI Baltimore

and Washington DC District Councils that volunteered their valuable time, energy and expertise to setup, manage, and follow-up on each workshop. Collectively, the panelists and volunteers represent anexcellent cross section of the land development industry in Maryland and they drew on their expertiseto provide candid feedback. Finally, the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) must be recognized

for their sincere interest in soliciting this feedback and actively participating in each and everyworkshop. All of these participants are recognized at the end of this report.


5/22

Ba l t imore & Washing ton DC D is t r ic t Counc i ls The Urban Land Ins t i tu te PlanMary land Workshops

O U R P R O C E S S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

November 08, 2011 5

The land development process in Maryland is very complex. There are many important constituenciesthat must be understood to achieve success. We recognize that this report addresses the concerns of

one general constituent, the development industry. Notably, , it is the development industry that willbe responsible for physically implementing most of PlanMd on the ground. ULI recognizes that muchof the discussion contained in this report reflects critical issues for implementation of PlanMD and maybe too detailed for direct inclusion in the Plan itself. We respectfully request that these comments thenbe considered, not just for development of the final version of PlanMD, but also for the importantimplementation efforts that will follow. Recognizing that the implementation phase will need theparticipation of the many constituencies in Maryland, we stand prepared to actively participate in that

process as well.

Over the course of the workshops, several unifying themes emerged. Many of these themes cutacross the entire State. But there are also specific and unique issues that the development industryfaces in each region of Maryland. The themes are summarized into the following categories:

Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances

Consistency and Predictability

The Community Input Process

Market Realities and Creating a Sense of Place in PFAs

Competition, Advocacy and Priority Approval Areas

Public/Private Partnerships


6/22


7/22


A D E Q U A T E P U B L I C F A C I L I T I E S O R D I N A N C E S

November 08, 2011 7

3. Extend the time necessary to address APFO issues as a project is not built all at once.Larger scale developments are often implemented over time and the public facilities they

impact are slowly impacted over time. It is not only important to phase improvements over thebuild-out of the development, but also to re-evaluate the initial APFO requirements as theproject is built out to insure the public facilities are actually being impacted as originallyprojected.

4. Find other solutions than moratoriums in PFAs. There are numerous examples of moratoriathat have been imposed by local jurisdictions within PFAs that have stopped growth in the

PFAs. This cannot happen if the State wants to achieve more growth in PFAs. Localjurisdictions must identify potential problems in advance and the State must help them solvethe problems before they reach the level and necessity of a moratorium.

5. Revise the new stormwater management regulations inside PFAs (both redevelopment

and industrial development standards). This raises two separate issues. First, the 40%existing impervious and the 50% treatment requirements are both difficult and costly to achievefor redevelopment projects. Second, the new development standards for industrial projects are

equally difficult and costly to achieve as the size of the treatment requirements are too large formost industrial developments. These must be revisited based on science and experience.

6. Allow developers to contribute to off-site mitigation and off-site amenities to provide

more density on small parcels and make the development more cost efficient. Developersare often required to provide all of the development requirements on-site (or pay a fee-in-lieu,which does not always appear to be applied to the matters for which the fee is paid). Thisreduces the capacity of the site, essentially reducing the underlying zoning density. Providingforest conservation or wetland mitigation (to name a few) off-site will increase the developable

area of a project and result in forests and wetlands that are connected and provide betterquality habitats (i.e. functional systems vs. isolated pockets meeting minimum legalrequirements). Alternatively, improving playground or ball fields of an adjacent park would not

only increase the use of the park, but also increase the development capacity of a project.There should be consideration beyond the borders of a specific project to understand theenvironmental and cultural benefits that can be achieved, while increasing the capacity of infill

sites.

7. Cap APFO/Impact fees within PFAs based on project size, or allow APFO or Impact Fees,but not both. The success of efforts to direct growth to PFAs will be determined largely byrelative costs and perceived values. Some PFAs, with great schools, abundant jobs andpublic amenities, are and will remain natural focal points for growth and areas preferred byresidential buyers and renters. However, many PFAs lack some or most attributes that

contribute to quality of life and market preferences. When the perceived value of moving to

these PFAs is less than other areas, the primary driver for consumer selection of many olderPFAs has been and will continue to be price differentials. Development costs are passed on tocustomers (purchasers or renters). If developers are required to expand or improve publicfacilities and pay impact fees within the PFAs, the costs of developing outside PFAs are

typically less expensive than development inside PFAs. When housing prices (and oftentaxes) are the same or higher within PFAs, unless there is a compelling reason to live in a PFA,consumer preferences will continue to drive the development patterns that PlanMD is intendedto modify. Consider applying APFOs or Impact Fees within PFAs, but not both. If APFOs are

applied, consider reducing the developer requirements in PFAs to spur growth.


