My Votes on Controversial Zoning Bills

Today the City Council begins to take up the most controversial of the zoning bills package proposed by the Mayor and several of my colleagues. The most controversial one, 25-0066 has a public online meeting this evening at 6pm. Mayor Scott said there will be more public dialogue on this bill. It is not being voted on this evening. Below is a description of each bill, my thoughts, and my vote.  

25-0062 changes our building code to allow for low rise buildings (up to 5 stories) to only have one stairwell, instead of two which is the current requirement. This will allow for more buildings to be built particularly on vacant lots and other areas, and the costs will be directed toward more units rather than stairwells. The Fire Department has approved of this. I co-sponsored this bill and I voted in favor of it. 

25-0063 moves the Zoning Administrator’s office from the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to the Department of Planning. This is Vice President Middleton’s bill. I believe it is a good one and will help improve communications and supports between the two offices. I am a co-sponsor and I voted in favor of this bill.

24-0064 reforms the Bulk and Yard requirements. This bill does not allow for conversions of single family units to multi family, that is a different bill. This changes the bulk and yard requirements. First, some background: there are zoning categories that mandate how much building can be on a lot. Currently, R-6 only allows for 45% of the lot to be covered by building, R-7 allows for 50%, and R-8 requires only 60%. 25-00064 changes the percentages to be higher to allow for growing families to add room in their homes. I have constituents interested in allowing parents to move in, and need that additional space. At some point, families were able to go before the zoning board to ask for a variance however, the policy has changed and that is no longer allowed. Additionally, this bill reduces the unit sizes so in new construction more units can be built. One concern is that the unit size reduction could potentially allow for another unit in a home that is already two units, depending on the size of the home (this is only for new construction or multifamily). Again, this does not allow for single family to be converted to multi family. I am a co-sponsor and I will be voting in favor of this billl. 

25-0065 Eliminates minimum parking requirements. Currently, in general, the requirement for parking is one off-street parking space per unit. This bill eliminates the parking minimums altogether. That means that in developing new construction, the developer is not tied to one off-street parking space per unit. They will build parking, but based on demand. 

We have already eliminated most off-street parking requirements:

• Currently, affordable housing requires one off-street parking space per two units and older adult housing requires one space for every 4 units, which assumes older adults are not driving.

• In the most recent round of zoning code modifications last term, we eliminated the off-street parking requirement for buildings with up to three units. This was already done.

• During the Inclusionary Housing work last term, we eliminated parking requirements for any buildings above 20 units adding inclusionary units. 

This bill eliminates any parking minimums because there is a realization that the parking spaces are not being used. Take the Rotunda, for example. There are over 400 units in that development and the same number of parking spaces. The garage is basically empty, and the lower level is used for parking for commercial shops. The garage at the Anthem House in Federal Hill has been transformed to pickleball courts because no one was using the parking. The funds normally used to build parking could instead be used to build more units. 

The safeguard is the residential Residential Permit Parking program. This is important so that residents in larger apartment buildings can’t use the street parking in areas where there are Residential Parking Permits. The RPP program is being improved by using license plate readers and mail-in citations. It is critical to improve this program to address the concerns residents face, and I will continue to advocate for improvements. I am not a cosponsor, but I am voting in favor of this bill.

25-0066 is the most controversial. It says that anyone can convert a single family home into a multiunit building and the size of the building depends on how many units can be inserted. This conversion would be “by right,” meaning no public hearing or a way to stop the conversion. Let me be clear that, as drafted, I will vote against this bill.

Baltimore City needs more housing for our residents. I have been fighting every day to ensure we are rehabilitating our vacant and abandoned properties and building on our vacant lots to provide the housing that we need. I have been very clear we need to create intentional mixed income communities as we rebuild. I am a proponent of having all of the tools in the toolbox for making sure we have the units we need for residents.

However, this bill is problematic in several ways:

• While proponents talk about this as a way to have more housing that is affordable, we’ve seen in my district that is not the case. Apartments in the multifamily buildings in Charles Village, where many of these grande houses were converted to multi units, go for at least $1400-$1600 per month, which is not affordable to most residents. 

• Currently, over ⅔ of our rental properties are not properly licensed. We do not have strong enforcement for properties where residents are living in bad conditions. Reforming our landlord licensing law and enforcement is needed before any by right units are made. I have a bill coming to do just this and look forward to working with my colleagues on it.

• Our Building Permit system is still not where we need it to be. Several years ago many of us, myself included, asked DHCD for reforms to the permit system so that permits were issued and inspections were made in a timely manner. A new system was launched in February of this year that was ten times worse than the old system. While that fiasco is getting repaired by the Mayor’s Office and DHCD, we are seeing a significant increase in rehabilitation work on properties without building permits. I fear that such will exacerbate the poor quality work on rental units especially if we allow homes to be divided into multiple units by right. There will be no oversight as to the size of the units or even the quality of repair since several rehabbers are not using permits. This has to be fixed for several reasons, including any issues related to conversions.

• The majority Black neighborhoods in my district would be impacted more than my white communities. In our majority Black neighborhoods in my district, the homes are larger, and by this bill, they would be subdivided more than the homes in my white communities. Moreover, the covenant communities in my district are majority white neighborhoods, and they are exempt from this requirement because the zoning code does not supersede covenants. 

  
  

There are several options for amending this bill, including implementing the Accessory Dwelling Unit authorizing legislation that Senator Washington passed last General Assembly session. Accessory Dwelling Units would be allowed in all zoning districts and in Covenant communities according to her bill. We still need to pass a bill to allow it here.  Accessory Dwelling Units allow for residents to add one unit on their property - so a carriage house can be converted into a “grandma” suite, or a basement unit could be added. 

I hope I have provided some helpful background on these bills and have made my stances clear. I look forward to voting.