Planning director briefs commission on state solar siting bill, ADU and cannabis legislation

Amy Mordock, Queen Anne's County planning director, used the commission's Feb. 13, 2025 meeting to summarize several state and local legislative items affecting county land use and zoning.

Mordock said the county and the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) are opposing what she described as the Renewable Energy Certainty Act — identified in staff remarks as Senate Bill 931 with a cross‑filed House Bill 1036 — because the bill would preempt local zoning for siting both solar facilities and battery storage. Mordock said the county had participated in a summer work group and had negotiated compromises intended to streamline local reviews while preserving setbacks, landscaping and soil‑removal standards; she said industry representatives withdrew from that collaborative effort and the current bill represents a broader preemption of local siting authority. "We are taking a position of opposition and proposing amendments," Mordock said, and she said Queen Anne's County staff will testify before the Senate Education, Energy and Environment Committee on the matter at a hearing scheduled for the coming Friday at 1:30 p.m.

Mordock told commissioners that county staff has worked with Frederick County planning director Mike Wilkins and other county partners through MACo in preparing comments. When commissioners asked whether the county or MACo would submit testimony, Mordock said both would.

She also briefed the commission on a bill addressing accessory dwelling units (identified in staff remarks as Senate Bill 891 and House Bill 1466), saying a hearing was scheduled for Feb. 25 at 1 p.m. Mordock said the bill incorporates recommendations from an ADU task force but converts several of the task force's recommendations into regulatory changes; she said county staff and a Prince George's County counterpart (Lori Paris) have flagged inconsistencies between the task force report and the bill and that the county is working with MACo to oppose the bill or seek amendments.

Mordock described a separate county initiative tied to state cannabis legislation. She said county commissioners introduced County Ordinance 25.01 to update local cannabis regulations to match minimum state standards and to add odor control measures; she also said delegate activity has produced House Bill 1235 (no cross‑file at the time of her remarks) to establish setbacks for dispensaries and processing locations and that the bill had a scheduled hearing before the Economic Matters Committee on Feb. 25. Mordock said the county's existing local ordinance currently contains more restrictive setbacks than the minimum state standard and that proposed state language could be amended to allow greater local setbacks if jurisdictions sought that change.

Mordock closed with procedural notes: the county's citizen‑sponsored text amendment application window ran the first 10 days of February and closes on Feb. 14 (Valentine's Day); at the time of the meeting staff had received three citizen‑sponsored applications. She also said the county's senior planner position remained open.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions during the update, including whether the renewable energy bill included language to override easements (Mordock said she had not seen such language in the current draft) and whether the renewable energy measure had strong support at the state level (she said it had strong support for moving forward with renewable portfolio goals).