8/22


9/22


C O N S I S T E N C Y A N D P R E D I C T A B I L I TY

November 08, 2011 9

Like all businesses, the development industry requires consistency and predictability to ensuresuccess for a project, a company, and ultimately a community. Unlike many businesses, thedevelopment industry completes projects over time periods ranging from years to decades. Duringthe timeframe of most developments, the regulations by which the development industry is governedoften change. These changes create turmoil with respect to financing, approvals, implementation, andsales. To ensure that more developments happen in PFAs it is essential to provide consistency andpredictability. Specific suggestions include:

1. Consistent property taxes throughout the State. All municipalities are PFAs. Unfortunatelymost municipalities have additional property taxes. In Baltimore City, the local government real

property tax rate is $2.268 for every $100 of assessed value. This is twice as much as thesurrounding counties. Living in an urban environment is currently a lifestyle choice. It shouldbe, first and foremost, a shelter choice. Reducing taxes in municipalities will help to eliminatean existing disincentive for development in municipal PFAs. The State must step in to assist inleveling the playing field. If there is not a holistic solution to equal taxes, consider levyingproperty taxes on non-profits, government facilities and institutional property owners to pay atleast a portion of the property taxes they would be subject to if a private property owner.


10/22


C O N S I S T E N C Y A N D P R E D I C T A B I L I T Y

10 November 08, 2011

2. Return the Historic Tax Credits to a true credit program. The Historic Tax Credit programhas changed in the last year and it is now less predictable. Without Historic Tax Credits to helpbridge costs, many urban infill projects cannot be financed. The Historic Tax Credit programshould be returned to the pre-2010 model.

3. Ensurethat there will be future continuity with PlanMD at both the State and local levels .Changes in political leadership can create uncertainty in the development process. There mustbe continuity in the regulation of the development industry throughout the next 20 years, thetime frame of PlanMD. If PlanMD simply adds another level of bureaucracy to the developmentprocess and fails to increase continuity, then it wont achieve its goals.

4. Allow DRRAs to be valid for 10-15 years (only five now). Development Rights andResponsibility Agreements (DRRAs) are used in a number of local jurisdictions in Maryland.Although the State enabling legislation permits long-term agreements, some jurisdictions limitDRRAs to short lifespans (i.e., 5 years). There should be the flexibility to extend the lifespan ofthese agreements to 10-15+ years. It takes 10 -15 years to build most communities in PFAs.The utility of DRRAs in facilitating public infrastructure investment and establishing certainty for

the development process will be materially enhanced if more local jurisdictions recognize andaccommodate this reality.

5. Keep approvals valid longer based on project size and complexity. Similar to 4 above,most final approvals have finite time periods. As demonstrated in this economic downturn,these time frames are not enough. Preliminary and final approvals must last longer to accountfor economic cycles and financing realities. Consider basing approval time frames on projectsize and requiring proof that a project is still moving forward to extend the approvals. For largeprojects, 3-5 years (each) is a realistic and equitable approval time frame for both preliminaryand final approvals. The State should enact tolling legislation in 2012 (similar to Chapters 334and 335 of the Laws of Maryland 2009) to retroactively extend the approvals for developmentprojects located in PFAs.

6. Require all State agencies to show how they are spending their funds inside and outsideof PFAs. If the primary purpose of PlanMD is to align State agencies, require that all Stateagencies show how they have spent the prior years funds in relation to PFAs. The agenciesmust account for their spending patterns and programs to ensure they align with the goals ofthe plan and PFA designations.

7. Standardize grandfathering throughout Maryland. Grandfathering is very important toprovide consistency and predictability, as demonstrated in the recent adoption of newstormwater management regulations. A State standard should be established, with the help ofMACo, MML, and the development community, that provides clarity and uniformity for land use

grandfathering or vesting. All legislation affecting the development community should berequired to include a grandfathering provision. Additionally, the States very limited vestedrights doctrine should be expanded to provide additional vesting or protection for developmentactivities in PFAs.


