OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Charles County, Maryland/County Commissioners & Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment 26-19 (Mixed Residential Community) - October 27, 2026

County Commissioners & Boards — Tuesday, October 27, 2026
BodyCharles County, Maryland
SessionCounty Commissioners & Boards
DateTuesday, October 27, 2026
StatusNEW · FILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:18:04

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:07

Charles County Government presents the Board of Commissioners.

Speaker 2

0:18

Good evening, everyone.

0:19

We're going to begin this evening's session with a roll call.

0:22

Commissioner Bowling.

0:24

Commissioner Coates here.

0:26

Commissioner Stewart.

0:27

Here.

0:27

Commissioner Patterson.

0:28

Present.

0:29

Commissioner Collins.

0:30

Here.

0:30

Thank you.

0:31

Commissioners, the next item on your agenda is a public hearing on zoning text amendment 26-19.

Speaker 3

0:38

The purpose of this evening session is to hold a public hearing in person and virtually on proposed Bill 2026 10 zoning text amendment 26191.

0:51

Mixed residential community use in the RM and RH zones.

0:56

If it pleases the commissioners, I will dispense with the reading of the public notice.

Unassigned speaker

1:02

For

Speaker 3

1:02

the public, when it's your turn to speak, please state your name and address clearly for the record.

1:08

Statement should relate to the subject matter of this identified hearing.

1:13

Statement should be briefed to the point and limited to three minutes or less.

1:18

Proper language is required at all times.

1:22

Additionally, please understand that this is a public hearing, which means that this is the Commissioner's opportunity to hear directly from the public.

1:31

This is the public's opportunity to speak.

1:34

Consequently, the commissioners will not be entertaining questions or debating the issue.

Unassigned speaker

1:41

The

Speaker 3

1:41

commissioners do reserve the right to extend the time frame or to continue the hearing until another date.

1:48

We will now begin the public hearing.

Unassigned speaker

1:53

Good

Speaker 4

1:53

evening, Commissioners.

1:54

My name is Kirby Bloss, and I'm a senior planner with zoning administration.

1:58

I'm accompanied this evening by my colleague, Mr.

2:00

Joel Binkley, Planning Supervisor with Community and Long Range Planning.

Unassigned speaker

2:04

We

Speaker 4

2:04

are joining you tonight for the public hearing consideration of this amendment that was formally submitted on March 24th of this year by the law offices of Sue A.

2:13

Greer in accordance with the procedural requirements of Chapter 297, Section 447 of the zoning ordinance.

2:20

And uh next slide, please, Claryl.

2:23

Uh after thoroughly analyzed uh analyzed being analyzed by county staff for consistency with the current comprehensive plan and the recommendations of the county's affordable housing strategy.

2:35

This amendment proposal was presented to the planning commission via briefing on May 18th of this year with a subsequent public hearing date of July 20th.

2:45

At the conclusion of that public hearing, the record was closed and their work session was conducted during which they voted to unanimously recommend approval to this board.

2:56

The details of their recommendation are contained within the planning commission's report signed by Chairman Wetting.

3:02

An interoffice memorandum directed to the commissioners dated September 10th, further summarizes the key provisions, rationale, and perceived benefits of the legislation.

3:12

On September 15th, staff briefed the commissioners, and this evening's public hearing was scheduled.

3:20

Thank you, Carol.

3:21

This application seeks to amend certain provisions of the zoning ordinance to create a new mixed residential community use in the designated medium density residential RM and high density residential zones within the designated development districts and priority funding areas of the county.

3:42

The specific characteristics regarding what constitutes a mixed residential community use will be elaborated upon by the applicant this evening during their presentation.

3:52

In short, this application would establish new housing type conditions, definitions, density bonuses, and general design standards, including the flexibility to pursue an alternative design and development code, which would ultimately be approved by the planning commission and would accompany any future site-specific development plan application.

