Greater Greater Washington

Development


School capacity tests make sprawl worse

A few years ago Gaithersburg adopted an ordinance to ensure that infrastructure keeps up with growth. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, the law turned out to be counterproductive, as it damaged the city's ability to grow in the right places.


Gaithersburg can't develop around its train station because of the law. Photo by the author.

Gaithersburg has a big problem. On one hand, the city is trying very hard to promote smart growth. They've adopted beautiful master plans, and worked with developers to design some very strong projects. On the other hand, they have a crippling adequate public facilities ordinance that slaps a complete moratorium on residential development in large swaths of the city.

The city's two hands are pulling in opposite directions. Mountains of genuinely good planning effort supports smart growth, but this one ordinance requiring excess school capacity throws a wrench into the whole business.

It's especially maddening because of the way school boundaries are drawn. The most overcrowded schools happen to also cover most of Gaithersburg's smart growth receiving areas, including its most walkable and transit-connected downtown and new urbanist districts.

For the most part it isn't the smart growth developments that are overcrowding the schools (they tend to attract smaller families), but because they're within the same school boundary as other neighborhoods that do produce a lot of kids, residential development is outlawed in precisely the areas where it's most appropriate.

And the really bad news is that the moratorium isn't effective at saving schools. Because Gaitheresburg is a geographically small jurisdiction within a larger, growing region, the school capacity test merely pushes growth out to other jurisdictions that have even less capacity, and less ability to plan.

In fact, the moratorium is doubly damaging because of the type of growth it is pushing away. By including these smart growth receiving zones in the moratorium, Gaithersburg is pushing out high-density urban developments that don't produce many students, but are very effective at reducing sprawl and growth in congestion.

The school capacity test makes sense in a vacuum, but not when all the issues of urban development are considered together. It's counterproductive, and should be changed.

The good news is that the Gaithersburg City Council, which does seem to sincerely want to do the right thing, realizes there's a problem and is considering corrective measures. According to a Patch article, the council is looking to add flexibility and leniency to the ordinance. Proposed modifications could allow the council to grant exceptions in certain circumstances, or could allow neighboring schools to share capacity if one is over its limit but another nearby school is not. These are good suggestions.

The city might also consider designating official smart growth receiving zones that are automatically exempted from the ordinance altogether. That would allow the right sort of growth to take place in the right places, while still controlling the sort of growth that is a problem for school capacity.

Gaithersburg deserves credit for acknowledging a difficult problem and moving to solve it. Other jurisdictions with similar ordinances should follow Gaithersburg's example and carefully consider whether or not their growth controls are accomplishing the right goals.

Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local Opinions blog. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Til I was about 12 I lived in Detroit. For another reason, I happened to just look at one of my old neighborhoods and the school distribution. (Many of the schools are now closed.) Because there was such great population density and so many children, junior and senior high schools were many, and also located within walkable distances. (Under one mile--maybe even closer to my house than my elementary school.) Of course, it's not that way anymore.

by Richard Layman on Sep 14, 2011 2:28 pm • linkreport

Can you articulate the reasoning for these restrictions? I thought that schools are managed at the county level, so it seems strange for the adequate schools test to be done at the city level (unless maybe the school districts are forever set coterminous with the city boundary, which would also be odd unless we are on our way to a New Jersey-style school system). Shouldn't impact fees be enough?

by JimT on Sep 14, 2011 2:29 pm • linkreport

re For the most part it isn't the smart growth developments that are overcrowding the schools (they tend to attract smaller families),

I would like to know how reliable the models are for predicting number of school-age children in a given smart growth development. Also when the models date from.

Also,, I think that if your child's school is already over capacity, you may not be persuaded by the arguments that this new development will probably not add all that many more children and that, in any case, further overcrowding at your child's school is outweighed by the need to not push development out to somewhere else.

by Miriam on Sep 14, 2011 3:43 pm • linkreport

I agree with Miriam. I think the developers should be allowed to build in these areas, however some entity needs to fund the additional school space for these children. Perhaps it is the County if they are not having to maintain additional roads. I'm not sure why the current impact fees aren't covering the increase though. Perhaps developers in urban areas could get a discount on certain fees, but have to pay for even higher increases in others such as schools? It seems some smart growthers advocate for dense urban areas without many children. I as a smart growth advocate want cities with multiple generations living together. I realize there will always be less children in a highrise than a single family, but the County already accounts for this in their planning.

by Cassie on Sep 14, 2011 5:13 pm • linkreport

So Gaithersburg controls its zoning separate from the county? Do they use the same schedule as Montgomery County for impact fees? As you can see from the link of the MoCo fee schedule, in the situation you describe in Gaithersburg, they ought to be able to build, but just pay the fees.

- http://permittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gov/permitting/pdf/DevelopmentImpactTax.pdf

by Richard Layman on Sep 14, 2011 7:18 pm • linkreport

@Richard Layman:
Yes, Gaithersburg has it's own zoning.

Also independent of County zoning are Rockville, Washington Grove, Laytonsville, Poolesville, Brookeville, and Barnesville.

The County plans and zones for all the other municipalities and the unincorporated areas.

by Matt Johnson on Sep 14, 2011 8:00 pm • linkreport

how does this impact impact fees for transportation and schools. Are the independent communities also exempt from this? That makes no sense, as the county still does the roads, transit, and schools.

by Richard Layman on Sep 15, 2011 10:31 am • linkreport

I'll try to address some of the issues raised in this article and comments. For one thing, the AFPO did not block any development in Gaithersburg during the recession. Unlike in many places, mixed use and residential projects approved before the recession are now being built on both sides of I270. The entire City is a Maryland Priority Funding Area, two of the largest projects are immediately adjacent to MARC rail stations and several include set asides for CCT right of way and stations, so this isn't encouraging sprawl at all.

The increase in overcrowding in the schools now is (according to MCPS) primarily due to the recession's effects on local families, who are making different school and housing choice than they did before. This was of course unanticipated before the recession and not an effect of the APFO.
This year is the first time that project were turned away due to the moratorium, and the moratorium also grew significantly broader this year because MCPS added programs to schools which reduced their capacity without actually adding students (the new programs require smaller class sizes). The Council is reviewing the ordinance now, because of concern over these potential impacts.

Developers in Gaithersburg pay the regular County development impact fees, except in Enterprise Zones which are exempt in the County as well.

by Cathy Drzyzgula on Sep 15, 2011 1:02 pm • linkreport

thanks for clarifying the point about impact fees.

by Richard Layman on Sep 15, 2011 8:01 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or