11/22


C O N S I S T E N C Y A N D P R E D I C T A B I L I TY

November 08, 2011 11

8. Fire codes should be standardized Statewide and local fire officials must follow the Statecode. Life safety is critical to development and local Fire, Police, and EMS professionals.Local fire departments have a tremendous impact on the development industry as they applytheir regulations. Each jurisdiction is different. Unusual or excessive local requirements oftenhave the effect of directing growth away from PFAs served by fire departments with moreextensive/expensive interpretations and requirements. The State, in cooperation with local FireMarshalls and the development industry, should adopt standardized fire/life safety regulationsfor all of Maryland. This will take a lot of guess work out of the equation for adaptive reuseprojects and historic renovations, which typically occur in PFAs. These standardized codesand requirements should be applied similarly by all local fire departments.

9. Resolve the incompatible codes and regulations for historic preservation (i.e., greenbuilding, ADA, fire). Historic preservation is essential to embrace and remember our past. Itshould not be used as a pawn in the development process. The State should establish policiesto balance the goals of historic preservation with potentially conflicting but important goals.For example, many local jurisdictions have adopted green building standards. While these are

appropriate for new construction, they are not appropriate for historic renovations.Alternatively, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Fire Codes are different for historicrenovations and adaptive reuses and must therefore be treated differently. The State shouldwork with the Maryland Historic Trust, local historic preservation groups and the developmentcommunity to develop a consistent body of regulations for how historic properties can beadaptively reused while ensuring the integrity of the cultural resource and providing forappropriate life safety measures.

10.Local politics often direct growth to greenfields; there must be a political will to havegrowth in PFAs. Land use is very political today. This paradigm must be changed if PlanMDwill succeed in changing development patterns. If local political officials feel the pressure fromtheir constituents (even a vocal minority), then growth in PFAs will always come up short. The

State needs to find a way to provide greater guidance, and frankly, political cover for localofficials to focus the discussion at the appropriate point in the development process.

11.Do not allow local jurisdictions to make a State mandated law ( i.e., stormwatermanagement) more stringent than the State regulations in PFAs. Every State mandateallows local jurisdictions to create more stringent requirements (Critical Areas, ForestConservation, Stormwater Management, Erosion and Sediment Control, etc.). A great exampleis Montgomery Countys stormwater management provisions. This creates uncertainty andunpredictability and directs growth away from PFAs in these more stringent areas. When theState passes a new regulation that will be implemented by local jurisdictions, the State mustengage local governments and reach a compromise on an acceptable standard that all local

governments will apply equally.

12.Reform local development process to allow appropriate participation by local electedbodies in individual land development project (i.e., Prince Georges). Whether it beCounty Councils review of individual site plans or public referenda of rezoning petitions, thereis a time and a place for non-expert review of development proposals. Land use decisionmaking should be placed more in the hands of qualified professionals to reduce emotional andpolitical impacts on the entitlement process, which make it unpredictable and which oftenresult in density reductions that are not consistent with the visions of PlanMD.


12/22


T H E C O M M U N I T Y I N P U T P R O C E S S


There is a time and a place for all citizens of Maryland to voice their opinion about development withintheir community. Public involvement can in fact lead to important refinements in a project mitigatingpotential impacts. Unfortunately, the standards for accepting this input and the timing of this inputhave created procedural and political turmoil within PFAs and resulted in significantly lessdevelopment in PFAs than what is permitted, pushing development outward. Why would a citizen

participate in the comprehensive rezoning process of their County, City, or Town when they realizethat they can appeal a subdivision approval, or worse, a grading permit approval for little cost (and

with low standing thresholds) and force the developer to negotiate with them individually? Striking abalance between community input and development rights is imperative to focusing development

within PFAs, especially considering that PFAs are typically (if not always) more inhabited by existingresidents, shops, and offices.

1. The minority voice rules. Governing bodies need to understand not only who is testifying andwhy, but who is not testifying and why. A vocal minority can overrule the desires of the majority only because the majority does not testify on behalf of a development project. We needclearly defined rules throughout the State that identify who can testify in a public forum (a truestanding requirement) and require factual basis for the testimony (a true impact).


13/22


T H E C O M M U N I T Y I N P U T P R O C E S S


2. Methodology of public input is too diverse and should be made more constructive. Thereare many examples of how meaningful public involvement in the land development process

has resulted in a better product. We need to gather examples of when this has happened,examine why and how it was constructive, and share these examples as best practices. Theuse of these practices should be monitored to determine how they are being used and toevaluate their impact on consensus building and positive impacts on PFA development.

