Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

Department of Legislative Services 2009

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

Department of Legislative Services Office of Policy Analysis Annapolis, Maryland January 2009

For further information concerning this document contact: Library and Information Services Office of Policy Analysis Department of Legislative Services 90 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Baltimore Area: 410-946-5400 ! Washington Area: 301-970-5400 Other Areas: 1-800-492-7122, Extension 5400 TDD: 410-946-5401 ! 301-970-5401 Maryland Relay Service: 1-800-735-2258 E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: http://mlis.state.md.us

The Department of Legislative Services does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability in the admission or access to its programs or activities. The department’s Information Officer has been designated to coordinate compliance with the non-discrimination requirements contained in Section 35.107 of the United States Department of Justice regulations. Requests for assistance should be directed to the Information Officer at the telephone numbers shown above.

ii

January 12, 2009 The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., President of the Senate The Honorable Michael E. Busch, Speaker of the House of Delegates Members, Maryland General Assembly Ladies and Gentlemen: For the past 10 years, Maryland’s incentive-based approaches to managing growth have received significant attention. However, the success of these growth management policies has been at best, uncertain. This lack of clear success is troublesome, as Maryland is the fifth most densely populated state in the nation. Without an effective growth management policy framework, the State will not be able to achieve its environmental protection and natural resources conservation goals. In anticipation of the introduction of legislation during the 2009 session, the Natural Resources, Environment, and Transportation Workgroup within the Office of Policy Analysis developed the attached report on Maryland’s growth management efforts. The report provides a synopsis of the State’s Smart Growth programs, policies, and challenges. Furthermore, it highlights a number of policy issues and questions that may merit consideration by the General Assembly this year. I trust this report will prove useful to you as the General Assembly tackles this complex issue during the 2009 session. For further information regarding this report, please contact Amanda Mock at 410-9465510. Sincerely

Warren G. Deschneaux Director WGD/AMM/klj

iii

iv

Contents Transmittal Letter ...............................................................................................................

iii

Introduction..........................................................................................................................

1

Background .......................................................................................................................... Smart Growth................................................................................................................... Federal Government Role ................................................................................................ State Government Role .................................................................................................... State Agency Involvement............................................................................................... State Initiatives................................................................................................................. Local Government Role...................................................................................................

1 1 3 4 5 7 8

State Policy Challenges......................................................................................................

8

Policy Issues for the 2009 Session .....................................................................................

11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................

13

Priority Funding Areas Acreage by Jurisdiction......................................... Percent of Total Residential Acreage Developed in Priority Funding Areas by Jurisdiction................................................................................... Percent of Total Residential Acreage Developed in Priority Funding Areas by Region and Statewide ..................................................................

15

Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3

v

16 17

vi

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland Introduction Maryland has received significant attention over the past 10 years for its incentive-based approaches to managing growth. While Maryland’s Smart Growth initiative has served as a model for many other states, the success of Maryland’s efforts is, at best, uncertain. This paper provides a snapshot of the State’s Smart Growth programs, policies, context, and challenges and then summarizes potential legislative issues for the 2009 session.

Background Smart Growth Managing growth is one of the most significant environmental challenges facing the State. Maryland is the fifth most densely populated state in the nation, and it is expected to add 1.4 million additional people between 2000 and 2030, a 27 percent population increase. As illustrated in Exhibit 1, between 2000 and 2007, significant population growth has occurred in the Baltimore and Suburban Washington regions, but the highest population growth rates are in the Southern Maryland and Upper Eastern Shore regions. Current population growth projections for 2020 and 2030 demonstrate a continuation of these trends. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently reported that development growth is outpacing progress in watershed efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The demands associated with escalating population and development represent a significant challenge to Maryland’s growth management policies and environmental conservation efforts. Maryland has sought to implement an integrated Smart Growth policy approach since 1997. In general, Smart Growth directs the State to target programs and funding to support established communities and locally designated growth areas and to protect rural areas. According to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), Smart Growth has four straightforward goals:

•

support existing communities by targeting resources to support development in areas where infrastructure exists;

•

save our most valuable natural resources before they are forever lost;

1

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

2

Exhibit 1

Total Population of Maryland by Jurisdiction April 2000, July 2007, 2020, and 2030

State/Region/Jurisdiction

April 1, 2000

July 1, 2007

Total Change

Total Percent Change

2020 (Est.)

