Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Bill Advances After Task Force Work; Sponsors Urge Local Flexibility and Safety Standards
Summary
House Bill 1466 would require local governments to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with objective standards and safety compliance, drawing on a statewide task force report recommending deregulatory best practices.
Delegate Stewart, a member of the statewide accessory dwelling unit (ADU) task force, presented House Bill 1466, which would require local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances legalizing ADUs with objective standards and reasonable design rules. Stewart said the bill was grounded in the task force’s report, which reviewed national experience and found ADUs are inexpensive to build, can help families and seniors, and have not produced measurable parking or property value harms in jurisdictions studied.
Nut graf: The bill tries to strike a balance — it would legalize ADUs as a use by right while allowing counties and municipalities to set objective limits (size relative to the primary unit, setbacks, safety and building‑code compliance); opponents argued for exceptions where infrastructure (alley access, narrow streets) makes ADUs infeasible.
Stewart said ADUs typically cost $45,000–$90,000 to construct and provide flexible housing for extended families, caregivers or supplemental rental income. He emphasized evidence from jurisdictions like Portland and California where ADU production accelerated after deregulatory steps. Supporters included local councilmembers, AARP, housing advocates, interior designers and builders who emphasized life‑safety code compliance and predictable objective standards.
Municipal staff from Hagerstown and members representing older urban neighborhoods urged local exemptions: Hagerstown asked limits for properties with alley access that is too narrow for emergency vehicles and asked that ADU mandates be limited to single‑family properties or allow local governments discretion to protect already crowded neighborhoods.
The hearing paused later in the session to receive the governor’s Housing for Jobs Act testimony. Stewart and witnesses said they would offer targeted amendments to clarify owner‑occupancy, permitting timelines and definitions (for example, whether the bill preempts local household occupancy limits). The sponsor emphasized a practical approach to avoid over‑prescriptive statewide rules that would suppress ADU uptake.
Ending: Committee discussion was lively and cooperative; delegates asked for clarifications on owner‑occupancy, parking, and the 90‑day approval timelines. The sponsor agreed to provide amendments and continue negotiating with county and municipal stakeholders.