4:16

The approved development code would holistically govern pertinent aspects of the architectural landscaping and site design considerations.

4:26

Next slide, please, Carol.

4:29

Within the applicant's draft bill and justification, a reduction to the minimum footprint for single family and cottage dwelling housing is proposed.

Unassigned speaker

4:39

Staff acknowledge that these amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the county's affordable housing strategy in that they provide additional flexible creative housing solutions at different price points that don't currently exist in the available market, such as starter homes and missing middle housing.

Speaker 4

5:00

And uh next slide, please, Carol.

5:02

Uh at this time, I welcome my colleague, Mr.

5:04

Binkley, to elaborate on the nuances of the affordable housing density bonus provisions.

5:10

Joel?

Speaker 5

5:10

Thank you, Mr.

5:11

Bloss.

5:11

As we briefed you last month, there was a proposed amendment to the uh text

Speaker 6

5:16

amendment.

Speaker 5

5:16

And staff reviewed that.

5:18

It did propose an increase in the affordable housing density bonus across all the housing uses in the high density residential zone.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing█████████████████████████████████████████████59%
Zoning███████████████20%
Economic Development█████████12%
Procedural████5%
Public Engagement██2%
Parking Regulations██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment 26-19 (Mixed Residential Community) - October 27, 2026

On October 27, 2026, the Charles County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on Bill 2026-10 (Zoning Text Amendment 26-19), which would create a new "Mixed Residential Community" (MRC) use in the RM (Medium Density Residential) and RH (High Density Residential) zones within the Development District and Priority Funding Areas. The hearing included staff presentations, applicant testimony, public comment, and board discussion. After closing the public record and hearing, the board voted unanimously to adopt the amendment.

Staff Presentation

  • Senior Planner Kirby Bloss explained the proposal was formally submitted on March 24, 2026, by the Law Offices of Sue A. Greer. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 20, 2026, and unanimously recommended approval.
  • Joel Binkley (Planning Supervisor) described a proposed amendment to increase the affordable housing density bonus for 100% affordable developments in the RH zone to match the TDR density bonus. Staff supported this, noting it incentivizes affordable housing similarly to land preservation.
  • Planning Director Charles Rice added that the narrow scope (100% affordable, RH zone only) was designed to relieve TDR costs for affordable housing projects.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • David Heidelbach (Charlotte Hall resident) expressed concerns about enforcement of affordable rent compliance, potential for cheap construction, parking ratios (1.25 spaces per unit vs. standard), and the timing of the amendment given the ongoing comprehensive plan and zoning code rewrite. He questioned the rush and noted no units were under development.

Discussion Items

  • Commissioner Bowling raised multiple concerns:
    • Equating affordable housing density bonus to TDR bonuses might imply equal priority, undermining the county’s land preservation goal (50-80% preservation).
    • The definition of affordability (80% AMI) does not address the “missing middle” (e.g., teachers, police officers) who often earn above 60% AMI.
    • 100% affordable communities could concentrate poverty; mixed-income communities are preferable.
    • Fiscal impact: homes valued below $450,000 may not generate enough property tax to cover services. She requested an economic analysis from the Economic Development department.
    • TDR program could be undermined if developers shift entirely to 100% affordable projects (which would not require TDR purchases).
    • Parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit is inadequate; she noted the need for guest parking.
  • Commissioner Patterson supported the tool as a way to provide housing for young people and seniors, stating affordability is a critical need. She cited the county’s high market-rate rents (average $2,381 per month) and the need to retain workforce.
  • Commissioner Collins asked about the types of dwellings allowed (e.g., “two-over-two” townhomes) and clarified that the MRC use is for rental properties only, not homeownership. He noted the affordable housing report emphasizes homeownership benefits.
  • Applicant Attorney Sue Greer and Matthew Tedesco responded:
    • The MRC provides a framework for mixed dwelling types (e.g., single-family, cottages, townhomes, apartments) on one lot, addressing missing middle housing.
    • The 100% affordable density bonus was a Planning Commission amendment, not the applicant’s original proposal.
    • Cottages were added as a standalone permitted use in RM and RH zones to promote homeownership.
    • The amendment is narrow: applies only to RM and RH zones in the Development District (e.g., Waldorf, La Plata area).
    • Affordable housing is needed for workforce retention; economic benefits are difficult to quantify but essential.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to close the public record – Moved and seconded; passed unanimously.
  • Motion to end the public hearing – Moved and seconded; passed unanimously.
  • Motion to adopt Bill 2026-10 (Zoning Text Amendment 26-19) – Moved and seconded; passed unanimously (all commissioners present voted aye).