3. Create a mechanism to help mediate land use disputes and evaluate the greater goodfrom the PlanMD perspective. Ideally, there would be independent experts or panels who

could analyze how a particular development proposal conforms to the State and local policiesand then testifies at public meetings/hearings about their findings. The reviewers could bepublic or private, but they need to be impartial. It would be beneficial for the reviewers to workin multiple jurisdictions so they could provide advice on how other jurisdictions deal with similarissues. Most importantly, the review should support development that is consistent with State

and local priorities to facilitate the approval process and should not simply become anotherlevel of review and approval.

4.

Reform the process for public input for by-right projects, increase input for waiverrequests (that are approved administratively), with more for variance requests, greaterinput for special exceptions such as PUDs, and the highest standards for rezonings. Consider creating a Statewide hierarchical level of public input based on the nature of the

development approval sought. The State needs to work with all the local jurisdictions incrafting these standards. Fundamentally, if the proposed development is submitting a by-right plan in a PFA, there should be no or little public involvement. The more the requestdeviates from the by-right standards, the more public involvement should be considered. Theuse of by-right zoning and administrative waivers should be increased in PFAs to facilitate

development consistent with PlanMD. Waivers can be posted on websites for public comment.Variances and special exceptions can be an administrative hearing, and rezoning can be aformal public hearing.

5. Increase administrative review versus public hearings. Local planning and zoning officialsare the most qualified professionals to render a decision about a particular land development

issue. These local officials understand the process, the governing rules and the communityimpact. We need to critically evaluate what decisions should be elevated to the public hearingprocess and evaluate whether/how such a hearing will render a fair decision in light of the Stateand local growth policies.

6. Some local Master Plans include land use designations that are too specific, creatinginconsistencies with appropriate smart growth projects. Over the last several years,

consistency with local Master Plans has become an increasingly important criterion in

evaluating specific development proposals. If the development is determined to beinconsistent with the local Master Plan, then it can be denied. In many cases, local MasterPlans can be too specific, drawing fine lines when these plans, such as Small Area Plans orSector Plans, are meant to be guides. We need to reestablish the goals and objectives of

Master Plans, and ensure that the Master Plan remains a guide and that the comprehensiverezoning implements the Master Plan.


14/22


M A R K E T R E A L I T I E S ( C R E A T I N G A S E N S E O F P L A C E I N P F A S )


Developers and builders respond to themarket they serve. If the market

(homebuyers, shoppers, and employers)does not want to be in an area becauseof price, congestion, crime, lack ofamenities or otherwise, then thedevelopment community will not buildthere. Simultaneously, it is difficult to askan existing community to accept more

growth if their roads are congested, theirschools are at capacity, there is crime, orthere are no public amenities to servicethe existing residents, let alone anyonenew to the area. For PFAs to work, there

must be a Sense of Place that invitesexisting residents to want additionalpeople to enjoy what they enjoy good

schools, great amenities, acceptabletraffic, etc.

1. Need incentives to offset marketplace risks. Many older PFAs are areas that have

experienced neglect over time. They are obsolete and in need of new infrastructure. In orderto rebuild these areas, the public sector needs to provide incentives for rejuvenation.Alternative funding sources such as TIFs, PILOTS, and Special Taxing Districts can offset theunusually high costs of redevelopment or provide public amenities that spur growth. It isimportant to remember that private investment follows public commitment. The best example

of this, and an international success story, is Baltimores Inner Harbor.

2. Need earlier funding of public infrastructure in PFAs, prior to growth, to attract growth.

New development cannot cure all of the States past ills. If Marylanders want to concentrategrowth in PFAs, then we must invest in public infrastructure in designated areas beforegrowth

occurs. Raising the bar in the local schools, reducing traffic, providing amenities in designatedgrowth areas before the growth occurs shows public commitment while simultaneouslyaddressing existing residents apprehensions of potential adverse impacts to their way of liferesulting from growth or redevelopment.

3. MPDUs should be standardized across the State or eliminated. If they remain, densitybonuses should be provided to offset costs. Alternatively, no impact fees should be

charged for MPDUs and they should not be included in APFO analysis for residentialprojects. Numerous local jurisdictions have created workforce housing requirements for new

development. These requirements vary tremendously throughout the State. We should re-evaluate whether these regulations are necessary based on current and foreseeablehousing/economic realities. If so, there should be a consistent standard created throughout

the State that local jurisdictions can adopt if they choose to. If a local jurisdiction adoptssuch a standard, then it should provide offsets for each affordable housing unit to cover thereduced cost of each affordable home. Reduced impact fees (if any) should be required foreach affordable home, or density bonuses should be given for the entire development tospread the cost of building an affordable home (which does cost more than it is sold for) overmore units throughout a community.


