Howard County Council held a hybrid work session focused on CB 66 20 25, the proposed general plan amendment for the Gateway Master Plan, with planners, developers and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) reviewing proposed amendment text and implications for redevelopment, environmental restrictions, housing and an innovation district.

Planners from the Department of Planning (DPC) presented a table of proposed edits and new text, and described added detail on environmental restrictions for brownfield parcels around the former GE manufacturing complex. "Residential uses are currently prohibited in this area," DPC deputy Mary Kendall said while pointing to mapped parcels and permit records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Maryland Department of the Environment. The presentation noted that some parcels are subject to covenants or institutional controls, and that EPA post‑closure permits for on‑site landfills date back to the 1980s with renewals and monitoring continuing in more recent years.

The brownfields discussion framed several follow‑on points for the plan: where residential uses could be located in the plan’s illustrative maps, how infrastructure connections would serve new housing without disturbing contaminated parcels, and how future reuse might change if property owners pursue cleanup. "Should individual property owners choose to pursue cleanup efforts, then those future uses could change," Kendall said, while the planners said that the 30‑year illustrative vision assumes contaminated parcels would remain as shown in the near term (for example as stormwater management or restricted open space) unless formal remediation occurs.

Council members asked for additional documentation and clarity. One council member observed that the most recent EPA covenants cited in the presentation appeared from 2021 and 2018 and asked the administration to circulate the 2022 permit record noted in the table. Planners agreed to provide the supporting EPA/MDE records and to clarify the plan text about where residential development is and is not expected in subareas that abut contaminated parcels.

Members of the council pressed DPC for stronger language on industrial uses in the M‑1‑zoned portions of Gateway. "'Encourage' is not a very strong word. 'Prohibit' is a much stronger word," Councilmember Rigby said, arguing the plan should do more than suggest "clean" industry and should define what is meant by that term. DPC staff responded that current M‑1 zoning permits lighter industrial and research and development (R&D) uses and that their research did not find any active Maryland air quality permits within Gateway; staff said the draft language aims to balance retaining existing employers while guiding future industrial activity toward less‑polluting uses and appropriate buffers.

Developers and property owners who attended in person emphasized the area’s existing business base and urged a pragmatic balance between protecting residents and keeping employment. "If you don't take this opportunity to develop Gateway at this point, which is really a series of parking lots and buildings, you won't have any housing developed there," Mickie Abrams of Abrams Development Group said, arguing the area is well served by existing stormwater and utility infrastructure and that market demand for different housing product will determine what is built. Representatives of COPT Defense Properties described the tenant base as heavily defense and IT oriented and said an innovation hub and clearer zoning that supports nonpolluting R&D would help retain those employers.

Housing provisions drew sustained attention. DPC proposed clarifying that the plan would recommend a 15% Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MIHU) requirement for new dwelling units in the Gateway zoning district, and an overall county goal that 20% of all new units be affordable to moderate‑income households. The draft also calls for incentives, public‑private or nonprofit partnerships, and a target that at least 10% of affordable units be physically accessible to persons with disabilities. Council members asked whether the 15% requirement would allow a fee‑in‑lieu, whether on‑site provision could be mandated, and whether the plan should call for a higher mandatory share rather than an objectives‑and‑incentives approach.

Council debate highlighted differing views over how to produce for‑sale housing in Gateway. Several council members urged stronger, concrete tools to promote ownership and long‑term affordability; others cautioned that inflexible requirements can hinder project finance and that subsidies — federal Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits, nonprofit developers, and density or incentive zoning — are typically necessary to achieve deep affordability. DPC said the plan revises guidance for missing‑middle housing types (for example stacked flats, 3‑over‑1 townhomes, multiplexes) and suggests density bonuses as one incentive toward for‑sale and affordable units.

The council also walked through financial and phasing questions. DPC presented a Municap fiscal analysis showing a projected net general fund impact (cumulative, 30‑year) in a low scenario of roughly $70 million and in a high scenario of roughly $112 million, not including detailed capital infrastructure costs. Several council members emphasized that the Municap snapshot does not include the cost of new schools, roads or other capital projects and urged a separate infrastructure phasing and financing plan before adoption. Planners said the Master Plan recommends preparing a phasing and financing strategy and noted that water‑and‑sewer master plans and school facility plans would need to be updated in coordination with redevelopment.

Economic development stakeholders said the EDA will lead short‑term actions to catalyze the innovation district while longer‑term infrastructure work proceeds. "This is the best opportunity in the region," Jennifer Jones, executive director of the Economic Development Authority, said, and described scaling the Maryland Innovation Center’s programming and creating an innovation hub that offers mentoring, industry matchmaking, workforce pipelines and a physical anchor for startups and small defense contractors. Jason Giannotti of EDA said the authority will focus on near‑term programming and partnerships to build momentum while infrastructure and zoning advance.

No formal vote was taken during the work session. Council members indicated that amendments will be filed in advance of a scheduled vote, and several asked staff to circulate additional records (EPA/MDE documents, the Municap technical appendix, and a map of major property owners) for their review. DPC said it will return with clarified language and supporting documents; council members signaled they expect to consider the bill for adoption in upcoming meetings.

The session closed after more than two hours of discussion. The council did not adopt any amendments at the work session and left formal action for a future legislative meeting.

Ending: Planners will provide the requested EPA/MDE documents, the Municap technical appendices, and clarified amendment language; council members indicated they will file or consider amendments in the coming weeks before the legislative vote.