SB 430 — Land Use: Regional Housing Infrastructure Gap (Housing for Jobs Act)
Status: Introduced January 20, 2025 (Administration bill) — Effective date: January 1, 2026 (per fiscal note)
Summary
- SB 430 establishes a statutory framework to measure regional “housing infrastructure gaps” and to require local jurisdictions with such gaps to expedite approval of housing projects. The goal is to bring each region’s jobs‑to‑housing ratio to 1.5 or less (i.e., no more than 1.5 jobs per housing unit).
Key provisions
- Regional calculations and annual reporting (DHCD + MDP)
- By January 1 each year, the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and the Department of Planning (MDP) must publish, for six designated regions:
- total housing units; total jobs by place of work; jobs‑to‑housing ratio;
- number of housing units needed for the region to reach a jobs‑to‑housing ratio ≤ 1.5; and
- the regional housing infrastructure gap (existing units vs. needed units).
- Regions are predefined (e.g., Baltimore region, Washington Suburban, Southern Maryland, Western Maryland, Upper Eastern Shore, Lower Eastern Shore).
Apportionment to local jurisdictions
- DHCD/MDP must apportion each region’s gap among counties and incorporated municipalities based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional jobs — creating a local housing infrastructure gap for each jurisdiction.
Approval standard where a local gap exists
- Local jurisdictions with a local housing infrastructure gap have an affirmative obligation to expeditiously approve housing development project applications.
- A jurisdiction may not deny an application unless it provides a written justification that:
- Clearly outweighs the need for housing, and
- Is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- A requirement that a project wait one year (or more) for a building permit is treated as a denial.
Acceptable justifications for denial (examples)
- Significant, unmitigable public health or safety impacts; necessary compliance with state/federal law that cannot be achieved without rendering the project infeasible; inadequate water/wastewater capacity with no feasible remedy; location in heavy industrial/conservation/agricultural zones; school attendance area capacity exceeding 100% of State‑rated capacity (based on objective criteria); or noncompliance with objective written development standards that cannot be feasibly remedied.
Court enforcement
- Project proponents may sue in circuit court to enforce the law. If the court finds unlawful denial, it must compel compliance within 90 days and may order approval or other actions to carry out the project.
Gap reduction credit
- For purposes of reducing a local gap, each affordable housing unit — and each housing unit within 3/4 mile of a rail station — counts as 1.5 units (i.e., a 1.5× multiplier).
Who is affected
- State agencies: DHCD and MDP (annual data, apportionment duties).
- Local governments: counties and incorporated municipalities will receive quantified local gaps and face new approval obligations and potential court enforcement.
- Developers and transit/affordable housing proponents: likely accelerated permitting where local gaps exist; multiplier for affordable/transit‑adjacent units incentivizes targeted production.
- Utilities, schools, and infrastructure planners: may face increased demand and planning pressures where capacity constraints are used as denial justifications.
Implementation timeline & fiscal notes
- Annual publication required by January 1 each year, starting after the bill takes effect.
- Effective January 1, 2026.
- Fiscal impact: State agencies can implement with existing resources; local revenues and expenditures may increase in certain jurisdictions. The bill imposes a mandate on local governments and is expected to have meaningful impacts on small businesses (per Administration and Department of Legislative Services analyses).
Potential impacts and considerations
- Intended to spur housing production near jobs and transit, and to encourage affordable housing.
- May constrain traditional local land‑use discretion and increase litigation between developers and jurisdictions.
- Infrastructure and school capacity constraints are explicitly recognized but must be demonstrated with objective evidence to justify denials.
