On September 15, the Charles County Board of Commissioners cast a 3-1 vote to introduce a zoning bill aimed at establishing a new housing category termed “Mixed Residential Community” within the medium- and high-density residential zones of the county. This decision was met with opposition from one commissioner, who raised concerns about the financial implications for taxpayers as the board moved forward without a comprehensive understanding of the associated costs.
The passage of this bill paves the way for a public hearing scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27. The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format, allowing residents to participate both in-person and virtually, as indicated in Charles County’s official announcement.
Overview of the Proposed Legislation
The proposed legislation, officially identified as Bill 2026-10 or Zoning Text Amendment #26-191, seeks to revise the county’s zoning codes to accommodate a more diverse mix of housing types. This includes single-family homes, cottages, townhouses, duplexes, and multi-family structures on a single plot or development site within the Medium-Density Residential (RM) and High-Density Residential (RH) zones. The proposal, submitted on March 24 by an attorney representing the applicant, also introduces a “cottage dwelling” category with a smaller minimal footprint. Furthermore, it mandates that any such projects attain Planning Commission approval for an “alternative design and development code,” which governs aspects like site layout, building placement, architecture, landscaping, and open spaces.
During the meeting, Senior Planner Kirby Bloss reassured the commissioners that the amendment had already undergone a review to ensure it aligned with the county’s comprehensive plan and affordable housing initiatives. This was detailed in a briefing provided to the Planning Commission on May 18, followed by a public hearing on July 20, where it received unanimous support from the Commission.
Inclusion of Affordable Housing Measures
Planning Supervisor Joel Binkley informed the commissioners that subsequent to a public input session from a former Planning Commission member at the July hearing, an additional component was added to the bill. Instead of implementing a blanket density increase for affordable housing developments across the entire RH zone, this amendment allows developers focusing on 100% affordable units within the RH zone to access the same density bonus as those employing Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). This approach aids the county’s objective of directing growth away from agricultural lands and rural areas.
Binkley mentioned that this modification aims to jump-start the county’s existing Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program, which offers a voluntary density bonus for affordable housing. He noted that this bonus had gone virtually unused since its implementation due to its inadequate appeal to developers. The change responds to recommendations outlined in the county’s comprehensive plan of 2016 and the affordable housing strategy adopted in 2025, both advocating for a future transition toward a mandatory set-aside program that he indicated would require substantial research, which the county is not currently able to undertake.
Debate Among Commissioners
Commissioner Gilbert Bowling, who proposed the introduction of the bill, initially did not receive a second for his motion. He pressed for a thorough fiscal analysis to determine the potential costs associated with the new affordable housing units regarding services such as fire, sheriff, and education, set against the anticipated decline in property tax revenue that these properties might incur. Bowling expressed concern about how the overall pool of property taxes would be affected, stating that the impact of costs linked to any rezoned property would ultimately be distributed among all county taxpayers, rather than just those in proximity to new developments. He also noted the existing imbalance in the county’s property tax base, which leans more heavily on residential rather than commercial and industrial revenues, coupled with a significant state budget shortfall that may lead to additional financial burdens on counties.
In contrast, other commissioners voiced that the current housing shortage itself presents a financial burden. One commissioner highlighted the prevalence of multiple generations living together due to the lack of affordable housing options, while another pointed out that young adults are being forced out of the county, leading to a growing number of “couch surfers.” County Attorney E. Wesley Adams III emphasized that according to Charles County Code §297-447(H), the commissioners are obliged to organize a public hearing within 45 days of receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendation; otherwise, the applicant could pursue legal action to compel a decision from the county.
Ultimately, the board approved the introduction of the bill with a 3-1 vote, comprising Commissioners Thomasina Coates, Amanda Stewart, and Reuben Collins in favor, while Bowling opposed. Commissioner Ralph Patterson was not present for the vote. A subsequent vote also passed 3-1, setting the date for the October 27 public hearing, with Bowling casting another dissenting vote.
Looking Ahead
The upcoming hearing on October 27 will provide an opportunity for residents, developers, and county officials to express their thoughts before the new board members are seated following the November elections. Commissioners observed that the timeline for this process may extend into the tenure of the newly elected board, suggesting that the final decision regarding the zoning changes could be made by commissioners who have yet to be sworn into office.
