Guest column by Peter Fosselman.
As the County Council considers Bill 41-26—a proposal that would remove the owner‑occupancy requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)— it is worth pausing to reflect on whether this change aligns with those values. The bill would allow property owners to rent both the primary residence and the ADU, effectively creating two rental units on a single‑family lot. While expanding housing options is an important goal, removing owner‑occupancy raises concerns about unintended consequences for neighborhood character, housing stability, and the direction of county policy.
ADUs have been a valuable tool for homeowners. They can help older adults remain in their homes and offer supplemental income. I support the concept of ADUs and recently had one approved by the City of Rockville where I reside. Having first floor access, my ADU may serve as a place for my parents to stay. It might also benefit us if we age in place being a place for a caretaker to live. The owner‑occupancy requirement has ensured that ADUs remain rooted in these purposes — supporting residents who have a direct stake in the community. Bill 41‑26 would shift that balance. Without owner‑occupancy, ADUs could become an attractive investment strategy for absentee landlords. This is not a criticism of rental housing; renters are essential members of our community. I was a renter at one point in my life and maybe again someday. Neighborhoods function differently when properties transition from owner‑occupied homes to investor‑owned rentals. This may include a lack of maintenance, transient residents who never take pride in the community or the inability of neighbors to get to know each other. The discussion around Bill 41‑26 is happening at a time when the county is also implementing rent control. Early indicators suggest that rent control may be contributing to a decline in housing permit applications, as reported by *Montgomery Perspective*. Fewer permits mean fewer new homes—a challenge for a county that continues to grow.
It is understandable policymakers are looking for ways to increase housing supply – it’s an election year. But relying on ADUs to fill the gap created by slowing development may not be the most effective strategy. ADUs can complement broader housing efforts, but they cannot replace the production lost when larger projects become less viable. Removing owner‑occupancy from ADU policy risks eroding neighborhoods. It introduces uncertainty into neighborhoods that have embraced ADUs under the current rules. It also raises questions about whether the county is moving too quickly when other housing policies are still settling into place. These include rent control, State bill HB 1466 allowing ADUs anywhere, and the Troubled Properties law.
A more measured approach would be to maintain owner‑occupancy while continuing to evaluate the impact of other recent housing initiatives. If adjustments are needed, they should be made with a full understanding of how these policies interact. Montgomery County should take the time to assess whether removing owner‑occupancy truly serves the long‑term interests of residents—homeowners and renters alike. By preserving owner‑occupancy for ADUs, the county can continue to support homeowners and maintain the character of the neighborhoods that make Montgomery County such a strong and welcoming place to live.
Peter Fosselman is the former Mayor of Kensington, where he obtained municipal zoning authority from the State of Maryland in 2012. He served as the Deputy Secretary of State and is a Fellow of the Urban Land Institute and Rose Center. His undergraduate degree is in Urban Studies.