15/22


M A R K E T R E A L I T I E S ( C R E A T I N G A S E N S E O F P L A C E I N P F A S )


4. Plan MD must respect private property rights inside AND outside PFAs. Concentratinggrowth in PFAs may be essential to our collective success in addressing many of the land usepatterns noted by PlanMD. But many citizens still have the American Dream of owning a singlefamily home on as big of a piece of land as they can afford. While bolstering the incentives andcreating a Sense of Place in PFAs, there must also be respect for the private property rights ofthose outside designated growth areas. This requires a very difficult, but achievable, balance.The State must create market advantages to encourage people to move into PFAs for

example, a better quality of life - as opposed to financial disincentives for building outsidePFAs.

5. Preserve choice of shelter inside and out of PFAs. There must be an opportunity for alltypes of homes inside and outside PFAs. Local jurisdictions cannot impose standards that

make it unrealistic to build all types of homes inside a PFA. For example, local jurisdictionsoften require upgraded design and material standards for townhomes inside a PFA that make itunrealistic for a townhome to be built and sold at the price the market will bear. Even worse,

these upgraded standards often far exceed the design and materials of the adjacentneighborhoods.

6. The State should help change the market demand by educating the public on the merits

of living close to areas of employment. The State and local jurisdictions must promotegrowth strategies as they promote economic development strategies. Education is the bestway to change market demand. A comprehensive outreach program needs to be developedthat highlights the quality of life benefits within PFAs, NOT the impacts of outward growth.

7. Vertical mixed use projects are difficult to build in this economy and generally, due to the

differences between retail and residential builders (financing, construction, etc.).Vertically integrated mixed use development has become the buzz word for new infill

development. Residences over shops or offices is a model that is heavily promoted in mostlocal jurisdictions. Main Street retail projects that were developed during the last boom aretouted as the model for the future. The reality is that many of these projects were not financially

successful. There are significant differences between the residential, retail, and employmentfinancial markets and construction practices. We need to step back from vertically mixed useprojects and promote horizontally mixed use projects, at appropriate densities, to respect thefinancial realities of the land development industry.

8. How many people (jobs, homes, etc.) can live in existing PFAs? Is there a market for thattype of density? What will it look like?If the State expects 1,000,000 new people, 400,000

new homes, and 600,000 new jobs in the next 20 years, we must realistically ask - where are

jobs going and how many homes are needed. As once said Homes are where jobs sleep atnight. Many parts of the State want jobs the Eastern Shore, Western Maryland but theremay not be a market, or enough incentives, or a critical mass to foster job growth in theseregions. Ideally we can create job growth throughout Maryland, through State and local

incentives. Without any incentives job growth, and therefore housing, will continue to occurprimarily in the areas where it currently is along the I-95 corridor. We need to understand therealities of the market and the capacity of the areas where growth will occur to ensure that weproperly focus public investment.


16/22


C O M P E T I T I O N , A D V O C A C Y A N D P R I O R I T Y A P P R O V A L A R E A S


State and local leaders need to recognize that the State is in competition with our neighboring states

(Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania) for economic growth. To obtain our States fair share if notmore of this economic development, Maryland must have a development friendly business

perspective, which we do not believe currently exists. Economic development involves not justbusiness incentives, but also office and retail rental rates, the cost of housing and real property taxrates-- the total cost of living. All State and local jurisdictions must work together to promote acomprehensive and cohesive package of economic development to foster real economic growth.

1. Local governments should reduce the costs of development and have simpler regulationsin PFAs. Within PFAs, the cost to develop should be decreased and amenities should be

increased to attract economic growth. Development costs (i.e., wetlands mitigation, forestconservation, and adequate public facilities) within PFAs must be reduced to reduce office and

retail rental rates to attract employers and shoppers.

2. Create an MDP stamp of approval for projects that meet Growth Print goals in State andlocal approval processes. If a project meets the goals and objectives of PlanMD it must be

fast tracked really fast tracked with specified timeframes for action or be deemed approved.Our panelist provided many stories of why a business located in our neighboring statesbecause they could provide a date certain by which the employer could occupy their business,while Maryland could not. We lose job growth because we fail to recognize and addressbusiness needs for a timely and certain development process.


