Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff to revise zoning text to reflect state rules allowing manufactured and modular homes where single‑family homes are permitted
Summary
Staff said the amendment adopts state definitions and requires permitting manufactured homes where single‑family dwellings are allowed; planning commission recommended unanimous approval. Commissioners closed the hearing after public comment.
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County planning staff presented a proposed zoning text amendment on Sept. 23 to update county code with the terminology and placement rules for manufactured homes and modular dwellings adopted by the Maryland General Assembly during the 2024 session (bill 538). Staff said the change replaces the term “mobile homes” with “manufactured homes,” adds the state’s definitions, and confirms that manufactured homes must be permitted wherever single‑family homes are permitted.
Jill Baker, director of the Department of Planning and Zoning, said the amendment is intended to avoid public confusion about where these dwellings may be sited. “Manufactured homes previously known as mobile homes and modular dwellings are required to be permitted where single family dwellings are permitted,” she said. The planning commission reviewed the proposed text at its April meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Why it matters: the change aligns county language with state law and may affect where factory‑built housing types can be placed in the county. Supporters noted the amendment implements state law and can enable additional housing options; some public commenters expressed opposition to government regulation generally or raised unrelated concerns during testimony.
Public comment included a mix of views. Some speakers criticized broader local government actions; others, including Sean Porter, said they supported the state’s approach because it reduces local barriers to lower‑cost housing types. The commissioners did not adopt the amendment at the hearing; the public hearing was closed and the item will return for further action as appropriate.
Ending: The planning staff’s recommendation reflects state statute; commissioners closed the hearing after public comment and will consider next steps in a future meeting.