2030 (Est.)

Maryland

5,296,508

5,618,344

321,836

6%

6,386,225

6,737,750

Baltimore Region Anne Arundel Baltimore County Carroll Harford Howard Baltimore City

2,512,433 489,658 754,292 150,897 218,590 247,842 651,154

2,621,485 512,154 788,994 169,220 239,993 273,669 637,455

109,052 22,496 34,702 18,323 21,403 25,827 -13,699

4% 5% 5% 12% 10% 10% -2%

2,863,750 555,000 841,000 206,100 277,000 316,600 668,050

2,932,100 571,700 848,500 226,700 282,100 325,000 678,100

Suburban Washington Region Frederick Montgomery Prince George's

1,870,132 195,276 873,341 801,515

1,984,288 224,705 930,813 828,770

114,156 29,429 57,472 27,255

6% 15% 7% 3%

2,313,150 287,900 1,075,000 950,250

2,466,250 339,700 1,145,000 981,550

Southern Maryland Region Calvert Charles St. Mary's

281,341 74,563 120,546 86,232

329,045 88,223 140,444 100,378

47,704 13,660 19,898 14,146

17% 18% 17% 16%

409,700 101,750 177,200 130,750

461,750 105,850 204,200 151,700

Western Maryland Region Allegany Garrett Washington

236,699 74,930 29,846 131,923

247,334 72,594 29,627 145,113

10,635 -2,336 -219 13,190

4% -3% -1% 10%

276,750 73,700 31,650 171,400

295,100 72,900 32,250 189,950

Upper Eastern Shore Region Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot

209,295 29,772 85,951 19,197 40,563 33,812

235,356 32,910 99,695 19,987 46,571 36,193

26,061 3,138 13,744 790 6,008 2,381

12% 11% 16% 4% 15% 7%

293,350 40,750 134,500 22,250 55,800 40,050

334,500 47,150 159,950 23,400 61,900 42,100

Lower Eastern Shore Region Dorchester Somerset Wicomico Worcester

186,608 30,674 24,747 84,644 46,543

200,836 31,846 26,016 93,600 49,374

14,228 1,172 1,269 8,956 2,831

8% 4% 5% 11% 6%

229,525 36,475 28,750 106,450 57,850

248,050 38,900 29,700 117,450 62,000

Note: Projections for the Baltimore Region based on Round 7 from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Cooperative Forecasting Committee. Projections for the Washington Suburban and Southern Maryland Regions based on Round 7.1 of the Metropolitan Washington COG’s Cooperative Forecasting Committee. Source: Maryland Department of Planning

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

3

•

save taxpayers from the high cost of building infrastructure to serve development that has spread far from our traditional population centers; and

•

provide Marylanders with a high quality of life, whether they choose to live in a rural community, suburb, small town, or city.

To achieve these goals, Maryland has adopted the following principles of Smart Growth, which provide guidance for new development, infill development, and redevelopment:

•

mix land uses;

•

take advantage of compact building design;

•

create housing opportunities and choices;

•

create walkable communities;

•

foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of plan;

•

preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas;

•

provide a variety of transportation options;

•

strengthen and direct development to existing communities;

•

make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; and

•

encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.

Federal Government Role While responsibility for developing growth management policy rests largely within the states, the federal government operates a multitude of programs that may contribute to Smart Growth. Such programs include those that promote brownfields redevelopment, open space/scenic landscapes, transit-orientated development, preservation of historic buildings, and investments in distressed neighborhoods. EPA does have a small Smart Growth program that conducts research, publishes reports, and provides grants and technical assistance to communities. EPA’s Smart Growth program staff work with communities to identify and encourage successful, environmentally sensitive development strategies.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

