[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6427833,"mediaKeyId","5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194","parentId",5893621,"title","Prince George’s County committee backs limits on new drive‑through fast‑food restaurants, adds pickup‑window exemption","audioSeconds",2336,"startMs",319905,"endMs",2656530,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194&start=319&end=2656","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194/thumbnail_319905.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6427833/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Prince-Georges-County-committee-backs-limits-on-new-drivethrough-fastfood-restaurants-adds-pickupwindow-exemption","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427833-8719c613710eb0a9ba056d874a9b8267/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193075&Signature=R9unvehsj3oehVTxUgplo7gWSO5i0TU4U5ebYxGTLPf6-2Lyym20YIdqqanR2ueAVrYa625w2iyynlEKu3YaNRkEnEnAA0qdwuWSQlkZ2A-wFU65H1T6nJWiclOjhxusvEMsdYRkYFBjHorBEEMl6y5AgoJJhQefmxjyvDWlQIgLVdcJhduUXi6kzqYlvS09luYzAR5BumeAjTMcc67oE1X-k0GXE3IpRVPdjPmEnbmaKJGvkGEFmnooOMxL78UWJ2TLhgn1Kk5akRy6EhDIT1NC0nWOb94gJyhGJRBA2L6ZUX4FtfF40ApFp~bn96phI9D~voMH5Qgx9DDWpEjSNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-10-02T00:00:00Z","article","The Prince George’s County Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee voted Tuesday to recommend favorable passage of CB 69 (2025), a zoning bill that would prohibit most new quick‑service restaurants with drive‑through service in residential zones and require a special‑exception review in certain commercial zones.

The action follows hours of testimony from planning staff, local residents and business representatives and an amendment the committee adopted that exempts restaurants that have only a pickup window and no menu board or ordering station. Committee Chair DeNoga moved the pickup‑window exemption; the amendment passed 4–1 and the committee then approved the bill as amended by a 5–0 vote.

The bill’s sponsor and supporters said the measure aims to reduce traffic, idling and “food‑swamp” effects in walkable and residential areas. “Continuing to permit these kinds of restaurants in Prince George’s County runs completely counter to so many of the policies, goals and purposes laid out in our general plan,” public commenter Greg Smith said during the hearing. Jeffrey Collins, vice chair of the Sierra Club of Prince George’s County, urged the committee not to wait for a county health study before acting and said drive‑throughs “directly increase carbon emissions and degrade air quality.”

County planning staff and the county executive’s office had recommended holding the bill until completion of the county’s Health Atlas study. Shaquan Smith, a planner in the planning director’s office, said the planning board’s recommendation to pause the proposal was based on a desire for data on traffic and environmental impacts and concerns about drafting and definitions. “There are different effects… including traffic, environmental and so forth, but we do not have that data to actually prove that,” he told the committee.

The committee’s amendments took several planning‑office suggestions into account. County staff and the bill’s drafters replaced the phrase “fast food restaurants with drive‑thrus” with the zoning definition “quick service restaurants with drive through service;” removed certain code cross‑references; and changed a proposed hard hours‑of‑operation limit (6 a.m.–11 p.m.) to allow the Zoning Hearing Examiner to determine appropriate hours on a case by case basis. The draft also moved an uncodified exemption date from July 1 to Oct. 1, 2025.

Business and franchise interests warned the committee about the bill’s broad language. Brenda Mahoney of the Restaurant Association of Maryland said many quick‑service outlets are locally owned franchise businesses and asked for more objective standards for “excessive concentration” rather than subjective community‑need tests. An attorney for a shopping‑center owner said he had projects near permit and requested exemptions for properties that had preliminary plans approved.

The key amendment the committee adopted reads, in summary, that the prohibition “shall not apply to a quick service with drive through service use that is limited to a pickup window and has no menu board or ordering station for customers to order food or drinks.” Committee members said the change was intended to carve out app‑order pickup windows (for example, some Chipotle or Cava operations) while keeping drive‑through lanes subject to special‑exception review.

