Developers oppose County Council bill to slow development where roads are congested

May 24—Local developers said they oppose a bill from two Frederick County councilmen that would change the county's adequate public facilities ordinance if the council votes in coming weeks to pass it.

The bill, spearheaded by Councilman Steve McKay, R, and co-sponsored by Councilman Kai Hagen, D, would require that large developments in the county adhere to a higher standard for easing traffic.

Building Industry Association Executive Director Danielle Adams did not respond to a request for comment by phone or email Monday, but in an email to members of the County Council sent May 20, she said that the proposed changes run directly counter to the Livable Frederick Master Plan and hinder growth in areas that the Livable Frederick plan designated for development.

The county adopted the Livable Frederick Master Plan in 2019 as the prevailing policy document for development and preservation in the county.

"Resources, particularly public infrastructure, should be utilized to the maximum extent practicable," Adams wrote in the letter. "We should not be building infrastructure only to use it 80% of the time particularly as it relates to our transportation facilities."

McKay, though, said that his proposed changes "work in concert with" the Livable Frederick plan. Both the adequate public facilities ordinance and the master plan are tools that help the county to plan growth, he said.

Developers said that McKay and Hagen should have consulted them during their drafting of the bill. Adams wrote in her letter that the "current process has excluded key stakeholders that provide a means for continued economic development within Frederick County."

McKay disagreed.

"I do not like the idea that the building community should have a special seat at the table," McKay said in a phone interview Monday. "I appreciate their input, and this is when that input is supposed to happen."

The council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the bill at 7 p.m. on Tuesday. People can provide comment over the phone by calling 855-925-2801 and entering meeting code 8365.

Hagen said he recently met with developers from the Frederick County Building Industry Association, which represents 5,500 employees from 200 member organizations. Members of the association were concerned about numerous parts of the bill.

Tom Natelli, CEO for Natelli Communities, the development company largely responsible for development in Urbana, was among those who met with Hagen.

"While I understand and am sensitive to the concerns over levels of traffic congestion, I don't think this bill is going to help alleviate anything and is going in the wrong direction," Natelli wrote in an email.

Frederick County relies on its adequate public facilities ordinance to ensure that development does not overburden roads and intersections, as well as schools and water and sewer infrastructure.

The councilmen's bill would create a lower threshold for when a developer needs to address traffic problems.

The change would not affect ongoing developments. But new developments might be required to ease traffic generated by other nearby developments that are in progress. It's a change that might deter development, McKay said to the News-Post earlier this month.

"We recognize this possibility and accept it," he wrote in a memo to fellow council members describing the bill. "Frankly, we should welcome measures that slow or stop new development proposals in areas of ongoing development and congested roadways."

The bill changes the county's definition of "limited impact developments," which bring less potential traffic than larger developments.

McKay said the change would decrease the number of developments that could qualify as "limited impact" and increase the number of potential developments that would have to abide by the more stringent traffic mitigation standards.

Developers might be required to build a new traffic light, add an acceleration or deceleration lane to a road, or construct a new road, among other projects, McKay said.

Adams wrote in her letter that the change would simply increase the cost of development and associated fees.

The bill would establish a threshold for the county Planning Commission to approve a fee paid to an escrow account to help fund traffic projects that might be beyond the scope of a single developer to address. The payment must be at least 10% of the project cost.

County code currently allows large developments under construction up to 15 years to receive adequate public facilities ordinance approval.

The bill would lower the timeline to 10 years to limit the risk of unforeseen changes, like a nearby school being built sooner than expected, which would likely alter local traffic patterns.

The bill also increases the transparency of traffic impact analyses, which assess how a new development might change traffic congestion on nearby road segments and intersections. The analyses must be posted on the Frederick County website, according to the bill.

The proposed changes would lead to unintended consequences like forcing development into areas not suitable for growth, Natelli wrote.

"As a community I feel we should be focused on concentrating development around highway interchanges and in growth areas as [the Livable Frederick Master Plan] envisioned," Natelli wrote. "This is the best way to preserve vast expanses of the County for the long-term."

Follow Jack Hogan on Twitter: @jckhogan