[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6115954,"mediaKeyId","2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97","parentId",2735422,"title","Committee hears 28-page zoning rewrite, holds bill for one week to refine amendments","audioSeconds",8047,"startMs",5680,"endMs",8052740,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97&start=5&end=8052","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97/thumbnail_5680.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6115954/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Committee-hears-28-page-zoning-rewrite-holds-bill-for-one-week-to-refine-amendments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6115954-85afa9c5891f0bb6f7c212cfd1c7f442/orig.mp4?Expires=1775368066&Signature=YRlEsKlpf6Nkaoq-8uk60XpWlVPj~GPr4FMlOxIimXGqt79lUgOE-LG5S5GRziSOLCJSfe4i69Rb5e31veUmTGTQUV3B6UnDf2QkFttEWd2Td4iw3tPMyfm2rEuzeZwhpugMNvsfyTq0UzVmXwFLJfsn4vboN6bMc0MelN7YUtvRXyslOEPJE5N72kL1V8HHr18TepW17Kp8L7FDuuQavhcn6hLa~D3UFBZViD-KlvMD01ZOewtmTinm~c6zY0vzcdqbOZXiAUcy10LC7xbCQMkBt5RbN7IdcWw1WQ1Zbqd2q4kc7mx4Ew6JghiE2yIbE6looeJQvnVBCG8mIwKs6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Baltimore, MD","date","2025-03-21T16:55:43Z","article","The Baltimore City Land Use and Transportation Committee, chaired by Councilman Ryan Dorsey, spent a hearing reviewing Council Bill 2500006, a 28‑page package of zoning code modifications that the committee described as roughly 30 separate changes and two dozen amendments. Committee members continued the matter for one week and set a voting session for Thursday, March 27 at 10 a.m.

The bill is an administration bill from the Planning Department and carries amendments from planning staff and several council members; committee staff described the text as a mix of corrective edits and substantive policy changes. Jeff Hockstetler of the City Solicitor’s Office told the committee that law \"could approve the bill with a minor amendment,\" and the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals and the Department of Housing and Community Development each presented favorable reports. Becky Witt of BMZA said the board had submitted a favorable report, and Jason Wright of the Department of Housing and Community Development said his department “stand[s] behind our favorable bill report.”

Why it matters: The package changes multiple parts of the code that affect how neighborhoods are reviewed and how routine projects move through permitting and appeals. Committee members and agency representatives said the changes aim to correct legacy drafting errors, update procedures for modern notice practices and clarify where planning and design review apply, while some council members and the mayor’s office urged more outreach on particular amendments.

Key elements explained

- Codifying tables and correcting drafting errors: The bill clarifies that certain use tables are codified (not merely explanatory), fixes typos and restores omitted references to the City Council in sections authorizing variance grants. Councilman Dorsey said the change corrects a \"holdover provision\" left from the prior code.

- Planning commission duties and rezoning cadence: The Planning Department moved language that previously read as a mandatory annual comprehensive rezoning to a less prescriptive formulation. Eric Tissot of the Planning Commission explained the change is intended to allow a periodic comprehensive rezoning process \"from time to time\" and to enable an annual window or grouped handling of piecemeal rezoning requests rather than forcing a reading that the city must rezone all parcels every year.

- Design review, accessory dwelling units and multiple principal structures: The package adds site‑plan and design‑review triggers for applications that would create multiple principal structures on a lot and opens discussion on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Dorsey said the changes \"softly open the door\" to wider consideration of ADUs while additional standards remain to be drafted.

- Variances and BMZA standards: Draft language refines variance approval standards (substituting \"peculiar\" for \"unique\" and adding a practical‑difficulty focus), clarifies that variances cannot be used to authorize uses not allowed in a zone, and explicitly lists decisionmakers (zoning administrator, BMZA, City Council). Becky Witt said the code edits borrow standards used elsewhere and remove an unused \"unnecessary hardship\" standard.

- Procedural clarifications: The bill increases the lapse period for variances and conditional uses from one year to two years, aligns posting periods (minor variance posting from 10 to 21 days), modernizes mailed and posted notice requirements and adds language requiring an applicant affidavit in the statement of intent for private‑interest zoning bills.

- Nonconforming structures and conversions: The draft restores explicit language allowing variances for certain expansions of nonconforming structures and revises how legally converted multifamily units are treated when properties sit vacant, a change proponents said would speed rehabs and reoccupations.

