Chairman Ball and Members of the County Council:

County Council Bill 72-2007 amends the Howard County Zoning Regulations to create criteria for projects owned by the Howard County Housing Commission in specific non-residential zoning districts adding Housing Commission Housing Development as a use permitted as a matter of right in specific zoning districts and providing for Planning Board Review and Approval of site development plans for Housing Commission Housing located in non-residential zones.

The League of Women Voters of Howard County appreciates the County Executive's major change to ZRA-90, Council Bill 72, to provide for Planning Board approval of the site development plan for Housing Commission Housing developments located in non-residential zones. Section 128.K.2.B provides an opportunity for businesses, residents and County agencies to comment to the Planning Board in a Planning Board public hearing. The Planning Board has the authority to approve, approve with modifications and for conditions, or disapprove the site development plan, stating the reasons for its actions (Section 128 K.2.E). The addition of this provision provides the community with a Planning Board public process not one that just relied on a presubmission community meeting.

The League supports amendments to Section 128 K.2.D (3) and (4) for Planning Board consideration in acting on the site development plan. The League requests Section 128 K.2.D (3) be amended to add the words "transit and" to the proposed "whether there is convenient pedestrian access between uses". Transit access is important for family or senior moderate or low income housing development. In acting upon the site development plan the Planning Board must review the relationship and placement of buildings adjacent to residential development. Structures adjacent to residential development have a proposed height limit of 50 feet. The Howard County Zoning Regulations define structure as anything constructed or built, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attached to something having permanent location on the ground. The League requests Section 128k.2D(4) be amended to insert after existing dwelling units will be "at a minimum 50 feet" from the proposed development.

Section 118. Business Local, Section B-2 Business General and Section 120 Shopping Center. The placement of residential units in strip retail or none functioning strip shopping centers located on arterial roads needs to be carefully considered. The factors the Planning Board shall consider we think are sufficient with our proposed amendments to mitigate adverse impact and isolation of moderate income housing from residential communities.

Section 127.1 E.1.c. Planned Senior Community District. The League requests the County Council delete the proposed new language: "For the purpose of determining density only. Assisted living and Nursing Home Beds are not subject to MIHU Requirements." Under existing regulations, four assisted living and nursing home beds equal one dwelling unit. If a Planned Senior Center had 100 assisted living or nursing home beds based on the proposed language they would not be calculated into the moderate income housing unit requirement thereby shortchanging 25 units from the moderate income housing unit requirement. The proposed language also reduces the number of units required to be moderate income housing for the development. Another way of stating this is the developers can achieve 12 dwelling units per net acre without providing 33% of all units over 8 dwelling units per net acre as moderate income housing. Why would the County exempt this specific category? The calculation of a unit is simple and the County senior population needs moderate income housing units.

Section128 Supplementary Zoning District Regulations section K1B. The words "not to prohibit the sale or lease of lots therein" should be deleted. Those words are confusing. The minimum development size should be 3 acres.

Section 128 K.2.F (4) Minor projects not requiring Planning Board approval. House-type revisions to approve site development plans for single-family detached developments and for no more than 25% of the total number of dwelling units on the site development plans for single-family attached or apartment developments. Although similar language appears in the Mixed Use District (MXD), Planned Senior District (PSC) and Residential Environmental District (R-ED) the League supports deleting this language in Section 128K.2.F(4) because Housing Commission Housing Development density is controlled by building height limitations, the minimum development size of three acres and setbacks. Permitting up to an additional 25% of Planning Boards approved dwelling units would probably result in waiving some of these limitations.

In a larger context, the County Council needs to ask the question: Will CB 72 (ZRA-90) focus the development of affordable housing in the County into the sole realm of quasi governmental housing, the Housing Commission, locking out private development and other non profits that depended upon Federal, State and County tax credits?

The League supports Council Bill 72 with proposed amendments based on the League's housing position that supports public and private partnerships to build and manage affordable housing facilities. Support for adequate housing choice, in a suitable living environment within the economic reach of all citizens of all ages.

The League of Women Voters asks the County Council to consider our proposed amendments and urges favorable passage of County Council Bill 72.

Grace KubofciK
Co-president

Cc: County Executive Ulman