Category: Affordable Housing

Testimony: Amend CB 92-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements in Prince George’s County

Testimony: Amend CB 92-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements in Prince George’s County

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

September 14, 2026

Hon. Wala Blegay, Chair, PHED Committee, Prince George’s County Council

Wayne K. Curry Administration Building, 1301 McCormick Drive, Largo, MD 20774

RE: Amend CB 092-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements

Dear members of the Committee:

Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. CSG advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We also support and work closely with RISE Prince George’s, a group of county residents and allies advocating for policies and practices that build shared, sustainable prosperity in Prince George’s County by creating safe, walkable, inclusive and transit-oriented communities. 

We have several concerns about this bill which could create unnecessary barriers to creating an accessory dwelling unit on a single family detached house lot. 

  1. Owner occupancy – we oppose this requirement as an impediment to creating ADUs. However, if this requirement is implemented, we ask that the provisions for exceptions be broadened to allow more time for an absent owner to rent out the property. We recognize the bill has created a path for new construction, which is welcome. 
  2. Notice – we oppose the provision for an informational notice. The purpose of this is unclear. It creates a new, special notice provision that is an unnecessary burden for an owner who is building and ADU. This notice provision treats the action like a partial variance or special exception process – yet a new process would have to be invented. 
  3. Short term rental – we oppose special restrictions on short term rental for ADUs. We recommend that ADU rentals be governed by county law on short term rentals. Short term rentals should be governed by rental licensing provisions. 
  4. Woodland, Wildlife Conservation and Tree Canopy Coverage ordinances – we oppose this special provision for ADUs to be restricted from variances, waivers. We recommend that the ADU be subject to the same standards in these ordinances. 
  5. Imperviousness surface requirements – we ask that the Council ensure this provision be consistent with existing treatment of single family residential uses. We suggest that the provision for adding a small amount of imperviousness could be addressed by setting a threshold under which new construction can comply with existing permitted imperviousness. We also recognize that the Planning Department comments recommend deleting this provision, as lot coverage can be assessed through the building permit site plan. 

We urge the Committee to support the creation of ADUs, without adding costly and complicated requirements that will have a significant impact on the ability of a resident to build an ADU. 

ADUs offer many benefits to individual families and to the community. ADUs help meet a variety of needs, and often help provide new types of housing close to in-demand locations like Metro stations and downtowns.

ADUs benefit the environment by providing smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood already served by existing infrastructure. This creates more affordable housing options, while better utilizing existing public investments. These smaller homes help fulfill housing needs such as caregiver housing for an aging homeowner or for an adult child with a disability. An ADU can also help a young family afford to have a larger home by allowing them to rent out the unit until they are ready to use the expanded living space for themselves. 

We urge the Committee to remove the burdensome requirements from this bill so we can encourage this flexible type of housing.  It’s hard enough to build an ADU, it might be impossible with costly, complicated restrictions. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort, DC and Prince George’s Policy Director

CSG in the News: Hopes are pinned on Viva White Oak to transform eastern Montgomery County

Posted on by Carrie Kisicki

Carrie Kisicki, the Maryland housing advocacy manager at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said she hopes future projects in White Oak will exceed the county’s affordable housing minimum.

Still, she said, even Viva White Oak units that aren’t designated as moderately priced will help people live more affordably by shortening costly commutes.

ACTION ALERT: Support ADUs in Prince George’s

ACTION ALERT: Support ADUs in Prince George’s

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

On September 3, 2026, the Prince George’s County Council will consider a bill (CB 74) to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This bill is driven by a state law that requires local governments to ease restrictions on ADUs and allow them by right in single family zones. After years of talking about it, now something is finally happening! Send a letter of support to the County Council. Also take a short Council survey on the proposal. Tell them we want ADUs – without a lot of onerous restrictions. 

Send a letter, take the survey

Why we love ADUs

The bill would allow this flexible housing type on a single-family lot, diversifying housing options that can better meet the needs of families and the community. Here are some of the benefits:

  • Allows smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood with existing services;
  • Helps an aging couple add a dwelling so that their adult children can live on the same lot;
  • Enables a family to add a unit for an adult child with a disability, providing both proximity and independence, or provides a caregiver living space;
  • Helps a young family cover the costs of homeownership by renting out a backyard cottage or basement apartment.

What’s in the bill 

The current bill (CB 74-2026) at a County Council committee will legalize ADUs with reasonable rules — which follow the state law which requires local governments to allow ADUs. 

The bill would allow an ADU as a matter of right that:

  • Is on the same lot with a single-family detached house;
  • Is not greater than 75% of the size of, and is subordinate to the principal house;
  • Can be a separate structure (e.g. garage conversion) or an addition to, or inside the existing house (e.g. basement apartment);
  • No taller than 22 feet, or shorter than the principal house;
  • Does not add more than 900 square feet of lot coverage as an addition to the principal house.

These are basic rules that still allow a one or two story accessory independent living unit that is smaller than the principal single-family detached house. This works!

Beware of excessive restrictions

ADUs are often stymied by excessive regulations such as owner-occupancy requirements, and complicated forms, extra reviews and approvals. Send a letter — say you want to welcome ADUs into Prince George’s neighborhoods, without a lot of onerous restrictions. 

Weigh in before the Council’s committee meeting on September 3, 2026

TESTIMONY: Comments on the Draft RFK Campus Master Plan, DC

TESTIMONY: Comments on the Draft RFK Campus Master Plan, DC

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

August 14, 2026

Ms. Anita Cozart, Director, DC Office of Planning

Via: OP.RFKMasterPlan@dc.gov

RE: Comment on RFK Campus Master Plan – Public Comment Draft

Dear Director Cozart:

Please accept these comments on the housing and mobility components of the draft RFK Campus Master Plan on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG). CSG advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. 

