For Maryland municipalities and counties, recent statutory changes reflect a clear and consequential trend: when the General Assembly concludes that local processes stand in the way of broader statewide priorities, it is increasingly willing to displace local zoning authority. We have seen this recently from the General Assembly, and the governor, in at least three areas.
That trend is especially apparent in two recent energy-related laws. Although these measures are often framed as efforts to facilitate infrastructure deployment and renewable energy development, their practical effect is to limit the ability of local governments to use traditional zoning authority to shape, condition, or resist projects within their own jurisdictions.
The first major change came with changes to § 7-207 of the Public Utilities Article of the Maryland Code (SB931/HB1036 (2025) effective July 1, 2025) as it relates to solar energy generating systems. On paper, the change looks technical. However, in practice, it is anything but. The statute now provides that generally a county or municipal corporation may not condition approval of a local permit, required in connection with a certificate of public convenience and necessity, on receipt of such additional zoning approvals, such as conditional uses or special exceptions. For the most part, local governments must treat such systems as permitted uses.
Now, this has always been an exhaustive process. But historically, even after clearing that hurdle, developers still had to run a second gauntlet locally. Discretionary zoning approvals became pressure points, sometimes to extract concessions, sometimes to slow or stop projects outright.
Yet this new statutory change means that local governments are not allowed to condition approval for permits on conditional use, special exceptions, or floating zone approvals. The amendment to the law applies to generating stations, overhead transmission lines, and qualified lead lines.
So, what is the practical impact of this amendment? For starters, it removes a layer of local review that municipalities historically used to address site-specific impacts and protect local planning interests. It also reduces zoning leverage for municipalities and means there is greater predictability for developers. Local permits are still required, and local code compliance is still reviewed. But ultimately, this new amendment takes power away from municipalities going forward. For developers and utilities, that translates into less municipal leverage and fewer opportunities for local officials to condition projects in response to community concerns.
The second statutory change created through the same set of bills changed the Public Utilities Article § 7-218 for solar development. This provision does not just streamline review. It preempts prohibition. With limited exceptions, local jurisdictions may not adopt zoning laws or other regulations that prohibit the construction or operation of solar energy generating stations. Nor may they deny site development plans for solar projects that meet the statutory requirements set out in the section.
The choice in language here is deliberate. Over the years, solar developers have needed to navigate a patchwork of local restrictions from moratoria to zoning overlays to agricultural land conflicts. This change to the law creates a prohibition on local bans. Jurisdictions cannot adopt zoning laws that prohibit solar generating stations. Under the law, site development plans meeting state requirements may not be denied, and local governments must expedite compliant solar site plan review.
And for projects with a generating capacity of five megawatts or less, measured by the alternating current rating of the inverter, the site development plan must be processed as a permitted use, subject only to standard site plan review under the Land Use Article.
These two changes to the law reflect the same legislative priority. The state has made clear that, in these areas, it views local discretion as subordinate to statewide policy objectives. To meet Maryland’s renewable energy goals and to modernize grids, these projects need to move more quickly than they traditionally have. By limiting discretionary approvals and eliminating outright solar bans, the General Assembly has sought statewide uniformity and taken power away from municipalities.
There’s also a separate yet related shift in the state when it comes to housing. Pursuant to HB 249 (2026), as of October 1, 2026, Maryland law will prohibit local governments from enforcing ordinances that arguably penalize property owners or residents for summoning law enforcement or emergency services.
Now, typically, they allow a property to be designated a public nuisance based on repeated calls for police or emergency response. While framed as public safety tools, these ordinances have drawn sustained criticism from fair housing advocates and regulators.
State and federal agencies, including Maryland’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, have pointed to the discriminatory impact such laws can have. The change in law addresses that concern directly. Local governments may not enforce ordinances that designate or penalize properties as nuisances based on qualifying calls for service. Municipalities with existing provisions of that kind will need to amend or repeal them to come into compliance.
The third example is found in a bill passed in 2025, HB 1466, which mandates that all counties and municipalities amend their zoning laws by October 1, 2026, to authorize so-called Accessory Dwelling Units on single-family detached lots. The law promotes “by-right” (without conditional use or special exception) development of small, independent living units to increase affordable housing. ADUs are generally defined as secondary homes on the same lot as a primary, detached unit, often capped in size (e.g., 75% of the primary unit’s size, or 1,200 square feet). And the governor followed up in this session by introducing bills that, if enacted, would reduce zoning barriers for smaller homes and would streamline development approvals (SB 325 (2026)), with many provisions effective by July or October 2026. Some of these initiatives, notably the Starter and Silver Homes Act of 2026 (HB 239/SB 36 (2026)), which would have enabled the construction of smaller homes and townhouses by allowing smaller lot sizes, reducing setbacks, and enabling lot subdivisions in areas with public water/sewer, are for now “shelved” and will not become law in this session. But such initiatives are sure to return in 2027.
In the end, what ties all of these developments together is not subject matter, but structure. In each instance, the State has stepped in where it believes local action, or overaction as some may call it, undermines broader policy goals. In energy siting, the goal is speed and uniformity. In housing, the broader stated objectives are to avoid discouragement from calling the police and to encourage affordable housing. However, all these efforts at the state level are accomplished by curtailing local authority over zoning decisions.
Implementation guidance, local ordinance updates, and perhaps eventual litigation will shape how far the preemption extends in practice. But the direction is clear. And the broader message is already unmistakable. In targeted but important areas, Maryland is consolidating decision-making power at the state level and limiting the authority of municipalities to make or enforce land use decisions that have traditionally been matters of local control. For local governments, the question is no longer simply how to process these issues. It is how to govern effectively in a legal landscape where municipal discretion is being narrowed by design.