After the amendment vote (Ayes: Chair DeNoga; Adam Stafford; Councilmember Hawkins; Vice Chair Oriada. No: Councilmember Olson), the committee approved a motion for a favorable recommendation as amended. The committee also directed staff to consider a narrow effective‑date exemption for projects with preliminary plan approvals that are already in progress; members said they would work out specific effective‑date language before introduction to the full council.

The bill will next go to the full council for introduction and further action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee - CB-069-2025 Draft 2A added*","oneSentenceSummary","The Prince George’s County Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee voted Tuesday to recommend favorable passage of CB 69 (2025), a zoning bill that would prohibit most new quick‑service restaurants with drive‑through service in residential zones and require a special‑exception review in certain commercial zones.","taxTitle","Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",3378,"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},6427816,"PHED committee advances CB‑43 to allow residential conversions in CGO zones with grandfathering language to be finalized",3599,3041146,6641015,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194&start=3041&end=6641","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194/thumbnail_3041146.jpg","/articles/6427816/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/PHED-committee-advances-CB43-to-allow-residential-conversions-in-CGO-zones-with-grandfathering-language-to-be-finalized","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427816-c4a8ba6af63a3d7c27b61274841f84f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193075&Signature=CAl2GMfZeR1FJ7hDJjDUdedYNzJleQ~KpxhYk3ODEAEMDWdUclBdWXuTRyiCA647V1zTaWYQA18LylUYnbhbGXPW6b6jMlBmE9QYKEVCqhY2~ylk5KX6xNYKj2qZ9WKzufqWCrvC0RNiHk3WdukVHj0EX0dLt5mUSMhO212LR076rCIj44fvL~ptcElIzdhwRjD1kRNCOeyXutbJBa9GI-6er2Z6lJiPwEpBnbJAkyytAEITJ30kuBPtc8bQQEueaOODNFm13VJuLlnCG-uz3dde-TCupwvuhONteMALUejBdCPjm6zdWT7NPr~u0jQtOvxzEW6nIVFUDaH0B8FPuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince George’s County PHED Committee voted 5–0 to forward CB 43 (2025) to the full council with amendments intended to protect applicants who already submitted or were far along in approvals when last year’s zoning amendments were litigated.

Sponsor remarks and multiple public commenters framed CB 43 as a corrective measure to allow residential conversion of underused or obsolete office properties and to provide flexibility for redevelopment in CGO zones. The sponsor said the draft was amended to soften the earlier limits on residential development and to “provide relief for developers who want to convert an existing office building to a residential building.”

County legislative staff and the county executive’s legislative director discussed the need for careful drafting; the executive’s office suggested separating programmatic initiatives such as incentives or tax abatements from the ordinance. Planning staff also flagged concerns and urged attention to master‑plan consistency. The planning director’s office reiterated that CGO zones were intended to encourage mixed use and noted that technical issues in prior drafts required correction.

The committee adopted an amendment (Amendment 1) to the uncodified effective date that exempts projects proposing in a CGO zone that received detailed site plan approval under the current zoning ordinance prior to Nov. 30, 2025; members said they would continue to negotiate final effective‑date language to ensure projects that had started the approval process before litigation were not unfairly disadvantaged. Committee members also signaled interest in requiring minimum retail or mixed‑use components for certain office‑to‑residential conversions.

Several developers and property owners testified in support, saying conversions are necessary to rescue dead or dying office parks and to generate housing in areas where office vacancy has led to blight. Opponents and community speakers raised concerns about traffic, school impacts and the loss of commercial uses; one public commenter called the approach “red tape dressed up as democracy.”