Meeting Transcript

Charles County Government presents the Board of Commissioners. Good evening, everyone. We're going to begin this evening's session with a roll call. Commissioner Bowling. Commissioner Coates here. Commissioner Stewart. Here. Commissioner Patterson. Present. Commissioner Collins. Here. Thank you. Commissioners, the next item on your agenda is a public hearing on zoning text amendment 26-19. The purpose of this evening session is to hold a public hearing in person and virtually on proposed Bill 2026 10 zoning text amendment 26191. Mixed residential community use in the RM and RH zones. If it pleases the commissioners, I will dispense with the reading of the public notice. For the public, when it's your turn to speak, please state your name and address clearly for the record. Statement should relate to the subject matter of this identified hearing. Statement should be briefed to the point and limited to three minutes or less. Proper language is required at all times. Additionally, please understand that this is a public hearing, which means that this is the Commissioner's opportunity to hear directly from the public. This is the public's opportunity to speak. Consequently, the commissioners will not be entertaining questions or debating the issue. The commissioners do reserve the right to extend the time frame or to continue the hearing until another date. We will now begin the public hearing. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kirby Bloss, and I'm a senior planner with zoning administration. I'm accompanied this evening by my colleague, Mr. Joel Binkley, Planning Supervisor with Community and Long Range Planning. We are joining you tonight for the public hearing consideration of this amendment that was formally submitted on March 24th of this year by the law offices of Sue A. Greer in accordance with the procedural requirements of Chapter 297, Section 447 of the zoning ordinance. And uh next slide, please, Claryl. Uh after thoroughly analyzed uh analyzed being analyzed by county staff for consistency with the current comprehensive plan and the recommendations of the county's affordable housing strategy. This amendment proposal was presented to the planning commission via briefing on May 18th of this year with a subsequent public hearing date of July 20th. At the conclusion of that public hearing, the record was closed and their work session was conducted during which they voted to unanimously recommend approval to this board. The details of their recommendation are contained within the planning commission's report signed by Chairman Wetting. An interoffice memorandum directed to the commissioners dated September 10th, further summarizes the key provisions, rationale, and perceived benefits of the legislation. On September 15th, staff briefed the commissioners, and this evening's public hearing was scheduled. Thank you, Carol. This application seeks to amend certain provisions of the zoning ordinance to create a new mixed residential community use in the designated medium density residential RM and high density residential zones within the designated development districts and priority funding areas of the county. The specific characteristics regarding what constitutes a mixed residential community use will be elaborated upon by the applicant this evening during their presentation. In short, this application would establish new housing type conditions, definitions, density bonuses, and general design standards, including the flexibility to pursue an alternative design and development code, which would ultimately be approved by the planning commission and would accompany any future site-specific development plan application. The approved development code would holistically govern pertinent aspects of the architectural landscaping and site design considerations. Next slide, please, Carol. Within the applicant's draft bill and justification, a reduction to the minimum footprint for single family and cottage dwelling housing is proposed. Staff acknowledge that these amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the county's affordable housing strategy in that they provide additional flexible creative housing solutions at different price points that don't currently exist in the available market, such as starter homes and missing middle housing.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com