17/22




3. Create a fast track process in PFAs a REAL fast track process that includes local

players and on line submissions. Create a State and local liaison to navigate projectslocated in PFAs through State and local approval processes. One of the easiestimplementation actions arising from PlanMD should be the alignment of State agency actionsand priorities. This objective is commendable, but land development is a local, State, andFederal process (in that order). If Maryland intends to develop a Fast Track program forPFAs development, it must include local government approval or it will present only nominalbenefits. Coordination with and endorsement by Federal regulatory agencies would also be

very beneficial, but should not delay alignment.

4. Eliminate redundant regulations (i.e., sprinklers in buildings and fire truck access andhydrant locations). There are too many old, redundant regulations in the developmentprocess. Every jurisdiction including the State and Federal government must comb through

their regulations regularly to eliminate redundant or outdated regulations. The developmentcommunity will work with each branch of the approval process to help them understand whereredundancies occur.

5. The variety of local regulations makes it difficult for one developer to work in differentPFAs. Developers tend to stay in the jurisdictions they know, because it reduces approvaltime and money. If there could be a more uniform development approval process throughoutthe State, then infill developers could work in multiple jurisdictions instead of just Cumberlandor Baltimore or wherever they are familiar. We recognize this is a tall order, but it wouldsignificantly increase development activity in jurisdictions throughout the State.

6. Reform the local jurisdictions review process to limit new issues on subsequentsubmittals. Once a development review is complete, subsequent reviews should be limited toevaluation of plan changes for confirmation that prior comments were addressed and that newrevisions are complaint with applicable requirements. This may seem minor to some, but for

those that are regularly involved in the regulatory approval process, this is tremendouslyimportant. When a local Jurisdiction reviews a development project they must provide all oftheir comments at the first submission, regardless of how brief it may be, and from then on

resolve each of the original comments. Development review in Maryland frequently involvesrepeated review of prior decisions, evaluations of new and different issues not raised early inthe process and other inefficient approaches. This does not foster a competitive developmentenvironment, nor help to facilitate development in PFAs.

7. SHA must reform CASA bonds and accelerate the time to return bonds. Bonds cost timeand money. Every approval authority especially the State must work aggressively to getdevelopers off their bonds as soon as possible so the project can be deemed complete to

release private capital for future investment.

8. All rules must be in writing, and once a project starts a specific phase of approval itshould be grandfathered. There are too many local policies that are not in writing and not

legislatively authorized, but have tremendous impact on approval time frames. Everyregulation/policy should be in writing, approved by the Local regulatory body (Town, City, orCounty Council or Commissioners) and readily accessible to the public. Further, when newregulations are promulgated they should include a grandfathering provision and provideadequate time for projects that are in process to obtain a grandfathering status.


18/22




9. Local Leaders must help to expedite County approvals. Every panelist agreed that local

approvals require local leadership. If a project meets the goals of the State and local plansthen the local leadership needs to approve the project, regardless of community opposition.Many good, high density infill projects that advance the States objectives have been stoppedby local politics. Political uncertainty and inconsistency between planning priorities and publicperception are a strong disincentive for infill PFA development.

10.Expand DBEDs role to promote good growth. The Maryland Department of Business and

Economic Development can be one of the most important voices in advocating for propergrowth. But DBED must recognize that growth is not just about jobs, it is about the entiredevelopment environment. It is about the homes that workers live in, it is about the retail thatservices the jobs, it is about the amenities that the people who hold the jobs enjoy. DBEDmust take a more holistic view about job growth to ensure that all facets of development are in

place to support job growth.

11.Establish a State Housing Policy (other than what is around TODs). Is it realistic to expect

that 400,000 new homes will be built in Maryland over the next 20 years in the areas wherehomes are necessary to support projected job growth?A comprehensive analysis needs to

occur to ensure that there is capacity to handle the families that will move into Maryland to fillthe anticipate job growth. In addition, the State must expand its housing policy beyond Transit

Oriented Development projects as there was general consensus that TODs cannot fulfill theanticipated demand. Economic growth (both employment and housing) must occurthroughout the State. There are very strong concerns that the current Plan will unreasonablylimit or at least not encourage economic development opportunities in the Eastern and Westernportions of the State.

