Category: Prince George’s County

Testimony: Support with amendments CB 074-2026, allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Prince George’s)

Testimony: Support with amendments CB 074-2026, allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Prince George’s)

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

September 28, 2026

Hon. Krystal Oriadha, Chair, Prince George’s County Council

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

RE: Support with amendments CB 074-2026, allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 

Dear Chair Oriadha and members of the Council:

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. 

CSG supports CB 74, to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a matter of right on lots with single family detached homes. ADUs offer an innovative, smaller housing type that helps residents meet their housing needs. While this bill is required to conform to state law, ADUs have been supported as a helpful housing type in many Prince George’s policies and documents. We are excited to finally be getting to implementation. 

We urge the council to support this bill, without onerous restrictions that make it that much harder to build an accessory living unit. The high cost of building an ADU remains a challenge, even with the lowering of regulatory barriers. Adding costly and complicated requirements will have a major impact on the ability of a resident to build an ADU. 

ADUs offer many benefits

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. Benefits include providing smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood already served by existing infrastructure. These new, smaller homes help fulfill housing needs such as: caregiver housing for an aging homeowner or for an adult child with a disability. A separate living unit on the same lot with a single family home gives a family member independence while also simultaneously providing proximity. 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. 

Avoid overregulating ADUs 

The bill provides a number of reasonable restrictions to ensure that an accessory unit is subordinate to the principal dwelling. However, we recommend the following amendments to avoid unnecessary regulations that discourage the creation of ADUs:

  1. Remove or modify owner occupancy requirement: The owner occupancy requirement discourages ADU construction by creating additional bureaucratic process and uncertainty about changing needs over time for the homeowner. A legal covenant also dampens sales of the property. If the owner occupancy requirement remains, we recommend using the State Department of Assessment and Taxation (SDAT) database to identify owner occupied properties rather than a covenant. 
  2. Avoid a new definition for lot occupancy: the bill lumps associated walkways, patios, or other impervious surfaces with the lot coverage limit of 900 square feet. We recommend not redefining lot coverage but instead regulate impervious areas through existing regulations for imperviousness. 

We advise against overregulating ADUs because they are already costly and challenging to build. Each restriction must be considered carefully so as not render the right to build moot by restrictions that make it effectively impossible. Across the country, as local jurisdictions have lowered restrictions on ADUs, we’ve seen them built. However, other jurisdictions continue to impose too many requirements which are holding back the potential for these smaller homes, and all the benefits that come with them. 

We urge the council to adopt the bill with our proposed amendments. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort, DC and Prince George’s Policy Director

Testimony: Transportation priorities in the Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) FY 2027 – FY 2032, for Prince George’s County

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

September 25, 2026

Hon. Aisha N. Braveboy, County Executive, and Hon. Krystal Oriadha, Prince George’s County Council Chair

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

RE: Transportation priorities in the Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) FY 2027 – FY 2032, for Prince George’s County 

Dear County Executive Braveboy and County Council Chair Oriadha:

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. The following letter reflects the views of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Recommendations for Prince George’s and the Maryland CTP:

