A Prince George’s County Council general assembly committee voted 3-0 on April 1 to ask the county’s state delegation to offer nine amendments to House Bill 503, legislation that would create a statewide housing commission and, in its current form, give developers vesting rights early in the approval process.

The committee, chaired by Chair Fisher, said the amendments are intended to preserve the county’s zoning authority and tighten definitions in the bill. "Governor Moore wants a housing win. That's what it is. And so he's gonna get it either way," Fisher said during the meeting as the committee discussed amendment options and next steps.

Why it matters: Committee members said the bill, as reprinted March 28, would allow a housing development to lock in zoning protections at an early stage of the local permit process, potentially preventing the county from applying later zoning changes or comprehensive rezonings in targeted areas. That could limit the council’s ability to address new public-health, safety, or master-plan–driven land-use decisions.

The committee raised particular concern about the bill’s vesting language and its broad definitions of "application" and "housing development project." Maureen Epps McNeil, the council’s chief zoning hearing examiner, told the committee the bill appears to vest rights "at the application stage." "So this law understandably is doing it to make sure there's sufficient housing but this law is vesting them at the application stage," McNeil said, describing how the bill’s definitions could apply to single-family and multifamily projects alike and could block comprehensive rezoning work.

Lorenzo Bellamy of Bellamy Gen Group summarized the bill’s status and reading: the House version of House Bill 503 is on second reading and the Senate cross-file is Senate Bill 430. Bellamy read the bill language the committee flagged about vesting: "Once a housing development project application has been approved, the housing development project shall have a vested right to that authorized use and development for not more than 5 years," language the committee discussed shortening.

What the committee voted to offer: The committee approved a motion to ask the county’s senators and delegates to carry nine amendments on the county’s behalf. The amendments discussed and recorded for drafting include: striking most of the substantive bill while retaining the Maryland commission component; exempting Prince George’s County from the bill’s local-application vesting provisions; replacing the term "substantially complete" with "completed" (or otherwise tightening the trigger for vesting); removing the bill’s standalone definition of "substantially complete"; adding representatives to the proposed Maryland commission from the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Environment, the National Association of Realtors (or its designee), and a regional representative tied to the Washington metropolitan Council of Governments or the proposed bi‑county commission covering Montgomery and Prince George’s counties; and reducing the proposed five‑year vesting period (committee members discussed two years as a target).

Committee discussion and staff directions: Members argued for multiple drafting options to give senators choices during floor or committee debate. Several members suggested that a vesting exception should be allowed when the district council enacts a duly adopted comprehensive rezoning or master-plan–driven rezoning during the vesting period. The committee asked county staff and its zoning examiner to prepare written explanations for the amendments and to draft specific language the county’s delegation can use in Annapolis.

Vote and next steps: The motion to offer the nine amendments was moved by Chair Fisher and seconded by Council member Ed Burrows; the recorded roll-call votes were Chair Fisher (yes), Vice Chair Harrison (yes) and Council member Ed Burrows (yes). The motion carried 3‑0. Staff said they will prepare the amendment language and explanatory paragraphs for senators and delegates and will follow up with the committee and the county’s state delegation.

Other notes: Committee members also raised the county’s existing housing goal cited during the meeting (21,000 housing units by 2030) and urged that any state-level action be sensitive to local infrastructure capacity, transportation impacts and job creation. The committee briefly flagged other legislation — including the county’s board-of-appeals bill (House Bill 1065) and proposed state technology‑tax provisions — but took no formal action on those items at this meeting.

The committee’s discussion was recorded and staff were tasked with drafting the nine amendments and short explanatory language for the county’s legislators in Annapolis.