12.The majority of the local taxes generated from some counties (i.e., Montgomery) arespent outside the County by the State. This is not fair and increases the cost of development

in Montgomery County. There must be equity in where the money is coming from and where itis going to solve development pressures. Local jurisdictions that generate positive tax rates

should enjoy the benefits derived there from. These equitably distributed funds can be used bythe local jurisdiction that generated them to solve infrastructure problems and promote furtherdevelopment that will help all Marylanders.

13.The State should create a Performance Funding Mechanism. Local jurisdictions thatmeet their growth quota should be more fully funded than those that do not. Ideally, the

State and local governments will reach consensus on where 1,000,000 people, 400,000 homes,and 600,000 new jobs should be located. Collectively, the State and local governments shouldevaluate whether growth is occurring where anticipated and desired. If it is, then the local

governments involved should benefit from prudent planning. If it is not, then the State andlocal governments should analyze why it is not and redirect funding to those locales that are

meeting their goals.

14.The Washington Sustainable Growth Alliance is an advocate for smart growth projects.This program can be replicated throughout Maryland. MDP needs to analyze how this privateadvocacy group operates, evaluate its success, strengths and weaknesses, and promotesimilar programs throughout the State.


19/22


P U B L I C P R I V A T E P A R T N E R S H I P S


Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are an essential element for growth success. With the everincreasing complexity of land development from regulatory approvals to finance, there is a growing

need for the public and private sectors to work together to promote growth and build projects indesignated areas. From the incentives and advocacy described above, to the items listed below, thereis an acute demand for PPPs to ensure proper growth throughout Maryland.

1.

Consider ways to promote and support land assemblages in PFAs. Provide incentives forthe private sector to assemble various parcels into a larger development such as increasingdensity based on parcel size. Alternatively participate in assembling various parcels into a

larger critical mass. The larger the development, the more opportunity there is for addressinglarger existing community issues.

2. Urban areas need a better way to supply affordable parking. Parking is an importantelement in every development project. Although we would like to reduce the parking required

for each project, the reality is that there are several reasons why the parking is provided (i.e.tenant demand, financing requirements, etc.). Allow private parking to be a public service, likesewer and water, so it can be included in TIF programs. Alternatively, reduce fees for projects

that provide more parking than required for the benefit of subsequent, nearby development.

3. Allow a variety of Tax Credits in PFAs to offset costs or marketability. There are a varietyof tax credits that can be offered to offset the cost of development, including historic tax credits

and property taxes. Consider establishment of economic incentives (including reasonablelimitations) to overcome the market disadvantages of building in PFAs.

4. Provide opportunities for nutrient/pollutant offsets between the development andagricultural communities. The upcoming TMDL program will require offsets. The publicsector must work hand in hand with the private sector to address these issues and provideopportunities in PFAs. This could be enhanced through the establishment of a stable andactive pollutant trading program and platform.

5. Consider dedicating a revenue source funded by all Marylanders to help fundinfrastructure within PFAs. For example, Oklahoma City created a $0.01 sales taxincrease that was dedicated to infrastructure investments. While ULI is not advocating taxincreases, all Marylanders should share the burden of improving our public infrastructure, notjust new development. This is the truest form of PPP. Evaluate opportunities for all of us toshare the responsibility of improving our infrastructure, since everyone will benefit from thisinvestment. Relying on new development activity to solve historic and current regionalinfrastructure deficiencies increases the cost of reinvestment in communities that need it most.

6. Allow flexibility in regulations so development can adapt to the market in a timely manner.

The public and private sectors need to work together to address the uncertainty ofdevelopment and market realities. Development requires flexibility to adapt to changing marketconditions. The public needs certainty to provide certainty to existing residents. Collectively,we need to work together to provide flexibility to adapt and certainty to plan our future.

7. Recognize that if the public constructs a public infrastructure they must pay Davis/Baconwages, which reduces what can actually be constructed. The public sector can judiciouslywork with the private sector to construct necessary infrastructure in the most cost effectivemanner to maximize the benefit of our collective investment.


