CHANGE MY LOCATION
Business
Examiners
Business Examiner
Most Recent Post
Opportunity bats (and throws) - Phiten necklaces available for all MLB teams
Multimedia News
Officials to unveil details on Tide Point expansion
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
The meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m. at the city Department of Planning’s offices at 417 Fayette St.
The expansion involves the repealing of the existing plan for the Tide Point Planned Unit Development and approval of a new plan. A bill to do so was introduced before the City Council Jan. 28 and has been referred to several city agencies and departments for comment.
The expansion will include new office space, a parking garage with residential units above, and several other residential developments on surrounding lots, according to Bob Quilter, coordinator with the Department of Planning.
“It’s got a lot of things,” he said. “It’s a major expansion.”
Quilter declined further comment but said full details would be outlined at the panel’s meeting today.
The council bill authorizing the expansion was referred to the Baltimore Development Corporation, which said it was “pleased to support” the plan in a Feb. 14 letter.
“This request is in keeping with the Locust Point Master Plan, which … recommended to modify existing zoning and encourage mixed-use Planned Unit Developments for sites over five acres,” BDC President M.J. “Jay” Brodie wrote in the letter.
Locust Point Civic Association President Paul Silberman also declined to discuss details of the expansion, saying it has not been presented to the association’s membership. Silberman said a task force has been assembled by the group and is working with city officials in evaluating the plans.
“We’re probably going to present it [to members] several times. The task force is working with the city, and we’re waiting to hear what city agencies think of it,” he said. “It’s fluid right now.”
Calls for comment to Tide Point developer Struever Brothers Eccles & Rouse on Wednesday were not returned.
acahall@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:25 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 28, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
1:15 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 28, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
6:49 AM MST on Sun., Jun. 29, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
11:07 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
11:04 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
3:01 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
1:41 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
8:51 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
1:01 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
8:23 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
10:27 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Study criticizes city’s redevelopment, says practices have created ‘two cities’"
Report as inappropriate
4:41 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Study criticizes city’s redevelopment, says practices have created ‘two cities’"
Report as inappropriate
9:20 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"
Report as inappropriate
4:02 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Study criticizes city’s redevelopment, says practices have created ‘two cities’"
Report as inappropriate
7:21 AM MST on Fri., May. 2, 2008
re: "Bill calls for tighter scrutiny of development plan changes"
Report as inappropriate
7:48 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 7, 2008
re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"
Report as inappropriate
12:13 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008
re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"
Report as inappropriate
5:18 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008
re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"
Report as inappropriate
3:30 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008
re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"
Report as inappropriate
10:35 AM MST on Wed., Dec. 26, 2007
re: "Overbuilding in area could lead to slow office market in 2008"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
I don't understand why everyone is upset about this since the farm is doing this to survive. Selling land into preservation is protecting it from being developed but not from buildings for agricultural uses. Read about the MALPF goals and see for yourself...they want to preserve the farmland and make it so the farms can continue to produce food for Maryland residents...that is exactly what Mr. Prigel is doing!
8 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It may specify "creameries" in the ML zoning code but the Prigels are in complete compliance with the RC-2 zone as well. I have been to the public hearings and heard the information presented. The people fighting the Prigels are only worried about the location of the building and they honestly have NO RIGHT to protest that since it is in compliance with the MALF preservation agreement the Prigels signed and in compliance with the zoning regulations for their land. Commercial agriculture is important and necessary for the future of farming and therefore the future of the economy. Why wouldn't we want to support the ONLY organic dairy farm in all of Baltimore county. There is a huge market and the Prigels would be crazy not to build this creamery. Also if you all value people putting land in preservation then stopping the Prigels will only deter future farmers from entering the preservation since it is taking away ALL of their rights even when that is not the agreement they signed.
8 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
As a taxpayer I am concerned about the money. I would hope you will do a follow-up and follow the money trail. With the state that our economy is in spending taxpayers money like this doesn't seem right. Could there be a politician helping a friend, look at the city and the political fall-out there. We don't want that in the county also. Examiner you need to follow-up I am going to research this on my own - something doesn't smell right here.
16 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is how you spell "illegal" - look at your own property
13 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If more neighbors would look at this facility they will realize that we are going to have a commercial receiving station for milk, and by the way look at all the money that the taxpayers are paying to build this facility. Grant money, 2% interest loans of $250,000 over 10 years, from the state and county WOW! The rest of us keep paying all these tax increases and fees to the government and they keep throwing our money down the river. As taxpayers we need to say enough is enough. Now they have to change the law to justify the money they loaned the Prigels!!! And they call this fair government!! Say no to commercial facilities on ag ground!!
