Restrictions on Use - Solar Collector Systems - Alteration
Summary
SB120 revises Maryland’s law governing restrictions on the installation of solar collector systems on private property. The bill keeps the general rule that covenants, deed restrictions, association rules, and similar land-use restrictions may not impose unreasonable limits on rooftop or exterior-wall solar installations, but it replaces the prior “significant” impairment standard with specific thresholds. Under the new law, a restriction is unreasonable if it increases the projected installation cost by at least 5% or reduces projected energy generation by at least 10% compared with the originally proposed system.
The bill also adds a documentation process for homeowners or property owners who claim a restriction is unreasonable. The owner must provide satisfactory documentation prepared by an independent solar panel design specialist, either certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners or with an affidavit showing at least 30 solar collector system designs in the prior three years. In addition, the bill expressly allows community associations to prohibit or restrict solar installations in common areas or common elements, to impose reasonable limits on the number, size, placement, or manner of installation there, and to authorize their boards to install solar systems in those areas if not otherwise prohibited by law.
SB120 affects Article 2-119 of the Real Property Article and narrows how private restrictions can be used to block or burden solar installations on property owners’ exclusive-use roof or wall areas. It preserves the ability to create and record solar easements, and it continues the historic-property exemption, meaning the section does not apply to restrictions on qualifying historic properties. The practical effect is to provide clearer standards for disputes over solar access while giving community associations more explicit control over shared common areas.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support, passing both chambers with substantial majorities. The recorded votes show approval in the Senate and House, suggesting broad legislative agreement on expanding and clarifying solar access rights. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate detailed concerns.
The main point of contention reflected in the text is the balance between encouraging solar adoption and preserving association and property-governance authority. Property owners and solar advocates are likely to favor the clearer protections and objective thresholds, while community associations and some homeowners may be concerned that the bill limits their ability to regulate appearance, placement, and cost impacts on individual installations. The explicit allowance for restrictions in common areas appears designed to address those concerns by preserving association discretion over shared property.
Impact
SB120 amends Section 2-119 of the Real Property Article to define when land-use restrictions on solar collector systems are unreasonable, replacing a general “significant” impact standard with specific 5% cost and 10% energy-generation thresholds. It also creates a documentation requirement for owners asserting that a restriction is unreasonable, authorizes community associations to regulate or prohibit solar installations in common areas/common elements, and preserves the historic-property exemption and solar easement provisions. The bill primarily affects property owners, homeowners associations, condominium associations, and other community associations, as well as solar installers and design professionals.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around SB120 appears positive and pragmatic, with strong bipartisan support reflected in the large majorities in both chambers. The bill seems to have been viewed as a clarification and modernization of Maryland’s solar access rules rather than a major policy overhaul. At the same time, the structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance solar expansion with association governance concerns, which likely helped it secure broad approval.
Contention
The central tension in SB120 is between protecting a property owner’s ability to install solar collector systems and preserving the authority of community associations to regulate property appearance and shared spaces. Solar advocates and property owners are likely to support the bill’s objective thresholds and anti-restriction provisions, while community associations may be concerned about reduced flexibility to enforce architectural or aesthetic standards. The bill addresses that concern by expressly allowing associations to prohibit or reasonably restrict installations in common areas and by requiring independent technical documentation before a restriction can be challenged.