The Charles County Board of Commissioners voted 3-1 on Sept. 15 to introduce a zoning bill that would create a new “Mixed Residential Community” housing type in the county’s medium- and high-density residential zones, over the objection of a commissioner who argued the board was moving forward without knowing what the change would cost taxpayers.
The vote sets up a public hearing at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 27, at the Charles County Government Building, held in a hybrid format so residents can attend in person or virtually, according to Charles County’s own release on the meeting.
What the bill would do
Proposed Bill 2026-10, formally known as Zoning Text Amendment #26-191, would amend the county’s zoning ordinance to allow a mix of housing types — single-family homes, cottages, townhouses, duplexes and multi-family buildings — on a single lot or development site within the Medium-Density Residential (RM) and High-Density Residential (RH) zones, according to the county’s summary of the amendment. The proposal, filed March 24 by an attorney representing the applicant, would also create a new “cottage dwelling” housing category with a reduced minimum footprint and require any project to secure Planning Commission approval of an “alternative design and development code” governing site layout, building placement, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Senior Planner Kirby Bloss told commissioners the application had already been reviewed for consistency with the county’s comprehensive plan and its affordable housing strategy, briefed to the Planning Commission on May 18, taken to public hearing on July 20, and unanimously recommended for approval by that body.
A late addition aimed at affordable housing
Planning Supervisor Joel Binkley told commissioners that after a public comment from a former Planning Commission member during the July hearing, staff added a second piece to the bill: rather than a blanket density increase for affordable projects across the entire RH zone, as the commenter had proposed, the amendment would instead let developers of 100%-affordable housing in the RH zone claim the same density bonus already available to projects that use Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) — a tool the county uses to steer growth away from agricultural and rural land.
Binkley said the change was meant to jump-start the county’s existing Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program, a voluntary affordable-housing density bonus that, he told the board, “no one has taken advantage of” in the years it has existed, because the current bonus is too small to interest developers. The change echoes a recommendation in the county’s 2016 comprehensive plan and its commissioner-adopted 2025 affordable housing strategy, both of which called for eventually moving toward a mandatory set-aside program — something Binkley said would require a “heavy lift” of research the county isn’t positioned to do yet.
Where the board split
Commissioner Gilbert Bowling, whose motion to introduce the bill initially received no second, pressed staff for a fiscal analysis of what the new affordable units would cost the county in services — fire, sheriff’s response, schools — measured against the lower property tax revenue those units would generate. “The whole pool of property taxes goes into one big pool, and it’s going to be a delicate balance,” Bowling said, warning that costs tied to any single rezoned parcel would ultimately be “spread” across all of the county’s taxpayers, not just those living near a new development. He tied the concern to the county’s property tax base already leaning more heavily on residential revenue than commercial and industrial revenue, and to a roughly $3 billion state budget shortfall he said could push tens of millions of dollars in new costs down to counties.
Planning and Growth Management Director Jason Groth told the board a rough fiscal estimate could be prepared before the October hearing, but cautioned it would necessarily be broad, since the amendment doesn’t specify a particular development or home price — only that affordable units must serve households at or below 60% of the area median income. Groth also noted the change would apply only to two zoning categories, not countywide.
Other commissioners argued the housing shortage itself carries a cost. One commissioner described adult children and elderly relatives “piled in homes” together for lack of affordable options, and said young adults and “couch surfers” are being priced out of the county entirely. County Attorney E. Wesley Adams III reminded the board that under Charles County Code §297-447(H), the commissioners are required to schedule a public hearing within 45 days of receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendation, or an applicant could go to court to compel the county to act.
The board ultimately voted 3-1 to introduce the bill, with Commissioners Thomasina Coates, Amanda Stewart and Reuben Collins in favor and Bowling opposed; Commissioner Ralph Patterson was absent. A second 3-1 vote, with Bowling again dissenting, scheduled the Oct. 27 public hearing.
What’s next
The Oct. 27 hearing gives residents, developers and county staff a chance to weigh in before the new board — seated after November’s election — takes up the bill. Commissioners noted during discussion that the timeline could stretch into a new board’s term, meaning the ultimate decision on the zoning change may fall to commissioners not yet sworn in.