  1. Support  continued commitment to WMATA and local transit operations in the FY27-32 Consolidated Transportation Plan (CTP):  We commend Maryland for continued funding of WMATA, the Purple Line, and Prince George’s County’s locally operated transit system (The Bus). We also recognize the additional capital funding needs of WMATA starting in FY28 that were identified in the DMVMoves Plan endorsed by Prince George’s County. Maryland will need to allocate an additional $150 million per year to support state of good repair and system modernization. We ask the county to work with its legislative delegation and MDOT to develop a funding solution for DMVMoves. 
  2. Support continued Complete Streets investments: We commend the state’s robust and needed investment in Complete Streets and Pedestrian Safety Action Plans. These are especially important for Prince George’s, given its disproportionate share of fatal traffic crashes in the state. These investments are essential to get the most out of the state’s infrastructure to ensure safe travel and economic activity. We support the $66.6 million six-year allocation to implement design and construction of PSAP projects. We support moving forward with $21 million for the MD 410 (East-West Hwy) corridor near the Hyattsville Crossing Metro station to improve safety, including the elimination of channelized right-turn lanes, sidewalk construction, pedestrian refuge areas and curb extensions. We are actively working to make the most of the MD 214 (Central Avenue) PSAP and eager to see significant walk, bike and traffic safety improvements along the Central Ave./Blue Line Metro corridor. We also support the creation of a shared-use path to be coordinated with the county’s Central Ave. Connector Trail project. The MD 201 PSAP is an important investment to not only address safety along the corridor but to ensure better access to the new Riverdale Purple Line Station. CSG also appreciates the inclusion of the MD 414/St Barnabas Rd complete streets project in the CTP.
  3. Ensure adequate analysis of alternatives and engagement for VDOT’s 495 Southside Express Lanes project before it can go in the region’s long-range transportation plan: The Virginia Department of Transportation is presenting a revised preferred alternative to local jurisdictions. The new Express Lanes concept does a better job protecting the future option to build Metrorail across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; however, it leaves a number of concerns and questions unanswered. These include traffic impacts at the new bottleneck in Prince George’s where the Express Lanes end and impacts of greater traffic volumes on local roads like MD 210. We are glad to see that VDOT is committing to mitigate traffic impacts on local roads as part of the project, but local communities need this information in advance of commenting on the project. Likewise, many local residents and officials asked VDOT to consider other alternatives like near-term bus lanes and an expanded Travel Demand Management program for the corridor. Prince George’s County and MDOT should ask VDOT to conduct and share analysis of project traffic impacts on local roads with local jurisdictions and MDOT before VDOT takes the project to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board.
  4. Use the current pause on the Medical Center Drive interchange expansion to pursue better approaches for Downtown Largo and Central Avenue corridor connectivity:  We urge the county to work with the state to fully reconsider this problematic roadway capacity expansion project which is programmed for $12 million for engineering, right of way and utilities over the next six years. The proposed designs for an expanded Medical Center Drive and I-495 Interchange undermine nearby transit-oriented development plans and would do little to improve already poor pedestrian access. There are better solutions to support the growth of Downtown Largo and the revitalization of the stadium site. We ask that the county work with the state to make the construction of the Central Avenue Connector Trail and the trail’s Capital Beltway bridge connecting Largo to Morgan Boulevard Metro station a near-term priority. We commend the ongoing PSAP efforts for MD 214. We ask for the redesign for pedestrian safety and access be extended to Downtown Largo. These are important parts of the solution for greater access and connectivity. 
  5. Reconsider the pipeline of unfunded highway capacity expansion projects: Prince George’s and the State of Maryland cannot afford to keep investing in ever bigger roads and intersections that chase spread-out development while neglecting enhanced transit, walk and bicycle facilities, and safer, better connected streets for existing communities. Induced demand also means that these projects generate more traffic and car-dependent development over time – making the situation worse in the long-term. The draft CTP has a number of road widening projects for Prince George’s with no funding on the horizon. The county should use this opportunity to reconsider them and pursue less costly alternatives: safety and operational interventions, improved commuter transit service, bus priority and BRT, and travel demand management programs. We ask Prince George’s and SHA to remove these road capacity projects from the CTP while considering alternative approaches: MD 5 (Branch Ave.) capacity expansions, US 50 capacity expansion study, MD 450 widening, and MD 197 widening. These funded (or partly funded) projects should also be reconsidered: MD 210 grade-separated interchanges, and MD 4 (Pennsylvania Ave.) new interchanges near Westphalia.
  6. Support TOD investments at Bowie State University MARC and further planning around Seabrook MARC station – we commend MDOT for advancing the TOD joint development site at Bowie State University MARC station with the selection of a developer. We look forward to its completion. WSTC is studying TOD potential at the Seabrook MARC station, and ask the county to support follow-up initiatives for future TOD in coordination with MDOT. 
  7. Support MDOT process to improve Chapter 30 project prioritization – CSG is glad to see MDOT’s pilot for a clearer process that helps Maryland communities like Prince George’s get good projects implemented while addressing state priorities like safety, sustainability, and giving residents travel options beyond driving. We were pleased to see Prince George’s also support last year’s legislation by MDOT to improve the Chapter 30 process. 

Again, we appreciate the priority that MDOT has made to transit and complete streets. We urge the county and MDOT to work to revise roadway capacity expansion projects to address safety, create cost-effective multimodal travel environments, and avoid endless cycles of expanded capacity. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Cheryl Cort, DC & Prince George’s Policy Director

Bill Pugh, Transportation & Climate Policy Director

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

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

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

Streamline development review in Prince George’s – reduce uncertainty & excessive process, oppose LDR 153-2026 (Maryland)

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

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

Comments: Support for Missing Middle Housing Study (Prince George’s County)

Posted on by Elena Sorokina

We wish to express our enthusiasm for the county’s innovative missing middle study to address the housing needs of a range of residents. This effort will investigate how to broaden housing options to ensure Prince George’s is a great place to grow up, enjoy young adulthood, raise a family, and age in the community.