4

State Government Role Article 66B governs zoning and planning in the State and gives significant authority to local governments. However, two relatively recent laws provide for additional State involvement: the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 (the Planning Act), and the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act of 1997 (Priority Funding Areas Act). The Planning Act sought to organize and direct comprehensive planning, regulating, and funding by State, county, and municipal governments in furtherance of a specific economic growth and resource protection policy. This Act is organized around eight statutory vision statements which must be pursued in county and municipal comprehensive plans, where priorities for land use, economic growth, and resource protection are established. The visions must also be followed by the State in undertaking its various programs. Both State and local funding decisions on public construction projects must adhere to the visions. The State sought to strengthen its efforts to control sprawl, enhance land use, and control pollution with the Priority Funding Areas Act. This Act capitalized on the influence of State expenditures on economic growth and development by directing State spending to Priority Funding Areas (PFAs). The broad purpose of PFAs is to focus State spending to make the most efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure, to preserve existing neighborhoods, and to preserve Maryland’s fields, farms, and open spaces. The Act established certain areas as PFAs and allowed counties to designate additional areas if they meet minimum criteria. Exhibit 2 lists the areas initially established as PFAs and areas eligible for county designation. The current total PFA acreage by jurisdiction is provided in Appendix 1. Most State programs that encourage or support growth and development are affected by this Act, including economic development assistance and the construction of public schools, State highways, and water and wastewater facilities. The Act allows funds to be allocated for projects outside of PFAs under certain conditions, such as when the project is required to protect public health or safety. The State has become increasingly involved in growth management since the enactment of the Priority Funding Areas Act. For example, concern was raised in 2006 regarding several large and controversial municipal annexations primarily on the Eastern Shore. In response, the General Assembly adopted legislation (Chapter 381 of 2006) that modified the municipal annexation process, changed the requirements for comprehensive plans, and encouraged joint planning between counties and municipalities.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

5

Exhibit 2

Smart Growth – Priority Funding Areas Areas Initially Established by Law

Areas Eligible for County Designation

Municipalities

Areas with industrial zoning

Baltimore City

Areas with employment as the principal use which are served by, or planned for, a sewer system

Areas inside the Baltimore and Washington beltways

Existing communities within county-designated growth areas which are served by a water or sewer system and which have an average density of 2 or more units per acre

Neighborhoods designated for revitalization by the Department of Housing and Community Development

Rural villages

Enterprise and Empowerment Zones

Other areas within county-designated growth areas that, among other things, have a permitted density of 3.5 or more units per acre for new residential development

Certified Heritage Areas within county-designated growth areas Source: Maryland Department of Planning

State Agency Involvement Many State agencies work on Smart Growth-related programs, including the departments of Natural Resources, Environment, Transportation, Planning, Agriculture, and Housing and Community Development. The three State entities described below focus entirely on this issue.

•

The Smart Growth Subcabinet assists with implementation of Smart Growth policy and recommends changes in State law, regulations, and procedures needed to support the policy. The Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Coordinating Subcommittee operates as a subcomponent of the subcabinet.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

6

•

The Office of Smart Growth, within MDP, works directly with local governments, businesses, and organizations to coordinate the implementation of proven planning strategies. The office helps developers and local officials produce well-planned projects and educate and inform the public on land-use issues. Furthermore, it coordinates the efforts of State agencies represented on the Smart Growth Subcabinet.

•

The Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland (established by Chapter 381 of 2006 and modified by Chapter 626 of 2007) is charged with studying a wide range of Smart Growth and land use issues impacting Maryland, as summarized in Exhibit 3. The task force is required to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor by December 1, 2008, and continue to advise the Smart Growth Subcabinet through 2010. As of December 10, 2008, the required report had not yet been submitted. Exhibit 3

Responsibilities of the Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland Analyze

•

current land use policies and their impact on growth;

•

trends and challenges for municipal corporations and counties as they relate to growth;

•

mechanisms to facilitate joint planning to coordinate growth and development between municipal corporations and counties;

•

the capabilities of municipal corporations and counties to plan for future growth and development;

•

the impacts of county development proximate to municipal corporate limits on municipal infrastructure, water resources, and sensitive areas;

•

the impacts of municipal growth and development on county infrastructure, water resources, and sensitive areas;

•

the impact of specified sections of the State zoning and planning law (Article 66B) on a local government’s ability to establish a floating zone on a property or grant piecemeal rezoning of a specific property; and

•

mechanisms to fund the construction and maintenance of Smart Growth infrastructure.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

7

Exhibit 3 (continued) Identify

•

regional growth and development issues;

•

infrastructure needed for Smart Growth development consistent with population growth;

•

recommendations to implement law or regulations that further best management practices as they relate to future growth and development in the State;

•

methods to assess the cumulative impacts of proposed development on infrastructure on a regional scale; and

•

parameters for a State development plan, State transportation plan, and State housing plan and ways these plans could work together with local land use plans.

