There has been intense public interest in Mayor Brandon Scott’s package of zoning bills, including Bill 25-0066, which is now before the Baltimore City Council. The bill removes the single-family zoning requirement in Baltimore residential districts citywide, with the aim of promoting density and population growth. It also would permit up to four dwelling units on a single residential lot.

This commentary is by Rebecca Witt, who was executive director of Baltimore’s Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals (BMZA) from 2023 to 2025. Others are welcome to submit commentary on the legislation to editors@baltimorebrew.com.

After nearly a decade as an attorney representing community associations, I entered city government as a zoning believer. I quickly lost my faith.

I remember a conversation with a property owner who was staring down in disbelief at her carefully labeled plans. She’d taken out a significant loan to renovate a three-unit, multi-family dwelling and was already paying the monthly mortgage, with no rental income yet.

When she came to the permit office to apply for her use and occupancy permit, they sent her upstairs to BMZA, and I had to tell her she couldn’t legally rent it as a multi-family dwelling at all.

• DETAILED COVERAGE: Scott’s Zoning Deregulation Bills

City records showed the property as a single-family dwelling, though neighbors confirmed it had operated as three apartments for decades. The Code prohibited conversions from single-family to multi-family use in her district. Investing in that property had turned out to be a disastrous financial decision, and I had no silver lining to offer her.

The pattern seemed to repeat every week. I’d explain to a property owner that they needed a variance because their proposed number of dwelling units was “too dense.” But even if they went through the variance appeal process, they probably wouldn’t qualify for one, because their building was not unique, which was a threshold requirement.

“But what does ‘too dense’ even mean?” they’d ask. Good question.

I asked more experienced colleagues in planning, zoning and housing: where did these density regulations come from?

Their answers were frustrating to hear and embarrassing to repeat. The density regulations roughly matched the existing density of each neighborhood, sort of, more or less. That was it. No science. No public health data. Just numbers written into a chart decades ago with the sole goal of preserving the status quo.

For decades, the BMZA ran an illegal “consent docket,” routinely approving variances without applying the code’s strict requirements. This practice masked how restrictive our regulations were. I am a rule follower at heart, so I was going to make sure that the Board applied the law consistently for that reason alone.

But I also knew that consistent enforcement was the only way to make the consequences of the Council’s legislative choices visible.

Now that the City Council is considering zoning reform through Bill 25-0066, I want to address the most common objections that I hear.

Objection 1: Every neighborhood is different

The Zoning Code claims to protect public health, safety, and welfare, but that justification evaporates when applied to density restrictions and bans on multi-family housing. True public health standards should not vary by neighborhood.

Putting aside differences in enforcement, which can create very real disparities, we don’t set different air quality standards or fire codes based on neighborhood. If density restrictions actually protected public health, we could identify a scientifically “safe” density level and apply it uniformly citywide, as we would with any other health-related regulation.

But we don’t. Instead, Guilford receives much stronger protections than McElderry Park, a disparity that makes sense only when you understand zoning’s origins as a tool for racial and socioeconomic exclusion. When confronted with these inconsistencies, exclusionary zoning defenders often use the thought-terminating cliché that “every neighborhood is different.”

Of course neighborhoods differ in character and history. But this statement obscures the critical question: why should these differences justify unequal laws?

Objection 2: It will increase density

This concern misunderstands how density is measured in the Code. A “dwelling unit” is so broadly defined that it can include anything from a studio apartment to a mansion.

You could easily quadruple a structure’s “density” in terms of “units” while housing the exact same number of people.

For example, a four-bedroom rowhouse converted into four one-bedroom units maintains the same bedroom count as the original structure but suddenly counts as four times “denser.” Smaller units are more affordable and allow smaller households their own space rather than forcing them to share.

This bill simply provides the possibility of options for people who need smaller, more affordable housing, and it only allows increased density in structures that are large enough to accommodate more than one unit.

Objection 3: It will compromise safety

Zoning for single-family-only use doesn’t protect housing safety or quality: just look at our thousands of unsafe, decaying vacant single-family rowhouses.

Regulations governing lead paint, minimum unit size, building materials and emergency exits all live in the Building Code, not the Zoning Code.

There’s nothing unsafe or unhealthy about dividing an existing structure into multiple units.

Valid concerns about code enforcement can’t be addressed through zoning restrictions.

Objection 4: It will hurt homeownership

Zoning determines use and has nothing to say about property ownership.

Single-family dwellings can be rentals, and multi-family dwellings can be owner-occupied through condos or co-ops.

About half of our city’s residents either can’t or don’t want to own property. They still deserve safe, healthy housing, a basic human right. Treating renters as lesser community members is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Objection 5: It exempts neighborhoods with covenants

Restrictive covenants are legal agreements among private property owners that run completely independently of zoning law.

I find it troubling when neighborhood leaders look enviously at private exclusionary restrictions borne of racism and ask the city to impose similarly exclusionary barriers through public laws.

I live in a detached single-family zoning district, and I welcome more density.

I want more neighbors and more taxpayers sharing the responsibility of caring for this city. I want housing options for everyone: young people who need affordable apartments, seniors who want to downsize, families, individuals, couples, and roommates who all deserve choices that fit their needs.

I strongly support City Council Bill 25-0066.

The property owners who stood across from me in the BMZA offices deserved better answers than our Code allowed me to give, and so does everyone who wants to make Baltimore their home.