Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Committee takes no position after split on legalizing duplexes in R‑2 zones; motion for a favorable recommendation fails

October 04, 2025 | Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee takes no position after split on legalizing duplexes in R‑2 zones; motion for a favorable recommendation fails
Members of the Rules and City Government Committee debated O-18-25 on Oct. 13, a proposal to reallow historic duplexes in the city's R-2 residential zones. The committee heard arguments both for expanding modest multi-unit housing options and against a piecemeal change not tied to the comprehensive plan.

Planning staff expressed support for the ordinance as a modest, context-sensitive change consistent with the comprehensive plan and the city's historical housing pattern. "We see this legislation as just a very modest incremental change to the city's zoning allowances," Eric Leshinski, chief of comprehensive planning, said. Staff estimated that roughly a quarter of R-2 properties could be affected, with only a fraction likely to be redeveloped.

Alderman Arnett and others questioned the lack of planning direction for where duplexes would appear and raised equity and infrastructure concerns. "If you take my street, there can be a lot of accessory dwelling units. They're just not known. And that really leads to another point, which is they're not being regulated," Arnett said in the duplexes discussion, emphasizing enforcement and distribution questions.

Supporters said reallowing duplexes could produce more lower-cost options than full tear-down and single-unit replacement; one member described a local example in which a renovated property sold for substantially less than a new single-family home would cost and said duplex housing can deliver smaller, more affordable units. The sponsor moved for a favorable recommendation, but the motion failed for lack of a second, so the committee took no position and the item will return to the council without a committee recommendation.

The committee discussion included proposed amendments and suggestions for future work, such as identifying specific opportunity areas and considering infrastructure and community-benefit incentives if the council moves the change forward.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI