HB1137, the Bring Back Main Street Act, has two main components. First, it requires certain counties with populations over 150,000 to allow multifamily developments and mixed-use developments as permitted uses on parcels or lots that are already served by water and sewer and are zoned recreational or commercial. For those permitted developments, counties are barred from imposing a range of restrictive zoning conditions, including lower-than-allowed density limits, excessive setbacks, mandatory walls or screening, mandatory impervious pavement, mandatory nonpublic open space, and minimum off-street parking requirements except where federal law requires otherwise. The bill also limits how much affordable housing can be required and allows counties to require up to 20% of floor space for retail use, on-site parking, and reasonable siting and design regulation.
Second, the bill adds a separate real-property provision that limits private land-use restrictions, such as deed covenants, HOA rules, declarations, contracts, and similar instruments, from unreasonably preventing a property owner from building residential or mixed-use development when the owner otherwise has the exclusive right to use the property and complies with applicable law. It defines an unreasonable limitation to include restrictions that significantly increase development costs or effectively prohibit multifamily or mixed-use development, while exempting historic property restrictions.
The bill also directs the Department of Housing and Community Development to study residential-in-commercial-zone (RICZ) laws. That study must compare laws in other states, assess impacts on urban communities, infrastructure, economic development, and housing production, and make recommendations on issues such as parking, density, first-floor commercial requirements, building height, appropriate commercial areas, and differences among urban, suburban, and rural settings. The department must report its findings to the Governor and General Assembly by December 1, 2026, and the act is temporary, expiring at the end of May 31, 2027.
The bill’s impact on Maryland law is significant because it expands where multifamily and mixed-use housing may be built in certain counties, constrains local zoning discretion, and creates a new state-level limit on private land-use restrictions that interfere with housing development. It also amends the Land Use Article and adds a new section to the Real Property Article, affecting counties, developers, property owners, and homeowners associations or other private covenant holders.
Overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill passed the House and Senate with strong margins, and the committee report was favorable with amendments. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting history suggests broad legislative support for the bill’s housing-supply and main-street redevelopment goals. Likely points of contention include local control over zoning, parking and density requirements, neighborhood character concerns, and the extent to which private covenants and HOA restrictions should be overridden to facilitate development.
HB1137 amends the Land Use Article to require certain counties to treat multifamily and mixed-use developments as permitted uses in specified commercially or recreationally zoned, water-and-sewer-served areas, while limiting the zoning conditions those counties may impose. It also adds a new Real Property Article provision restricting private covenants and similar instruments from unreasonably limiting residential or mixed-use development, with an exception for historic property. In addition, it creates a one-year study mandate for the Department of Housing and Community Development on residential-in-commercial-zone laws and their effects on housing production, infrastructure, and local economies.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the legislature. It was reported favorably with amendments, passed both chambers by wide margins, and was ultimately enacted. The available record suggests support for its housing and redevelopment objectives, with the amendments likely reflecting efforts to refine implementation rather than reject the policy direction.
The main areas of contention are likely to be local zoning authority, parking and density mandates, and the bill’s limits on private land-use restrictions. Counties and local stakeholders may object to state preemption of zoning discretion, while housing advocates are likely to support the bill as a way to increase supply and enable mixed-use redevelopment. Homeowners associations, deed-restriction holders, and some neighborhood groups may also be concerned that the new Real Property Article provision weakens private controls over land use. The bill’s carve-out for historic property suggests sensitivity to preservation concerns.