Source: Department of Legislative Services

There have been other recent efforts that indirectly address growth-related policy issues. For example, the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State’s Water Resources (established by Executive Order 01.01.2005.25) was charged with assessing the State’s water resources management program and recommending steps and a strategy to assure the long-term use, protection, and sustainable management of Maryland’s water resources.

State Initiatives There are a variety of ongoing policy and program initiatives aimed at promoting Smart Growth; MDP estimates there are over 80 Smart Growth programs in the State. Many programs were established prior to 1997 and were either already consistent with, or adjusted to be more supportive of, the Smart Growth philosophy. Several recent Smart Growth initiatives are summarized below.

•

The Priority Places Initiative was created by executive order in 2003 to re-energize and refocus State policies for land use and Smart Growth by encouraging development in existing communities where public funds have already been spent for infrastructure needs. The initiative seeks to use existing resources to target projects and plans that can become catalysts for broader change in surrounding areas. The program has lost momentum and may be replaced by a similar new effort in the near future.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

8

•

The Maryland Sustainable Communities Initiative is a joint program of MDP, the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and the Department of Business and Economic Development. This interagency initiative coordinates existing State resources to provide funding and technical assistance to eligible municipalities to assist them in meeting comprehensive planning standards.

•

DHCD’s Smart Keys 4 Employees program provides additional funds to cover down payment and closing costs for borrowers who buy homes in PFAs and within 10 miles of their place of employment or within the boundaries of the local county.

Local Government Role Local governments exercise primary authority over local planning and zoning and are supposed to use their local comprehensive plan as a guide. There are 23 counties in the State and 156 incorporated municipalities (Baltimore City functions as both a county and municipality). Approximately two-thirds of the incorporated municipalities have planning authority, the remaining one-third defer planning authority to their respective counties. Local planning commissions are required to develop and approve a comprehensive plan that must be recommended to the local legislative body for adoption and serve as a guide to public and private actions and decisions relating to development. The plan, at a minimum, must contain a statement of goals and standards, a land use plan element, a transportation plan element, a community facilities plan element, a mineral resources plan element under specified conditions, a water resources plan element, recommendations for land development regulations, recommendations for the designation of areas of critical concern, a sensitive areas element, and a municipal growth element. For charter counties and Baltimore City, the plan is required to include only 5 of the 10 previously mentioned elements: a transportation plan, a mineral resources plan under specified circumstances, a water resources plan, recommendations for land development regulations, and a sensitive areas element. Plans must be reviewed and if necessary, revised and amended, at least once every six years.

State Policy Challenges Maryland’s growth policies face several daunting challenges, including a population influx due to the Base Realignment and Closure process, traffic congestion that costs Maryland residents an estimated $3.1 billion annually, and historic losses of forest and farm land that are undercutting restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, a 2004 Infrastructure Needs Survey identified nearly $8.0 billion in State and local annual infrastructure needs, and total annual infrastructure investments equal to only about half of this amount. Several specific shortcomings in the State’s current growth management policies are summarized below.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

9

•

Lack of a State Development Plan – In accordance with Title 5 of the State Finance and Procurement Article, the State is required to develop and periodically revise a State Development Plan. This plan is supposed to (1) promote the general welfare and prosperity of the people of the State through coordinated development efforts; (2) be based on studies of governmental, economic, physical, and social conditions and trends; and (3) provide policy recommendations regarding the economic and physical development of the State. While there has been much discussion and debate about a State Development Plan, an overall plan has not been developed to date. The State also lacks an associated system for measuring or monitoring progress toward specific goals.

•

Unintended Impacts of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs) – APFOs are an effort to time the provision of public facilities (water, sewer, schools, roads, and emergency services) to be consistent with development demand and local comprehensive plans. While APFOs can be a strong tool to influence and guide growth, they are more frequently used when certain public facilities have already reached capacity. When communities have weak comprehensive plans or weak comprehensive plan implementation, APFOs may prompt sprawl development inadvertently. APFOs may be useful tools for stopping growth but appear less successful at assuring investment in infrastructure in growth areas.