Debate and outstanding items

Several council members pushed for narrower drafting on specific amendments. Councilmembers Odette Ramos and Germaine Jones presented an amendment to require City Council review by ordinance for certain large utility facilities in industrial districts (I‑1 and I‑2); Planning staff and the mayor’s office asked for narrower language and outreach because the code definition of \"utilities\" includes many uses (natural gas, power lines, alternative energy systems, fiber optic lines, and more). Tyler Schnell of the Mayor’s Office of Government Relations said he was not prepared to accept that amendment as friendly without consultation.

A proposed amendment from Councilman Dorsey would exempt up to three dwelling units from off‑street parking requirements to ease small conversions and infill housing; several colleagues requested more time and public notice before adopting that change citywide.

Next steps and procedural direction

Dorsey asked sponsors and planning staff to redraft and circulate changes; several speakers asked for written amendments rather than oral revisions. The committee held the bill for one week and scheduled a combined hearing and voting session for Thursday, March 27 at 10 a.m. to receive revised and corrected amendments and to vote.

Ending

Committee members, agency staff and bill sponsors agreed to continue work on targeted clarifications and to use the week ahead to reconcile the mayor’s office, planning and council concerns before the scheduled voting session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Hearing: Land Use & Transportation Committee; March 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Baltimore City Land Use and Transportation Committee, chaired by Councilman Ryan Dorsey, spent a hearing reviewing Council Bill 2500006, a 28‑page package of zoning code modifications that the committee described as roughly 30 separate changes and two dozen amendments. Committee members continued the matter for one week and set a voting session for Thursday, March 27 at 10 a.m.","taxTitle","Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Maryland","taxId",4816,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6115944,"Council debate grows over proposal to waive parking for small conversions; sponsors, colleagues ask for more public review",608,6006850,6615150,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97&start=6006&end=6615","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97/thumbnail_6006850.jpg","/articles/6115944/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Council-debate-grows-over-proposal-to-waive-parking-for-small-conversions-sponsors-colleagues-ask-for-more-public-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6115944-c7d4488b17da3b0d738d10777830f36c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775368066&Signature=np58z0kZLPMquMX-~iIAVdG5D114LqrfSAdQOa4RxxNxHw6Bc2NVHOZf0xf5WyI0ITgzQw~TmUkL5f1Og6Po9nuwaRtFcL1RJya1CTm0bq75DIBhMFriAiOYdwKJyWT4gheS0WqFT-fcJNdwQ7f13SoaUFs3VjFZgr6fAcNEH-sdF5ZdLJOHbIqZG9909jl5abtzl~yIZ6iN1trPrroBbbkXfNZxxEa3q99VscNWUb3X5ZXX2TFtuv6e27bozSC0POd2mgAqTm6kBx7RzKuHcoym5zn7DQU-0CBP3ojXH2vUuxaBgeKxTnzRa1X3zzu5VPR-Q6lKg6HCxZFrzx0CQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilman Ryan Dorsey introduced an amendment during the Land Use and Transportation Committee hearing that would exempt up to three dwelling units from the city’s off‑street parking requirement, a change intended to speed small multifamily conversions and infill housing.

\"When you're creating housing, the first 3 dwellings or up to 3 dwellings require no off‑street parking,\" Dorsey said, explaining the change would also scale required parking for larger projects (for example, a 10‑unit project would need seven spaces under the proposed scheme).

Supporters’ rationale

Proponents, including Dorsey and Councilman Zach Blanchard, said the exemption responds to a repetitive procedural obstacle: conditional‑use conversions routinely require a parking variance and these variances are typically granted, but the process can delay rehabs. Blanchard said expediting conversions \"can add up over time and are meaningful\" for addressing vacant housing by reducing months of delay.

Colleagues raise process and neighborhood impact concerns

Multiple council members asked for more time and broader community input before adopting a citywide change. Councilwoman Felicia Porter said some neighborhoods already struggle with parking supply and asked how the amendment would reconcile with local conditions. Councilman Mark Parker and others urged that the proposal was large enough to require a separate, robust conversation with affected communities.

\"I would suggest that that is, a significant enough change to how our communities operate, that it's worthy of a full and robust conversation,\" Parker said.

Chair Dorsey signaled openness to narrowing the amendment — for example, limiting the exemption to residential conversions rather than applying citywide to new construction — and asked for revised written language before the next session. The committee did not adopt the change at the hearing and held the bill for one week for redrafting and outreach.

