Maryland bill would loosen zoning and parking rules to spur transit‑oriented development

Maryland Department of Transportation officials told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Jan. 30 that House Bill 80 would remove local parking minimums near rail stations, allow mixed‑use development by right within a half‑mile of rail stations and exempt certain state‑owned transit parcels from local zoning if the department prepares a master development plan.

The bill’s backers say the changes would make state transit investments easier to leverage for new housing and economic development while critics and county officials warned the measure, as written, could override local land‑use controls and public‑facility limits.

“The opportunity that transit oriented development presents the state and its residents is immense,” Joe McAndrew, assistant secretary for project development and delivery at the Maryland Department of Transportation, told the committee. McAndrew said development around MDOT‑owned land in the Baltimore core service area and along the Penn Line corridor could yield more than 6,000 housing units and about $1.6 billion in state and local tax revenue; WMATA development near Maryland Metrorail stations could yield nearly 18,000 housing units and roughly $2.8 billion in additional tax revenue, he said.

Why it matters: supporters say HB 80 leverages existing transit investments to create housing, increase ridership, reduce climate emissions from driving and produce tax revenue. The bill would: remove minimum off‑street parking requirements near rail stations so parking supply is market‑driven; establish mixed‑use zoning by right in a 0.5‑mile radius around rail stations; allow pooling of special taxing districts for corridor‑level financing; expand the 2023 transit‑oriented development capital grant and loan fund to support early planning; and clarify that MDOT joint developments follow BPW approval and are exempt from ordinary state procurement rules for purchasing but subject to development solicitations and state MWBE and executive‑order requirements.

Supporters from transit agencies and planning groups said the state already benefits from TOD and that the proposed changes would remove obstacles. “This bill seeks to remedy those issues and, if passed, has the potential to yield significant economic benefits for the Baltimore region and the state,” Jennifer Veil of the Greater Baltimore Committee said. Cheryl Court of the Coalition for Smarter Growth said TOD reduces household transportation costs and unlocks underused state parcels.

Committee members pressed MDOT and witnesses on details. Delegates asked whether the bill would apply statewide, whether parking reductions would leave riders unable to reach transit for errands, and whether counties with limited transit service would be forced to eliminate parking. McAndrew said the bill would not ban parking but would remove minimum requirements; he and other MDOT witnesses said parking would likely continue to be built where markets demanded it and that some projects—public or private—may still build garages to serve riders.

Members raised other concerns: Delegate Naraki said the language that “a legislative body may not take any action to preclude mixed use development” is overly broad, noting a station in his district sits near a site that contains hazardous materials and that counties may need to restrict certain uses. Delegate Keighton asked whether prior work on House Bill 538 (the governor’s bill last year) would be undone; MDOT said this bill targets zoning and would not change local adequate public facilities ordinances but acknowledged the draft needs clarifying language. Delegates also pressed MDOT on procurement exemptions and whether prevailing wage or project labor agreements could still apply; MDOT representatives said the administration expects existing goals (including MWBE goals) and the Governor’s executive orders to remain applicable and that BPW approval still would occur for joint developments.

Local governments’ associations said they support TOD goals but want clear limits and local flexibility. The Maryland Municipal League and Maryland Association of Counties said they were “support with amendments,” citing examples where parking minimums had enabled viable affordable housing projects and urging guardrails to avoid unintended consequences. Several county delegates asked MDOT for follow‑up language clarifying the boundaries between state‑owned parcels and local zoning authority and to write explicit safeguards for safety, height limits and environmental review.

Witnesses from Metro and advocacy groups pushed back against fears that the bill would eliminate local oversight of public‑sector projects. Liz Price of WMATA said many Maryland jurisdictions already use TOD zoning and that projects reviewed under local rules deliver affordable units in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties; she said the bill expands financial tools and aligns policy to accelerate station‑area redevelopment.

What’s next: committee members signaled further subcommittee negotiation and possible amendments to narrow the bill’s zoning preemption language and to spell out labor, MWBE and public‑project protections.

Ending: HB 80 drew broad interest from transit and planning advocates, rail agencies and local officials. Supporters argued the bill would help convert surface parking and other underused state land into housing and mixed‑use centers; opponents urged clearer limits to protect local land‑use authority, public‑facility requirements and safety constraints. The committee requested follow‑up information and pledged additional drafting before a final vote.