•

Priority Funding Area Weaknesses – While about three-fourths of all building permits for new homes are issued for development inside PFAs, three-fourths of the land developed for new homes is outside PFAs. (See Exhibit 4). Additional tables that illustrate the percent of total residential acreage developed in PFAs by jurisdiction and region from 1990 through 1996 (prior to the enactment of the Priority Funding Areas Act) and from 1997 through 2005 (after the enactment of the Priority Funding Areas Act) are included in Appendix 2 and 3. Overall, these tables illustrate minimal differences between 1997 and 2005; in some areas, and statewide overall, the percent of total residential acreage developed in PFAs was higher prior to the enactment of the Priority Funding Areas Act. The Suburban Washington and Baltimore regions had the greatest percentage of development occurring in PFAs, and the Eastern Shore was the only region able to increase the rate of development in PFAs. Since local governments have the authority to determine where they plan to grow they may permit growth outside of PFAs. While PFAs have been used as a carrot to encourage more compact development, significant resources are still being dedicated to growth projects outside PFAs. This begs the question of whether designated Urban Growth Boundaries that clearly delineate where growth is allowed would be more effective, and whether a greater percentage of State expenditures should be subject to the Priority Funding Areas Act. Historical data illustrating the percentage of total State expenditures that are (1) required to be in PFAs; and (2) are actually in PFAs, is not available. Furthermore, the State lacks data showing the relationship between non-residential development trends and PFAs, as well as data showing how total PFA acreage by jurisdiction has changed over time. Therefore, it is

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

10

unclear whether the PFA incentive-based approach in Maryland is being fully implemented and enforced, and whether it can have a significant impact on development patterns.

•

Smart Growth and Environmental Policy Tension – Some environmental policies that seek to protect the State’s natural resources may be having unintended impacts. For example, if a PFA’s wastewater treatment plant discharges into a body of water that has reached its federally mandated pollution limit, this can work against concentrating new growth in that PFA.

Exhibit 4

Smart Growth: Residential Acreage Developed Inside vs. Outside Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) 16,000 14,000

Acres Developed

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Years Inside PFA

Outside PFA

Note: Based on improved residential single-family parcels 20 acres or less in size. Source: Maryland Department of Planning

2004

2005

2006

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

11

•

Potential Impact of Terrapin Run Opinion – In the recent Court of Appeals case Trail, et al. v. Terrapin Run, LLC, et al., language in the majority opinion could be interpreted to mean that local land use ordinances and regulations need not be consistent with the locally adopted comprehensive plan. This ambiguity could undermine Article 66B and the central role that comprehensive plans play in State land use laws and associated decisions regarding specific development projects.

•

Local Comprehensive Plans Are Not Comprehensive – While Maryland requires local governments to include numerous elements in their comprehensive plans, they are not required to incorporate housing and economic development issues. The American Planning Association believes these two issues are essential components of a comprehensive plan.

•

Limited State and Local Coordination – Limited State and local government coordination has led to programs being inconsistent and/or unsupportive. For example, the State will not achieve its land conservation goals if some local governments fail to impose more stringent agricultural and natural resource zoning outside of PFAs. Also, when locally designated and State designated growth areas differ, the authority and effectiveness of both governments is diminished. Furthermore, if the State fails to provide local governments with new authority to establish financing mechanisms (e.g., development impact fees or excise taxes), necessary infrastructure improvements in PFAs may remain unfunded.

Policy Issues for the 2009 Session A variety of recent and anticipated growth management policy recommendations may prompt legislation during the 2009 session. The Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland is currently developing numerous recommendations that could be implemented in the short-, medium-, or long-term. Several draft legislative recommendations that may surface during the 2009 session are summarized in Exhibit 5. In addition to those draft legislative recommendations, the task force has also developed draft recommendations for actions to be implemented administratively. Among those recommendations is a consideration for natural resources when planning for growth, especially where water availability is a concern. In some parts of Maryland, a lack of water resources is dictating where new growth occurs. For example, in some parts of Carroll and Frederick counties, construction has been halted due to concerns about available water supplies. Due to ongoing concerns about the State’s water resources, the recommendations from the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State’s Water Resources could also receive legislative attention during the 2009 session. Among other things, the

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

12

committee’s July 2008 final report included the following proposals to ensure a sustainable water supply for Maryland’s future:

•

develop and fund a more robust, comprehensive, fully integrated State water resources management program and provide adequate and reliable funds for the Maryland Department of the Environment’s (MDE) Water Supply Management Program;

•

promote collaborative local planning and facilitate regional planning;

•

codify MDE’s water allocation policies and require local jurisdictions to protect source waters; and

•

strengthen State and local programs for water conservation, reuse, and demand management. Exhibit 5

Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland Draft Short-term Legislative Recommendations (As of November 20, 2008) Smart Growth

• •

•

Address nitrogen removal from septic systems. Provide additional funding for land preservation, transit-orientated development, local government infrastructure financing, local comprehensive plan development, and hydrologic studies and water monitoring. Reauthorize the Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program and remove program funding caps. Changes to State Planning Law

•

Amend Article 66B to remove any ambiguity and make it clear that a local jurisdiction must implement and follow the comprehensive plan it adopts.

