The Baltimore City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee held a lengthy hearing on Council Bill 25‑0066, the Housing Options and Opportunity Act, stopping short of a final committee vote after hours of staff presentations, agency reports and public testimony for and against the measure.

Tyler Schneller, deputy director of government relations in the mayor’s office, framed the measure as part of a broader $3,000,000,000 housing initiative to reduce vacancy and expand 'missing middle' housing. Schneller said the bill would allow 2‑ to 4‑unit multifamily housing by right in many residential districts and argued that the change would expand choices for families, seniors and young people looking for smaller homes.

Planning staff provided the technical overview. Eric Tiso said the bill creates a new land use, 'multifamily low density,' and ties allowed units to gross floor area rather than lot area: 1,500 square feet permits two units, 2,250 square feet permits three, and 3,000 square feet permits four, with basements excluded from the calculation. Tiso said the change is intended to reduce variances and speed conversions or safe reuses of larger existing structures.

Agency reports were broadly supportive but emphasized monitoring and enforcement. The law department approved the bill for form and legal sufficiency while noting interactions with recently passed ordinances that change bulk, lot‑size and parking rules; planning staff recommended passage with an amendment requiring a three‑year report tracking impacts; the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Department of Finance filed favorable comments; the Department of Transportation offered to monitor traffic/parking impacts and the BMZA and planning director described the policy as correcting outdated exclusionary rules.

Several council members raised questions about the bill’s effects on neighborhoods. Vice President Sharon Green Middleton said some districts have high concentrations of group homes, vacant properties and rental saturation and asked how the measure would avoid harming community stability. Schneller and planning staff replied that federally protected group‑home siting rules are unchanged, that the bill merely permits conversions where a structure is large enough, and that city staff will track outcomes and propose tweaks as needed.

Public testimony was sharply divided. Dozens of residents, neighborhood association leaders and legal advocates said the bill risked advancing speculative investment, accelerating displacement, and sidestepping required processes for comprehensive rezoning. Opponents asked for more robust notice, neighborhood outreach, pre‑implementation studies and mandatory affordability or anti‑speculation safeguards.

Supporters — including housing advocates, service providers and individual homeowners — said the bill would legalize existing informal conversions, bring vacant buildings back into safe, code‑compliant use, and provide more housing options near transit. Health Care for the Homeless testified that more housing options would prevent homelessness.

The committee did not vote on 25‑0066. Members requested additional agency follow‑up on enforcement capacity, the prevalence of unpermitted conversions and maps showing where deed covenants or private restrictions might limit the bill’s local effect. Planning staff said they would return data on owner‑occupation rates and historic conversion patterns and the planning commission’s recommended amendment would require a three‑year evaluation report.

Next steps: the committee will circulate written testimony and agency follow‑ups and schedule further questions and deliberations before a second or final committee vote.