In summary:

  1. Affordable Housing – CSG reiterates our support for and expectation that all the housing and affordable housing requirements are met, phased together as the redevelopment plan builds out. 
  2. Gold Line and Transit Center – CSG is concerned that the Gold Line and Transit Center are not given sufficient priority, based on low funding commitments and lack of specificity for location and design in the draft Campus Master Plan. We urge clear commitments to: A) funding final design, construction and operations of the Gold Line BRT service to Union station, and B) the Transit Center’s location, design and buildout, which is the essential platform for attracting and efficiently boarding riders for the Gold Line. The goal should be to make this a transit-first stadium, where motor vehicle parking and private vehicles are minimized and sustainable modes of access maximized. 

We endorse the comments of the RFK Stadium Coalition, which represents residents and stakeholders working to ensure the RFK redevelopment delivers lasting public good through equitable development, environmental stewardship, affordable housing, and fiscal responsibility. We also endorse WABA’s helpful comments on the draft plan. 

Below are CSG’s detailed comments on housing and mobility.

  1. Affordable housing

CSG supports the overall commitment to 6,500 new homes, of which 30% will be affordable at 30% and 60% median family income. The income targeting should be explicitly stated in the plan, which is a requirement in B26-0288 – Robert F. Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025.

CSG supports the plan’s phasing commitment for affordable units, that “To ensure the construction of affordable units keeps pace with market-rate units, the provision of affordable units should be phased so that no less than 30 percent of residential units built at any time are affordable, and the zoning for the campus should ensure compliance with this requirement.” We expect these commitments to be met. 

  1. Transportation for a transit-first stadium

Planned Stadium-Armory Metro station upgrades are critical 

We commend the DC and WMATA commitments to upgrades to double the capacity of Stadium-Armory Metro station for $300 million. We appreciate that these Stadium-Armory Metro Station improvements will include elevators, escalators, stairs, mezzanines, and an expanded north entrance. These improvements will help distribute crowds for orderly, efficient, and safe station operations. These upgrades will be crucial to the success of the stadium as well as improved service for existing residents and future development. 

Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): DC government must commit to funding final design, construction and operations

We strongly support the planning and full implementation of the Gold Line BRT line as a central component of the transportation strategy which relies on transit to provide the largest mode of access. The Gold Line BRT is needed to provide a fast, reliable, high-capacity connection to the Red Line at Union Station in Phase 1. This is to be center-running, dedicated bus lanes on H Street/Benning Road NE to deliver capacity, convenient, and competitive travel time to Union Station for transfers to the Red Line, Amtrak, MARC, and VRE. The Gold Line-Union Station connection would reduce pressure on Stadium-Armory Metro station, served by the Orange/Blue/Silver lines, and replace and improve on the discontinued DC Streetcar.

We commend DC’s $5 million allocation for the 30% Gold Line design. However, deeply concerning is that no funds are identified for the final design, construction, or operations of the Gold Line. DC must identify and program all necessary funding by spring of 2027 to be ready for opening day in 2030. 

Transit Center: show the site and bus priority lanes, and articulate the DC government and Master Plan commitment to implementing it

We are greatly concerned about the vagueness of commitment to the Transit Center in this land use master plan. The Transit Center is essential to attracting and efficiently boarding post-game riders on the Gold Line. 

Per the draft Master Plan:

WMATA’s RFK Campus/Kingman Park Transit Improvements Study recommends a Campus Transit Center station to be located in or near Kingman Commons. The station will have access to dedicated bus lanes and other priority infrastructure that link RFK to Union Station. (Final location and design of bike and bus transit facilities will be determined through future feasibility and engineering studies.) (page 59)

The Transit Center must be shown as a specific site and design concept in the Campus Master Plan. The plan must clearly commit to the Transit Center and the street design with bus priority lanes connecting to Benning Road to ensure high-performance BRT that achieves the needed ridership and reliability. This Master Plan should state that the DC government and this Master Plan are wholly committed to the Transit Center — not just mention that WMATA has made recommendations for a transit station.

Other Mobility Recommendations

Vehicle Parking

This stadium should be a transit-first stadium. This means giving priority to the modes used by the largest share of fans to access games — via Metrorail and Metrobus, along with bicycling, and walking. Motor vehicle parking should be limited. The Master Plan should minimize surface parking as much as possible, make the pause on a third parking garage permanent, and focus on improving access to the area by improved transit, bicycle networks, bicycle parking, and an enhanced walk environment. 

Curbside management for for-hire vehicles

Taxis and for-hire vehicles should be managed to protect the priority movements of buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. Since we fully expect some visitors to use this mode, we should have a plan in place to manage their access and impacts. 

Bike network

We agree with the analysis and recommendations that WABA has provided. Bicycling has great potential to supplement transit access to the stadium if the Master Plan can provide high-quality bicycle facilities including protected bike lanes, convenient bike routes, and convenient, secure, high-capacity parking. The District must create safe cycling connections to areas surrounding the RFK Campus in time for the expected 2030 stadium opening. The District must provide fully protected bikeways across the Anacostia River along Pennsylvania Ave SE, East Capitol St, and Benning Road NE, as shown in the RFK Campus Context Plan, with fully protected bikeways extending into Wards 7 and 8 along those major arterials. Bike share and bike parking are essential, including bikeshare docking stations and bike-valet for events.

Serving a neighborhood

While much of the planning is focused on the stadium and what happens when an event occurs, the District needs to ensure that the existing and new neighborhood can function at all times. For example, significant amounts of bus service will need to operate in the new mixed-use districts every day with or without a game. This bus service needs to be able to get through all day, every day. Similarly, bicycle and walk access should be supported every day.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort

DC & Prince George’s Policy Director