31 agree | 21 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Zoning facts said:
Creamery ONLY in Manufacturing light (ML zones) see section 253.1 Baltimore County zoning regulations Dairy products store BL zones See Baltimore County Zoning Regulations Section 230. Need a special exception for a processing plant in RC2 zone.
15 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There is no zoning change that needs to take place in order build this building to bottle his own milk. The land is in agricultural preservation, this is part of agricultural preservation. The zoning change is simply for a small retail store to sell his milk, yogurt, cheese etc. This article makes it sound as if he has done something illeagal. The Examiner needs to get its facts straight! Carrie Prigel
15 agree | 23 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
upset by zoning said:
It seems like a 10,000 SF processing plant really belongs in Glen Arm (a short distance away) where commercial businesses are located. Doesn't the family even own land in Glen Arm. We could still buy local and support this farming family and their new business. And what's up with the County? If the zoning says a creamery can only be in Manufacturing Light and dairy stores only in Business Light how can this dairy processing place be in this RC 2 zone and on preserved land? Can the County just change the zoning like this without input?
19 agree | 13 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
good try. but if first sentence reads like an encyclopedia, nobody's gonna get to the second one, m.e.
12 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
P Kelly said:
Across the country, family farms are disappearing at alarming rates. Large corporate agribusiness operations are taking their place and we as consumers are losing control over the food we eat. Evidenced by the frightening amount of contaminated food recalls, does it not make sense to know where our food is produced and under what conditions? And with the rising energy costs, keeping food close to where it is produced surely will help reduce energy needs. I assume by the author’s use of quotation marks around the phrase roadside stand there is an inference that the facility is more than that. I would direct the author to Baltimore County Zoning Regulations which defines a roadside stand as “an accessory structure owned and operated by an agricultural producer, used for the sale of indigenous farm products, the majority of which have been grown on the premises, on adjacent land or on properties farmed by the same agricultural producer.” I applaud Mr. Prigel’s efforts to preserve
25 agree | 23 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The study is very interesting. It would be nice to live in a thriving, growing city with vitality. Not the Baltimore I have been given by the so called leaders.
10 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This study is the truth
12 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Johnny Apple seed said:
Read between the lines. A name on a paper delivered to the County Executive is an obvious headhunt and political bias comment. Grasping at straws so the slander suits await. The democrats are being conservative and honest, a republican can only dream up the ladder. The elected political elite do favors for legal contributions, period. Grow up, examiner.
12 agree | 19 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Steven Lessner said:
The corruption in the city and state which allows rich developers to have their way with the city is the reason.With dixon on the verge of being charged with crimes against the citizens of Baltimore and the council's presdient not far behind. Hopefully they will soon investigate owe'malley and his corruption. The democrats are destroying all the cities and state. They need to be ousted before our governments are all broke. All the deals dixon has given her developer friends have left the city without tens of millions of dollars.Dixon is the worst kind of thief she not only steals from taxpayers but lines her pockets from the developers. Dixon is the being assisted by the baltimore developement corp. who is assisting with this corruption of the highest kind.
9 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why is Resolution 51-07 off the Council website? Are they covering up a development matter that was facilitated to benefit the friend of a high County official?
13 agree | 13 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think Jim Smith & John Olszewski Sr. have done a remarkable job with tearing down the YorkWay Apartments. This area was full of crime, drugs, and people on welfare who do absolutely nothing to "better themselves" while "we" working people pay their bills. Even after this, they still bring down the neighborhood. This has been needed for a very long time because Dundalk will thrive once again. It's time to clean up and our local & County officials have stepped up to the plate. If you read all of the facts in this story, the new owner & developer have stipulations regarding what they "can" or "cannot" do with this land. Jim Smith has "legal" clauses in the contract that this developement cannot hurt the residents or the neighborhood. Keep the faith and be supportive instead of negative. That's the problem with this world. Many people have their opinions and run their mouth, but yet they never go to any of the town meetings and help volunteer or give suggestions. Take action!
16 agree | 16 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
reader said:
Built it and they will come.
31 agree | 40 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is being done for increased Tax Revenue for our Goverment. They need the money badly for there families.
40 agree | 36 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
how much will jim smith and johnny o. get out of this. no politician, espically in maryland does something for nothing.
31 agree | 44 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
should be building office space in india,china and mexico.really no need for it in the us.
65 agree | 68 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree