HB0239, the Starter and Silver Homes Act of 2026, would limit the ability of local governments in Maryland to use zoning rules to restrict certain single-family housing. In areas served by or planned for public water and sewer, local jurisdictions could not require minimum lot sizes above 5,000 square feet for lots with single-family homes, impose minimum square footage or exterior dimension requirements for those homes, set lot coverage caps beyond the bill’s limits, require setbacks greater than 10 feet in front and rear yards or 5 feet on side yards, or mandate design, architectural, or aesthetic features for single-family homes. The bill also defines “single-family home” to include detached homes and town houses, and it applies to local bodies with zoning authority, including the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and other local zoning entities.
The bill further prohibits local jurisdictions from banning town houses in areas zoned for single-family residential use. It also bars local governments from preventing owners of improved lots in single-family zones from subdividing a lot into three or fewer smaller lots that comply with local law, with an exception for lots created by subdivision within the prior three years. The measure expressly preserves building codes, fire codes, and public health and safety regulations, and it does not override other state or federal laws that conflict with its provisions. Historic districts designated on or before July 1, 2025, agricultural land, and conservation property are excluded from the new restrictions.
HB0239 would amend Maryland’s Land Use Article by adding a new subsection to the zoning limitations section and by revising the applicability of land-use rules for charter counties and Baltimore City. It specifically adds the new single-family-home limitations to the list of provisions that apply in charter counties and Baltimore City, while also updating related definitions and cross-references. The bill would therefore preempt inconsistent local zoning ordinances in these jurisdictions and constrain local discretion over lot size, setbacks, design standards, townhouse placement, and small-lot subdivision rules.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is pro-housing and pro-development, with the stated purpose of expanding housing options and reducing local zoning barriers for starter homes and smaller homes. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. The bill’s title and structure suggest an effort to address housing affordability and supply, especially for modestly sized homes and infill development.
The main points of contention likely concern local control versus state preemption, neighborhood character, and the extent to which local governments should be able to regulate design and density. Local jurisdictions may object to losing authority over minimum lot sizes, setbacks, aesthetic standards, and restrictions on town houses or lot subdivision, while supporters would likely argue that these limits are necessary to increase housing production and affordability. The carveouts for historic districts, agricultural land, and conservation property indicate an attempt to balance housing expansion with preservation and land-protection concerns.
The bill would amend the Maryland Land Use Article to restrict local zoning authority over certain single-family homes, town houses, and small-lot subdivisions, and it would make those restrictions applicable in charter counties and Baltimore City. It would preempt inconsistent local ordinances and standards in specified circumstances, while preserving building, fire, and public health/safety codes and excluding certain protected land categories.
The bill’s apparent policy direction is strongly supportive of housing supply expansion and reduced zoning barriers, particularly for starter homes and smaller-scale residential development. No committee testimony or vote data were provided, so there is no documented formal sentiment from hearings or roll calls in the supplied materials.
The likely central dispute is between state-level housing policy and local zoning autonomy. Opponents may object to limits on minimum lot sizes, setbacks, design standards, townhouse bans, and subdivision restrictions, while supporters would likely view those limits as necessary to improve affordability and enable more diverse housing types. Historic districts, agricultural land, and conservation property carveouts suggest additional concern about preserving local character and sensitive land uses.