Office of law advised that the committee’s grandfathering amendment mitigated certain legal risks. The committee’s favorable recommendation preserves the bill’s general direction while asking sponsor and staff to refine the effective‑date and mixed‑use language before introduction to the council.","The PHED Committee voted 5–0 to advance CB 43 (2025), an ordinance addressing residential uses and conversions in the county's Commercial General Office (CGO) zone, and adopted amendments to protect applicants already far along in the approval process.",{"_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},6427825,"PHED committee holds CB-72 to convert fast‑track restaurant permitting into a pilot resolution",287,2735880,3023015,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194&start=2735&end=3023","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194/thumbnail_2735880.jpg","/articles/6427825/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/PHED-committee-holds-CB-72-to-convert-fasttrack-restaurant-permitting-into-a-pilot-resolution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427825-11a82c0c126871386cef06e4f42d38fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193075&Signature=EBN2U5Y-fzAWjIKDqMv75O4~Msj91U3h67cayQKk-NcYu4n0UMDaAjKMzG3bfzh~F60~aeHjLQ8DfHfcIPZEtN7sL4WraZ46pi~hThRdTzuTP8lcq2vjS6pyq6Lz1HHU8qk3afDpk79lSgt6B64u3KMgpP1jYqSF~RK2s4Ps4n2YStZeOVsGccGHvRJwMQf8gJMr-sEmJ7hXJv68v~j5k-g0BQNzK3XjWVOeqgoii0kuUJWeprb1je2iBBs70k4aJPO-siGMy6CW75hpGikXutpZVc1alyYeZfHqHuWsfYjYCuVXEE8j-3fnGKny~OuaEYCaGdjdkbHngARGv-1EEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince George’s County PHED Committee voted to hold CB 72 (2025), a bill that would create a fast‑track permitting concierge, preapproved restaurant build‑out plans and expedited permit review aimed at encouraging sit‑down restaurants in underserved areas. Sponsor Vice Chair Oriada said the measure was intended to make it easier for small operators — including food trucks eyeing brick‑and‑mortar locations — to move into underserved parts of the county.

Oriada told the committee she had discussed the proposal with administration leadership and agreed to convert the ordinance into a pilot resolution under the county’s business development services to test the idea without immediate codification. Committee member Owens said she was “favorable” to the approach after the discussion. The committee then voted 5–0 to hold the bill; members said the pilot route would allow the administration and council to develop a program without creating permanent code changes now.

Planning staff and the budget and policy division had recommended waiting until the Health Atlas study is complete; DPIE submitted comments opposing the legislation in its current form, and the office of law found draft 1 not to be in proper legislative form. The committee’s hold means staff and the sponsor will develop a resolution or pilot program for later committee consideration.","Councilmembers agreed to hold CB 72 (2025), a bill proposing a fast‑track permitting concierge and preapproved restaurant build‑out plans to accelerate sit‑down restaurant development, and to instead pursue a pilot resolution under the administration’s business development services.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427808,"Committee requires applicant certification — not DPIE — for municipal notice of use‑and‑occupancy applications",308,6661005,6969035,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194&start=6661&end=6969","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194/thumbnail_6661005.jpg","/articles/6427808/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-requires-applicant-certification-not-DPIE-for-municipal-notice-of-useandoccupancy-applications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427808-1075797227793716008e2a654629b4f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193075&Signature=RtrbbVf0f4qh~xWYFCOseKGNKnahRuZRcx-Ow-Re2a7guK7E9-xnjJG-MOtCf4sr2PmG7q~0Go8ZGPeensvQxnVxQWho-fGh8EEE6~Q8dCqB6-tLvoeXUU9sdyMmqizZ~qNo~Um3IFc9Z4AALq3ovx5q2j7X8XSyoYJgJpVS5BGEd-RB-TJiayU449ds-2RqmzBMrTh16PdfEqBe1m-ClkJaTLR7VNH92JJND5tXJ8cxWeAu4kMyLnQjMN8FJxDjwjTryrTYTk81akA4lOWAS8H5KJUrr8BIYmV406jDKRnaiuOahPkM3q0x-MN9wfnYUNdAcY47U6hJ0Y1BD~dcGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The PHED Committee unanimously approved an amendment and a favorable recommendation Tuesday on CB 77 (2025), a bill addressing municipal notification for county use‑and‑occupancy permit applications. The committee changed the draft to place the notification requirement on applicants and to allow DPIE to add an attestation checkbox to its online permitting application.