20/22


P A N E L I S T S B Y R E G I O N


The Urban Land Institute Baltimore and Washington DC District Councils thank the followingindividuals for their participation:

Baltimore NorthRobb Aumiller, Mackenzie DevelopmentPeter Bosworth, Bosworth PropertiesEd Brady, Chesapeake Real Estate GroupRuss Dickens, Elm Street DevelopmentBruce Harvery, Williamsburg Homes

Douglas Hill, Townpoint DevelopmentDave Lazas, Atapco PropertiesRandy MacCuaig, Preston PartnersJim Martin, Ward PropertiesJon Mayers, Chesapeake Realty Partners

Arsh Mirmiran, Caves Valley PartnersBruce Oxley, Toll Brothers HomesChristopher Regan, Tower HillDon Sample, Hometown BuildersCole Schnorf, Manekin CorporationJustin Shelby, UrbanEx Development

Pat Turner, Turner Development GroupAaron Wade, Richmond American HomesDan Whitehurst, Clark Turner Development

The Eastern ShoreBruce Armistead, Esq., Armistead, Griswold,

Lee & Rust, P.A.Michael A. Burlbaugh, Elm Street DevelopmentBrenda Desjardins, New Home Marketing

ServicesWilliam Dodd, Koch Homes, Inc.

Palmer Gillis, Gillis Gilkerson, Inc.John Kotoski, River Run Golf ClubGlen Lindengren, Linden Companies

Brad Messenger, NVR, Inc.

Stephen Ness, Lennar HomesRobert D. Rauch, Robert D. Rauch &

AssociatesJoseph A. Stevens, Esq., Law Offices of

Stevens, Phillips & McCann, LLC

Barry Waterman, Coldwell Banker WatermanRealty

John Wilson, Tidewater Inn

Baltimore and SouthMike Caruthers, Somerset Construction

Geoff Glazer, Kimco Realty CorporationJeff Hettleman, The Shelter Group

Ned Howe, Enterprise HomesBob Jenkins, The Howard Hughes CorporationJames Knott, Jr., James F. Knott Realty GroupDoug Lashley, Green Vest, LLCWayne Lingafelter, Corporate Office Prop. Trust

Mark MacFarland, The St. Charles Companies

Thomas M. Mateya, Toll BrothersDan Pallace, Merritt Properties, LLC

Tom Pilon, St. John PropertiesJohn Stamato, Ribera DevelopmentKaren Watsic, Preston Scheffenacker

Properties

Western MarylandMichael Joy, Bennet, Brewer & Associates

Brent Feight, Bushey Feight Morin ArchitectsJanet Kemmet, Cumberland Neighborhood Housing Services

Billie Swailes, Triad Engineering, Inc.Kate Kuranda, R. Christopher Goodwin & AssociatesChad Taylor, Tyler-Donegan Real Estate Services, Inc.

Jason A. Wiley, Elm Street DevelopmentTom Huber, Heffner and Weber


21/22


P A N E L I S T S B Y R E G I O N


The DC RegionTom Archer, Forest City Washington

Martin Bierbaum, National Center for SmartGrowth

Lewis Birnbaum, Pulte Mid-AtlanticRobert Brewer, Lerch, Early & BrewerAndrew Brown, Stanford Properties, LCBryant Foulger, Foulger-Pratt CompaniesRobert Harris, Holland & Knight, LLP

Jody Kline, Miller Miller & CanbyErica Leatham, Ballard Spahr LLPDan McCabe, Urban Atlantic

Brian O'Looney, Torti Gallas and Partners/Chk,Inc.

Richard Perlmutter, Argo Development

CompanyStuart Prince, The Peterson CompaniesKathy Roberson, Combined Properties, Inc.Trini Rodriguez, ParkerRodriguez, Inc.Barbara Sears, Linowes and Blocher, LLPBob Spalding, Miller & Smith

Robert Wulff, B.F. Saul Company

ULI Baltimore and Washington DC District Council VolunteersRobert Agee, The Faux GroupTim Bishop, Livingston Properties LLCSean Davis, Morris & Ritchie Associates

Bernadine Dullaghan, ULI WashingtonPat Faux, The Faux GroupScot Foster, Brown Craig Turner ArchitectsPeter Garver, Garver Development Group

Christopher Goettge, The Faux GroupThomas Koch, Plano/CoudonCarrie Ann Miller, Amdyne CorporationLisa Norris, SPIN/ULI Baltimore

Lisa Rother, ULI WashingtonRyan Showalter, Miles & Stockbridge P.C.Corrie Wade, Atapco Properties

Maryland Department of Planning StaffRichard Hall, SecretaryChuck Boyd, PlanMaryland staff

Peter G. Conrad, Director of Local Government AssistanceRichard Josephson, Director of Planning ServicesJoe Tassone, Director of Environmental Planning


22/22

Documents

ULI PlanMD Final Report_Nov2011