The City Council’s handling of Bill 25-0066 – a history-making Zoning Code amendment already marred by the body’s refusal to mail notices to affected property owners and the premature closure of public testimony – just got worse.

In addition to the unsupported claims of the public benefit of this upzoning measure, we’re now seeing proposed new language touted, cynically, as bringing the city into compliance with the state’s 2025 Accessory Dwelling Unit mandate.

Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, are described by the Maryland Department of Planning as “smaller, independent dwelling units, attached or detached, located on the same lot as a stand-alone single-family home.”

Many Maryland jurisdictions already allow ADUs, including neighboring Anne Arundel, Howard, Baltimore and Harford counties, as do various jurisdictions across the country.

ADUs “advance the state’s Sustainable Growth Policy and Planning Principles, which endorse a mix of quality housing types and affordability options to accommodate all who want to live in the state,” the Maryland Planning Department website says.

“ADUs offer a practical strategy for slow densification and addressing land scarcity, particularly when their design aligns with existing neighborhood characteristics,” the department’s ADU task force concluded.

To write ADU’s into Baltimore’s zoning code will not be a simple task. Chairman Dorsey’s paltry amendment language doesn’t cut it.

Last April, Gov. Wes Moore signed a law giving all jurisdictions, including Baltimore, until October 1, 2026 to amend their zoning codes to allow one ADU on any lot that has a detached single-family dwelling.

The law states, “It is the policy of the State to promote and encourage the creation of accessory dwelling units on land with a single-family detached dwelling unit as the primary dwelling unit in order to meet the housing needs of the citizens of Maryland.”

To write ADUs into Baltimore’s zoning code for the first time, even if only to comply with this mandate, will not be a simple task. The ADU is a new housing type for the city.

In addition to being clearly defined, it has to be added to the Use and Bulk Regulations table for each zoning district where it is allowed, indicating whether it is approved as a “conditional use” or “by right,” and establishing size, setbacks and other regulations.

Other jurisdictions have been getting on with the business of amending their zoning codes as needed. But the Scott administration has notably failed to submit a bill to comply with the state’s ADU mandate.

Apparent Contradiction

Paradoxically, last May, or a few weeks after the Governor signed the ADU measure, Bill 25-0066 was introduced by Councilman Ryan Dorsey and several colleagues with language that actually defies the state mandate – it prohibits secondary dwellings in the city zones where detached single-family dwellings are the norm.

(This is the language: “8-201. Common standards. In the districts described in this subtitle, residential development is limited to either 1 single-family dwelling unit per lot or 1 low-density multi-family dwelling.”)

Roland Park, Hamilton, Howard Park, Forest Park, Morrell Park, Ednor Gardens-Lakeside, Cheswolde, West Arlington and Mt. Washington are just some of the neighborhoods with a large number of properties in these (R-1-A through R-4) zones that would be excused from the provisions of the state’s ADU legislation.

Why would the Scott administration want to introduce the development of four-unit dwellings into single-family detached districts, while expressly prohibiting ADUs from being built on single-unit properties?

Was it because under state law, ADUs don’t double, triple or even quadruple the density in those zones, which his bill proposed to do?

Since then, Eric Tiso, land use chief for the Baltimore Planning Department, has claimed that under Bill 25-0066, the city would “outperform” the state mandate.

At a November hearing of the Land Use Committee, Tiso asserted that the bill would accommodate the state mandate in every way. Never addressed, however, was the elephant in the room – the language in Bill 25-0066 prohibiting secondary dwellings in the R-1-A through R-4 zones.

Simple Treatment of Complex Issue

At the February 12 Land Use Committee work session on Bill 25-0066, Chairman Dorsey brought forth some ADU language and took credit for drafting it. He said the amendment was crafted to “exactly” carry out the state mandate, “without doing more than is required in the state law, while also retaining all of the intent of 25-0066.”

But what Dorsey was proposing was not what the state intended because there was no attempt to remove the bill’s prohibition on secondary dwellings in the detached house zones.

Dorsey’s definition of an ADU relates it to a “principal dwelling” without defining that term or indicating the types of “principal dwelling” that would be allowed to have secondary dwellings. A rowhouse? Multi-Family? Fraternity house?

His amendments do not indicate the zoning districts where his alternate version of ADUs would be allowed, and do not provide specific regulations other than height. Could a secondary dwelling be built over a parking pad? Could it be built up to a shared lot line? Could it have an entrance on an alley?

What about city neighborhoods with deed covenants, which appear to be subject to the state ADU mandate? Those residents generally live in R-1-A through R-4 districts, where Scott’s bill has put that prohibition excluding them.

In other words, it’s a mess.

Details like these have to be hammered out when adding ADUs to the city’s zoning code. Dorsey’s tortuous attempt to explain why he didn’t include these necessary elements was unconvincing. The only thing that came through clearly was his continued dedication to the density-boosting goals of Bill 25-0066.

This effort to slip paltry “ADU” language into Bill 25-0066 after closing down public testimony has made a bad bill worse.

For Baltimore to comply with the state’s ADU mandate, there has to be a thorough legislative process on a standalone bill with clear, unambiguous language that allows everyone to understand what is allowed and what is not. At the very least, what is allowed has to match what state law requires.

• Joan Floyd is a Remington resident and longtime advocate of fairness and due process in city land use matters.