When I came out of the closet, publicly and shamelessly, expressing a desire to eliminate residential zoning, fully one-half of my friends pruned me—so I’m now down to one. Let’s see if that remaining friendship will survive this series on relaxed parking requirements.
Local jurisdictions have many ways of constricting the housing supply, thereby making it less affordable. The most familiar ways are zoning and usage permits. A more subtle tactic is parking requirements. In the vast majority of urban and suburban jurisdictions, there are minima on the number of parking spaces associated with each structure. For example, a developer wants to build an apartment building with 33 two-bedroom units. The zoning commission tells the developer you can have your permit to build, but you must also include 66 parking spaces (two spaces for each unit). The developer can accommodate that request by doing one of the following:
- Installing surface parking, which reduces the available footprint for the building itself and possibly the number of available housing units. (A surface parking lot for 66 spaces may mean there is enough space to build only 21 two-bedroom units).
- Installing a multi-level parking structure, an expensive proposition that increases the cost of construction.
- Canceling the project entirely.
Any one of the above outcomes further exacerbates the problems of less affluent residents, and protects the lifestyles of entrenched homeowners (of which I am one).
Council Member Andrew Friedson, in my eyes the closest we have to a reformer on the County Council, is the lead sponsor of Zoning Text Amendment ZTA-23-10. This amendment seeks to relax the parking requirements for new construction near transit hubs. Before we pass (favorable) judgment, let’s get into the details.
The county’s labyrinthine charter, whose every paragraph serves one special interest group or another at the expense of everyone else, includes Chapter 59 (Zoning Ordinance), Article 59-6 (General Development Requirements), Division 6.2 Parking, Queuing, and Loading. That division includes a table for computing parking requirements. Below is an excerpt for residential construction.
| Type of unit | Agricultural, rural residential, residential, and industrial zones | Within a Parking Lot District or Reduced Parking Area | Outside a Parking Lot District or Reduced Parking Area | |
| Single-family detached, duplex, townhouses | Dwelling Unit | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| Multi-unit | Efficiency Dwelling Unit | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit | 1.25 | 1.00 | 1.25 | |
| 2 Bedroom Dwelling Unit | 1.50 | 1.00 | 1.50 | |
| 3+ Bedroom Dwelling Unit | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
Returning to our example of an apartment building with 33 two-bedroom units, our developer needs to provide the following:
- In an agricultural area such as outside of Poolesville, 33 × 1.50 = 49.50 (round up to 50) spaces
- In a reduced parking area such as Pike and Rose, 33 × 1.00 = 33 spaces
- Outside a reduced parking area such as the southeast corner of Olney, 33 × 1.50 = 49.50 (round up to 50) spaces
This is example is explanatory only; the county charter provides leeway based on other considerations. Regardless, the county government accepts the reality that in densely populated areas, parking requirements are relaxed to allow any development at all. ZTA 23-10 further relaxes parking requirements by granting exemptions to development within one-half mile of a Metro, Purple Line, or Bus Rapid Transit station.
The amendment’s wording is amazing
Residential uses are exempt from the baseline parking minimums in the parking table under Section 6.2.4.B. if located the following distance from transit…
Exempt, as in entirely? No parking minima? Does that mean developers can install Manhattan-scale skyscrapers for which the nearest parking space is in rural New Jersey? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, Part 2 of this series gives us a view as to where such skyscrapers can be sited.