•

Amend Article 66B to require reports on the impacts of Adequate Public Facility Ordinances.

•

Update the eight visions set forth in the 1992 Planning Act.

•

Re-establish a broad-based, statewide planning board or commission.

Source: Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland; Department of Legislative Services

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

13

MDP may address the following policy issues in the short-term:

•

Creation of a State Development Plan. MDP recently released a draft document that sets forth potential parameters for a State Development Plan. In January 2009, MDP plans to initiate a six-month public comment period on this draft document.

•

Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit. This program provides tax credits equal to 20 percent of the qualified capital costs expended in the rehabilitation of a certified residential or commercial heritage structure. Certified structures must meet specified requirements, and the program is subject to an annual appropriation. The program is currently authorized through fiscal 2010. MDP is likely to offer legislation reauthorizing this program and making awards more predictable.

•

Response to Decision in Trail, et al. v. Terrapin Run, LLC, et al.. MDP is likely to offer legislation that clarifies any ambiguity that may exist regarding the central role that comprehensive plans play in State land use laws.

Conclusion Governments face many trade-offs when planning for growth, such as the competition between sprawl and open space and the tension between population density and traffic congestion. As the State’s population increases, these growth management issues are likely to intensify. While Maryland’s Smart Growth efforts have seen some success and have been groundbreaking in many ways, it appears that the State is far from achieving its land use objectives. In order to address this concern, a number of legislative proposals may be introduced in the 2009 session to overhaul Maryland’s Smart Growth initiative.

Update on Smart Growth and Planning Policy in Maryland

14

Appendix 1 Priority Funding Area Acreage by Jurisdiction (as of January 2009)

Jurisdiction Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore City Baltimore County Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester Total

Acres in PFAs

Total Land Acreage

PFA as a Percent of Total Land Acreage

266,755 265,335 51,845 384,791 137,158 204,735 287,019 222,990 294,258 355,171 424,566 419,597 280,704 160,711 178,507 316,801 309,415 237,548 230,832 206,876 171,602 292,737 240,424 301,663 6,242,038

13.6% 53.1% 100.0% 34.7% 12.5% 3.8% 12.7% 21.4% 12.0% 4.0% 16.2% 2.6% 31.8% 41.8% 6.4% 39.5% 54.2% 4.2% 15.0% 8.6% 13.6% 17.7% 21.9% 6.9% 20.4%

36,365 140,832 51,845 133,504 17,094 7,682 36,539 47,680 35,434 14,326 68,725 10,783 89,150 67,252 11,353 125,177 167,634 9,937 34,733 17,751 23,352 51,932 52,642 20,751 1,272,471

PFA: Priority Funding Area

Source: Maryland Department of Planning

15

Appendix 2

Percent of Total Residential Acreage Developed in Priority Funding Areas by Jurisdiction Worcester Wicomico Washington Talbot St. Mary's Somerset Queen Anne's Prince George's Montgomery

Jurisdiction

Kent Howard Harford Garrett Frederick Dorchester Charles Cecil Carroll Caroline Calvert Baltimore Baltimore City Anne Arundel Allegany 0%

20%

40%

1990-1996

Source: Maryland Department of Planning

16

60%

80%

100%

1997-2005

120%

Appendix 3

Percent of Total Residential Acreage Developed in Priority Funding Areas by Region and Statewide

Lower Eastern Shore Upper Eastern Shore

Region

Western Maryland Southern Maryland Suburban Washington Baltimore Region Statewide 0%

10%

20%

1990-1996

30%

40%

50%

1997-2005

Note: These tables include PFA Comment Areas, which are certified by a county as part of its PFA but do not meet statutory criteria. Source: Maryland Department of Planning

17