Sponsor Councilmember Riata said she and DPIE staff agreed that requiring applicants to certify municipal notification would place the administrative burden with the permit applicant while allowing DPIE to add an online attestation field. Laurie Paris, chief of staff at DPIE, told the committee her department can add an attestation to the online permitting application that would require the applicant to confirm municipal notification; she said DPIE would soon provide timing for that update.

The Office of Law found the bill, as amended, to be in proper legislative form. Councilmember Owens said the county executive’s staff preferred an administrative fix but was satisfied with the compromise to rely on an applicant certification and online attestation. The committee voted 5–0 to adopt the sponsor’s amendment and then to forward the bill with a favorable recommendation.

Committee members said the approach reduces DPIE’s administrative burden while preserving notice for municipalities that request to be alerted to use‑and‑occupancy filings.","The PHED Committee amended and approved CB 77 (2025) to require applicants, rather than DPIE staff, to certify that they have notified municipalities when filing county use‑and‑occupancy permit applications; the change won unanimous committee approval.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427801,"Committee recommends clarification of administrative appeal and judicial‑review process in CB‑62",282,47905,330120,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194&start=47&end=330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893621-71803ff786641a4a58af19172c17d194/thumbnail_47905.jpg","/articles/6427801/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Committee-recommends-clarification-of-administrative-appeal-and-judicialreview-process-in-CB62","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427801-90face023acf877fb0306ed1ef5447cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193075&Signature=W-kwKbVyF~iHmtRAroc9zVKIUrYzHZo~~hYU9TcnExBrNYn-b2STIU4MA7ptkUPK13l52u5Vg-s6~FKAyX~S7mRqGm7xjFfs0VWLy61P841ya6cA2SgeqLjP1DG-tKfnrvvW9HCG3Cpn3LmutOS9nh7ukXnaTV-hN-dG9KgzxKCPXbar27rbzPqvMQ8ib35DrfJAfgTfZqIbirUyyqWdnmrtwQG26cz6xrM4jSwItAbBXcLUyJ6msW-WpzAcZBTXDemHzG17jhBnKzOws3qGXJUoLFgKAfzzFg22mRFWyWGrS9nJYQCq~DpWWYERN54pov4INt6egdUah6mQ9bis-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The PHED Committee voted to recommend favorable consideration of CB 62 (2025), a bill aimed at clarifying administrative appeal procedures and aligning appellate rights for administrative citations.

Committee staff and legal counsel described Draft 2 as removing previously proposed reconsideration language and clarifying that judicial review remains available for decisions from an administrative hearing unit or a hearing officer. Laurie Paris, chief of staff for DPIE, told the committee the changes resulted from discussions among counsel, legal staff and agency representatives and that Draft 2 addresses staff concerns.

Office of Law advised that the amendments are in proper legislative form and that both the prior acting county executive and the current county executive requested favorable consideration. Councilmember Owens thanked staff and requested favorable consideration. The committee voted to recommend Draft 2 favorably; the record shows a 5–0 vote in support.

The committee’s recommendation will send the clarified appellate language to the full council for consideration.","CB 62 (2025) — a technical change clarifying the exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking judicial review and aligning appellate rights for administrative citations — received a favorable recommendation in draft 2 after staff and Office of Law revisions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Prince George’s County committee backs limits on new drive‑through fast‑food restaurants, adds pickup‑window exemption

PHED committee advances CB‑43 to allow residential conversions in CGO zones with grandfathering language to be finalized

PHED committee holds CB-72 to convert fast‑track restaurant permitting into a pilot resolution

Committee requires applicant certification — not DPIE — for municipal notice of use‑and‑occupancy applications

Committee recommends clarification of administrative appeal and judicial‑review process in CB‑62