Los Angeles Examiners

Walid Nasserdeen
LA Finance Examiner
Most Recent Article
Yahoo! CEO? Yang's memo to employees
R.E. Xavier
LA Small Business Examiner
Most Recent Article
Small business resolutions for the New Year
 
 

Multimedia News

Hot celebs at the People's Choice Awards
6 photos
Jewel arrives at the 35th Annual People's Cho...
Women sports gallery
6 photos
France's Alize Cornet reacts after taking a p...
Notables who have lost children
6 photos
John Travolta's 16-year-old son Jett died Jan...
New Year, New You
6 photos
Oprah regrets her weight gain over the past y...
Hopman Cup highlights
6 photos
Russia's Dinara Safina returns a shot against...

Waterfront development plans raise concerns in community

Jun 26, 2008 12:00 AM (197 days ago) by Andrew Cannarsa, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
The HarborView developer wants to build two more towers west of the current tower, and Federal Hill residents are upset about the development’s effect on the neighborhood in Baltimore. – Arianne Starnes/Examiner

The HarborView developer wants to build two more towers west of the current tower, and Federal Hill residents are upset about the development’s effect on the neighborhood in Baltimore. – Arianne Starnes/Examiner
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - For Baltimore waterfront developers and nearby communities, it’s all about the view.

Recent concerns among residents in Federal Hill and Locust Point about the effect proposed construction would have on their connection to water have highlighted the issues developers face when pitching waterfront projects.

Across from Federal Hill, HarborView Properties Development, developer of the current HarborView tower, plans to build a 26-story tower and will consider building a 17-story tower on the site. Federal Hill residents have said one tower is enough.

In Locust Point, Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse initially planned about 1,200 new residential units in the neighborhood, in addition to two other large residential projects in the community — Turner Development’s Silo Point and developer Mark Sapperstein’s McHenry Row. Community opposition to the large scale of the project led Struever to revise its plan and propose just 130 residential units in the community.

This story continues below
Advertisement

“The issue is not only water view. There are other issues such as the access to the water, public spaces, parking, traffic — all these things go into the dialogue with the community,” said Bill Struever, president and CEO of Struever Bros. “[Working with the community] is essential, because without community support it is very hard to get approvals from the city.”

There’s no question the waterfront offers tremendous value to developers, as seen with Harbor East’s positioning between Little Italy and the water, Harbor Point’s placement between Fells Point and the water and Canton Crossing’s waterfront development in Canton.

Baltimore City’s planning department expects developers to have an open dialogue with communities when planning a project, said Douglas McCoach, the planning department’s director.

“We see the advantages of new residents and increased tax revenues, but we don’t want to compromise what we have in terms of waterfront neighborhoods,” McCoach said.

“We want it all,” McCoach said. “We want great buildings, new residents and to preserve what’s great about Baltimore.”

Pat Turner, who is developing Westport along the Middle Branch, said original plans for the $1.4 billion residential, retail and office development called for private access to the water. But after residents in nearby Cherry Hill asked for public access to the water, Turner agreed and changed the plan.

“If you get [the community] on your side, nobody is opposing you, and the project is moving very quickly.” Turner said.

Paul Robinson, president of the Federal Hill Neighborhood Association, understands the waterfront is a valuable resource to the city. What worries Robinson and others is too much development and a disconnect between the neighborhood and the waterfront.

“Why would we do something that would exacerbate the situation?” Robinson said. “We all need to have a seat at the table, and issues need to be addressed.”

Ana Sebescen contributed to this article.

acannarsa@baltimoreexaminer.com

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

1:25 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 28, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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!

9 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

1:15 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 28, 2008 re: "Neighbors say creamery violates conservation pact, zoning laws"

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.

9 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.

17 agree | 16 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

15 agree | 13 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!!

32 agree | 22 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.

16 agree | 14 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

16 agree | 24 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?

20 agree | 14 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.

13 agree | 16 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

26 agree | 25 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.

11 agree | 13 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

14 agree | 14 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.

14 agree | 21 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.

10 agree | 12 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?

15 agree | 15 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!

17 agree | 17 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.

32 agree | 41 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.

41 agree | 37 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.

32 agree | 45 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.

66 agree | 70 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Advertisement