Transit-connected, walkable communities are highly desirable to many people—and that makes transit, and the land around it, a valuable asset that Baltimore County can better leverage for public benefit.
Category: Maryland
Testimony: Amend CB 92-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements in Prince George’s County
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
A more welcoming + sustainable future for Friendship Heights, MD
Send a message to the Montgomery County Planning Board today to let them know you support a plan that realizes the full potential of a more sustainable, welcoming, and transit-oriented Friendship Heights.
TESTIMONY: CSG Support for ADUs in Prince George’s
CSG strongly supports CB 74, to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a matter of right on lots with single-family detached homes.
ACTION ALERT: Support ADUs in Prince George’s
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.
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
LETTER: CSG and M4All urge veto override for Hedrick appointment
We were deeply disappointed to learn that the County Executive once again plans to veto the appointment of Planning Board Member James Hedrick.
Testimony: Support for Friendship Commons (GEICO Site), Maryland
The Friendship Commons development planned for Friendship Heights’ former GEICO campus will add 500+ homes, 10-foot bikeways and sidewalks, and new businesses and gathering spaces just one block from Metro’s Red Line.
Streamline development review in Prince George’s – reduce uncertainty & excessive process, oppose LDR 153-2026 (Maryland)
July 30, 2026
Prince George’s County Planning Board, M-NCPPC
1616 McCormick Drive, Largo MD Via: pgcpb@mncppc.org
RE: Oppose LDR 153-2026, reduce uncertainty & excessive process
Dear members of the Board:
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.
On behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, we urge the Planning Board to work with Planning Department staff and County Council members to create better development streamlining procedures instead of supporting this LDR. This LDR lacks legal soundness and misses key issues in improving the county’s development review process.
Prince George’s development review process is out of step with best practices. This harms the county by discouraging competitive, quality developers from wanting to take a chance on the county. It short changes community members who want to see planning turn into quality homes, and mixed use places.
The zoning rewrite was supposed to remove procedural burdens. The key goals of zoning rewrite were to streamline and create predictability. It was supposed to provide clear input from the public at the outset. The new zoning rules require a pre-application meeting with the community which is designed to get stakeholders’ feedback at the beginning of the process — before the development team had invested in costly plans and advanced designs. Before this requirement, the community often found out about a project in their area with a Planning Board hearing notice.
As part of the modernization of the zoning regulations — the zoning rewrite set a clear baseline that could be reviewed administratively. The code was made more regulatory, providing more detailed, form-based standards.
The new zoning code would streamline review with increased public engagement on the front end, followed by administrative, matter-of-right review that did not require additional steps of discretionary or political-level review on the back end. However, the administrative unpredictability was retained through “election to review” or “call up” by the County Council. This meant zoning regulations were more detailed but all the procedural uncertainties remained. This is not the improvement and streamlining we had hoped for.
Far more development review could be done administratively. Detailed Site Plans (DSPs) are often a poor use of everyone’s time. The staff report for LDR 153-2026 recommends exempting single-family detached and three family dwellings from DSP review, citing the negligible value added after a subdivision review, which addresses all the major impacts and requirements. Two-family dwellings could also be grouped with townhouse dwellings and the DSP threshold increased.
Most importantly, retaining the District Council election to review an application or “call up” — stands out as a major impediment to predictability for the review process. The public engagement is on the front side of planning and individual projects. Call up generates uncertainty on the back end that takes applicable laws, zoning regulations, and master plan recommendations into a political realm. If the county cannot catch up to other jurisdictions by eliminating call up, it should at least set new parameters around it to limit the downsides of this approach.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort
DC & Prince George’s Policy Director
ACTION ALERT: This office campus can become a transit-oriented community
The Friendship Commons development planned for Friendship Heights’ former GEICO campus could add 500+ homes, 10-foot bikeways and sidewalks, and new businesses and gathering spaces just one block from Metro’s Red Line.