SB 108 requires the governing body of a common ownership community to adopt a smoking policy when the property is a multifamily dwelling. The bill defines the covered properties and terms, including condominiums and cooperative housing corporations, and it treats smoking to include both traditional smoking and vaping. It applies to multifamily dwellings with four or more units that are either used by a residential owner in a common ownership community or rented by that owner to a tenant under a lease.
The required policy must be at least as strict as applicable state and local smoking laws and must specify where smoking is allowed and prohibited, any conditions on smoking in permitted areas, how complaints are filed, and any penalties or fines for violations. The bill also states that it does not limit the right of a governing body, tenant, or residential owner to bring or defend a civil action, and it does not preempt counties or municipalities from adopting and enforcing stricter smoking rules for multifamily dwellings. The act takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to the Real Property Article, creating a statewide requirement for common ownership communities to establish smoking policies for qualifying multifamily dwellings. It would affect condominium associations and cooperative housing corporations by imposing policy-development duties and by expressly including vaping within the definition of smoking. The measure preserves local authority to enact stricter regulations and does not alter civil litigation rights, but it would standardize baseline smoking-policy requirements across covered properties.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no recorded debate or voting history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears regulatory and procedural rather than punitive, aiming to clarify expectations for shared residential properties and to address smoking and vaping in common areas. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials suggests no documented controversy in the available context.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the scope of the mandate and the balance between property-level autonomy and resident rights. Common ownership communities may object to being required to adopt policies and set penalties, while tenants and residential owners may support clearer restrictions on smoking in shared spaces. Another possible issue is the inclusion of vaping in the definition of smoking, which broadens the policy’s reach. The bill also preserves local governments’ ability to impose stricter rules, which may be welcomed by some but could raise concerns about overlapping regulation.