Bill calls for tighter scrutiny of development plan changes
Article History
There are updates to this article.

BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Developers building homes in Baltimore County may have a tougher time adding lots to approved plans under a proposal before local lawmakers.

Builders who want to add homes to approved plans must re-enter the county’s development review process — rather than an expedited process used for minor plan refinements — under a bill scheduled for a council vote Monday. Bill sponsor Bryan McIntire, a north county Republican, said developers are frequently allowed to build under plans approved years earlier despite zoning changes on the site.

“It could have been approved in 1929 or 1980,” McIntire said.

Current legislation requires “material” plan changes to follow recent laws regardless of when the original plan was approved, but doesn’t define “material.”

The law, if passed, could represent a policy disagreement between the council and the Board of Appeals, which has continually approved major changes to development plans as “refinements,” McIntire said.

The board last year approved a nine-story condominium building on the outskirts of the Hunt Valley Towne Centre, for example. The project — 218 condominium units and 450 parking spaces — was first proposed as a “refinement” to the 1979 plan creating the Hunt Valley Mall.

Council Chairman Kevin Kamenetz, co-chairman of the proposal — which would exempt plans in the approval process — said the legislation will clarify the council’s interpretation.

“There’s nothing more material than adding lots,” Kamenetz said.

But Towson-based development lawyer Dusky Holman said the county has adhered to an unwritten rule that considered an addition of less than 10 percent of homes a “minor amendment.”

“Under this scenario, if I just added one more unit, it would be deemed material and I would have to go through the full development process again,” Holman said.

Michael Harrison, government affairs director for the Home Builders Association of Maryland, said the organization supports the proposal.

“The association is glad it’s finally being clarified so we know what to do and can work within the system.”

jmalarkey@baltimoreexaminer.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

6:49 AM MST on Sun., Jun. 29, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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.

7 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

11:07 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

Examiner Reader said:
This is how you spell "illegal" - look at your own property

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:04 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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!!

21 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:01 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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.

6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:41 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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

4 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:51 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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?

10 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:01 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

Examiner Reader said:
good try. but if first sentence reads like an encyclopedia, nobody's gonna get to the second one, m.e.

3 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:23 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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

13 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:27 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Study criticizes city’s redevelopment, says practices have created ‘two cities’"

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.

1 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:41 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Study criticizes city’s redevelopment, says practices have created ‘two cities’"

Examiner Reader said:
This study is the truth

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:20 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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.

3 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:02 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Study criticizes city’s redevelopment, says practices have created ‘two cities’"

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.

0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:21 AM MST on Fri., May. 2, 2008 re: "Bill calls for tighter scrutiny of development plan changes"

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?

4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:48 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 7, 2008 re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"

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!

5 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:13 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"

reader said:
Built it and they will come.

20 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:18 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"

Examiner Reader said:
This is being done for increased Tax Revenue for our Goverment. They need the money badly for there families.

31 agree | 27 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:30 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "County prepares for auction of Yorkway apartment site"

Examiner Reader said:
how much will jim smith and johnny o. get out of this. no politician, espically in maryland does something for nothing.

21 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:35 AM MST on Wed., Dec. 26, 2007 re: "Overbuilding in area could lead to slow office market in 2008"

Examiner Reader said:
should be building office space in india,china and mexico.really no need for it in the us.

56 agree | 59 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.19 seconds)