Ending

Sponsors said they are willing to consider a narrower carve‑out limited to conversions. Committee members asked for written amendments and more time to solicit public comment before the scheduled March 27 voting session.","Councilman Ryan Dorsey proposed an amendment to eliminate off‑street parking requirements for up to three dwellings (and scale parking by unit count) to streamline small conversions and infill housing; several council members said the change is significant and requested broader public notice and a narrower scope limited to conversions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6115949,"Councilmembers propose ordinance review for large utilities in industrial zones; agencies urge narrower language and outreach",307,1634560,1942310,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97&start=1634&end=1942","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2735422-08de285e7beebbadbd5f92f3a3babe97/thumbnail_1634560.jpg","/articles/6115949/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Councilmembers-propose-ordinance-review-for-large-utilities-in-industrial-zones-agencies-urge-narrower-language-and-outreach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6115949-1f4e4f4ccf4af7a5bdbe687ac64c64b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775368066&Signature=Oc5~JYKcPWdt-OIh86vbsfM6dXjBtpa8vuOPtUD-xfrftE5WIIfzTrlUnxGxePm6CBqwCqYrs~haNKLYkRWfplqxXCXnBYrkHPucS0G4rY9sJeutODDDPQxcOY4saFtZ1roV4wzwShAM7mCfu3XJ5G20rtWhOOvMA-YQ6Ay4pGc3leCE0jbZ-Aypmth-2tssNNz6a1wYaxexYAoOcEAu77~Oi8lFH7RR1aMRaXDpACEvG0KVFcWld4NgosGa79zac-50gnymN988H8PzUs1TzArCk9qDlE0R~1Lk8i~MX7uV0mUInQL1ZA2Tm-jqx9zOZZWTZY4pwcAJyAc-YIY~og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilmembers Odette Ramos and Germaine Jones told the Land Use and Transportation Committee they would introduce an amendment to Council Bill 2500006 to make the placement of large utility facilities in I‑1 and I‑2 industrial districts subject to City Council review by ordinance rather than only a conditional use process.

\"What this basically does is currently in industrial I1s and I2s the placement of large utilities … would be a conditional use by board. What we're proposing to do just in I‑1s and I‑2s, to make that conditional by ordinance,\" said Councilwoman Odette Ramos, describing the amendment as a transparency measure intended to give communities a fuller public process than a zoning hearing alone.

Why sponsors proposed it

Ramos and Jones said the amendment is intended to create a more transparent hearing process for residents when \"large\" facilities—examples given by sponsors included substations and other external electric facilities—are proposed on industrial land that is adjacent to neighborhoods. \"This just allows the community to have a say in what's going on in that neighborhood,\" Councilman Germaine Jones said.

Agency responses and drafting concerns

Planning staff and the mayor’s office urged narrower drafting and more outreach before the committee adopts the change. Eric Tissot of the Planning Commission pulled the bill’s definition of \"utilities\" and read it into the record: utilities, as drafted in the code language under discussion, \"includes natural gas lines, power lines, alternative energy systems, steam lines, telephone lines, cable television lines, fiber optic lines, and other communication lines\" and reaches above‑ground transmission equipment as well.

Tyler Schnell of the Mayor’s Office of Government Relations said he was not ready to accept the amendment as friendly in that hearing: \"I just wanna be transparent about that… I think that there is some outreach that we need to have to our partners, and that we would wanna do to make sure that we are not unnecessarily impacting any projects or anything like that.\" Schnell urged a meeting with sponsors and staff to refine the amendment.

Specific questions raised in committee

- Scope: Council members asked whether the amendment would capture data centers or solar farms. Councilwoman Ramos and Planning Director Ben Gathorn responded that \"a data center is considered a utility\" under the code language discussed, and that solar and alternative energy uses are defined elsewhere in the code and may be captured depending on definitions and drafting.

- Substations and pending permits: Sponsors and planning staff acknowledged the amendment would not be retroactive to projects that already had permits; new projects still in earlier stages would be affected.

Outcome and next steps

The committee did not adopt the amendment at the hearing. Chair Ryan Dorsey asked sponsors and planning staff to work with the mayor’s office and produce a refined written amendment for the next session; the committee held the bill for one week and scheduled a combined hearing and voting session for March 27 at 10 a.m.

Ending

Sponsors said they were open to narrowing the scope to target overhead transmission equipment if that better addresses community concerns; planning staff and the mayor’s office asked for written language and outreach prior to the committee’s vote.","Councilmembers Odette Ramos and Germaine Jones introduced an amendment to require City Council review (by ordinance) for placement of large utility facilities in I‑1 and I‑2 industrial zones. Planning staff and the mayor’s office warned the current language is broad (\"utilities\" includes gas lines, power lines, alternative energy, fiber and more)","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears 28-page zoning rewrite, holds bill for one week to refine amendments

Council debate grows over proposal to waive parking for small conversions; sponsors, colleagues ask for more public review

Councilmembers propose ordinance review for large utilities in industrial zones; agencies urge narrower language and outreach