At last night’s meeting, the College Park Mayor and Council agreed to submit a letter regarding a proposed Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement for The Boulevard development located at 9091 Baltimore Avenue along the Route 1 corridor.
A PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) is a negotiated agreement with Prince George’s County (not the City) where a qualifying development pays a reduced and predictable property tax amount for a defined period of time. Developers typically apply for a PILOT when a project includes affordable or workforce housing units that reduce the overall rental income of the project and create financing challenges. The applicant came before the City Council because Prince George’s County often seeks input or support letters from municipalities before considering a PILOT request.
The Boulevard project has actually been in discussion and development planning for many years. According to the City packet, the overall project dates back to 2007, when the original Development Site Plan (DSP) framework was approved. Part of the project — the townhouse section located toward the rear of the property — was eventually completed between 2016 and 2018, but the larger redevelopment along Route 1 remained unfinished for years. The property has long been viewed as a prominent but underutilized gateway site along Baltimore Avenue.
Under the current proposal, the project would include 244 residential units, primarily one- and two-bedroom apartments, along with a smaller number of three-bedroom units. The developer recently agreed to increase the number of three-bedroom units from 13 to 18 following discussions with the City. Unlike earlier versions of the proposal, which focused more heavily on student housing, the revised concept is being presented as a market-oriented multifamily development designed primarily for working professionals, University of Maryland faculty and staff, and other residents seeking housing near transit and employment centers.
One of the major topics discussed during recent Council presentations was affordability. The developer has proposed setting aside 10% of the units — approximately 24 apartments — as workforce and affordable housing units with a mix of affordability levels. According to the presentation materials, the current proposal includes six units each at 60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). Earlier versions explored different affordability structures, including 10% of units at 80–120% AMI and another concept with all affordable units at 60% AMI, but the developer stated that deeper affordability levels created financing challenges under current lending conditions.
The developer argues that the PILOT agreement is necessary to help make the project financially feasible. According to materials included in the Council packet, construction financing remains difficult due to rising construction costs, labor expenses, interest rates, insurance requirements, and infrastructure obligations tied to the project. The requested PILOT would involve a 75% abatement of County real property taxes for 15 years. The applicant states that even with the PILOT and specialized HUD financing, the project remains financially challenging.
In addition to housing, the project includes several infrastructure and community improvements. These include improvements to the Route 1 and Cherokee Street intersection, upgrades near the University Boulevard cloverleaf, expanded sidewalks and lighting on the Route 1 bridge, transit-related improvements, and a project-funded shuttle connection to the University of Maryland. The project would also provide 66 structured parking spaces dedicated for nearby townhome residents and public use.
The proposal also reflects broader discussions the City has had for years about the future of the Route 1 corridor. City officials have frequently expressed interest in encouraging more non-student housing, improving walkability, increasing economic activity, supporting mixed-use redevelopment, and reducing pressure on nearby single-family neighborhoods from student rental demand. According to the presentation materials, the developer revised the project from an earlier student-oriented concept to a more professional multifamily housing model partly in response to community and City feedback.
The draft letter included in the Council packet states that the project is expected to generate temporary construction jobs, long-term employment opportunities, additional economic activity, and future property tax revenues once the PILOT period concludes. The letter also references planned commercial space, public infrastructure upgrades, and landscaping improvements associated with the project.
The PILOT agreement itself would ultimately be considered by Prince George’s County as the project continues through the approval and financing process.
The City Council approved the letter supporting the applicant’s request for a PILOT agreement by a vote of 6–2.
Given the strong community interest in the project, the Council also asked the applicant to host a community meeting to discuss the development in more detail.
The developer is expected to return to the Council in the future with an amended Detailed Site Plan for further review.
Mary Ann Hartnett
Working professionals do not need a 3 bedroom apt. Students do to afford the rent. Be honest that this is more student housing. Get ride of the fluff – ex. pool. It is an expense that drives the rent up and will get little use and the students will want rental assistance. Provide basic apts. and parking no more. If the rents are good they do not need to compete with other buildings for tenants by adding extra amenities.
Kennis Ann Termini
OPPOSED
Dick Hageman
66 parking spaces for a 244 unit complex sounds like trouble to me. I already watch people park on 48th Place then walk down through the church parking lot to go to wherever they live.
Richard Biffl
If this developer can’t afford to construct its building without tax breaks, it should sell the land to a better-capitalized developer. Also, the City and County should stop trying to micromanage the project and just let the developer build what the market will pay for, which is probably student housing. The developer is gaming officials by dangling promises about “affordable” units and “long-term employment” for a few cashiers.
Terp
To Dick Hageman: it doesn’t say 66 parking spaces for the 244 apartment units. It says that the parking garage for the apartment units will include 66 spaces set aside for the 66 townhouses that were built about 10 years ago. The garage will be big enough for both the townhouses and the to-be-built apartments.
Ryan
Strongly support! Let’s keep the momentum and continue redeveloping the whole corridor from the Cherry Hill Road to Laundry World. The progress in the last 25 years has been great but there are still too many empty and underutilized lots. Love to see transit and infrastructure upgrades in the plan. The net tax receipts are almost certainly still higher given how this space isn’t used at all right now.
Love seeing the mix of apartment sizes. Yes, there may be students living in apartments in a university town. Oh no! /s You know who else might want 3 bedrooms? Families with children. People who work from home and need a home office. People that want a bedroom for their tamagotchi collection. Also, god forbid they have a pool! What absolute decadence. Spread across 244 units that has to be what, $3, $4, maybe even $5/month per unit! Next thing you know those greedy kids will be buying avocado toast.