CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Backyard windmill in Monkton gets Baltimore County's OK
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: Baltimore County
Baltimore County (Map, News) - A Monkton family is free to build the area’s first backyard windmill, Baltimore County’s zoning commissioner has ruled in a precedent-setting opinion he said he hopes will “forge new ground” in alternative, renewable energy.
The ruling released Friday grants the Antonelli family approval to build a 120-foot windmill in its yard, a special exception to a county law that caps poles on residential property at 15 feet. In his opinion, Deputy Zoning Commissioner Tom Bostwick said the windmill will keep seven tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year and provide a “working example of utilizing alternative energy sources.”
“On paper, the Antonellis’ request is simply a request for variance, but the implications of the family’s actions may well reflect a change in American attitudes regarding oil and alternative energy uses,” Bostwick wrote.
Earlier this month, the Baltimore County Council passed a resolution directing the county planning board to re-examine zoning law equating windmills to sheds with height limits at 15 feet. At that height, experts said, significant wind generation is impossible.
In May, Carroll County became the first and, so far, only Maryland jurisdiction to allow backyard windmills, passing legislation allowing them up to 150 feet tall. Anne Arundel County caps accessory structures at 25 feet, and Howard County imposes strict distance requirements from roads.
Homeowner Barry Antonelli said the windmill — which could cost between $14,000 and $120,000, according to his electrician — could shave up to 25 percent off his monthly electric bills.
“There’s a payback,” he said in a previous interview.
But not everyone is happy about the windmill. Several of Antonelli’s neighbors said they worry the turbine could be a noisy eyesore and plan to file an appeal Monday.
“We were surprised he approved it without any independent study on how it’s going to impact the surrounding community,” said Lisa Viscuso. “We’re disappointed.”
jmalarkey@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
8:07 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 10, 2008 re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
6:45 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 7, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
10:54 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 29, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
12:05 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 28, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
12:05 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 28, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
12:05 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 28, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
12:05 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 28, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
8:09 AM MST on Sat., Aug. 16, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
8:05 AM MST on Sat., Aug. 16, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
7:56 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 12, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
1:45 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 12, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
4:03 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
4:00 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
3:25 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
3:06 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
2:43 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
12:48 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
11:06 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
7:06 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
6:53 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 5, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
12:26 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 4, 2008
re: "Legal battle churning over Baltimore County creamery"
Report as inappropriate
2:30 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 21, 2008
re: "Backyard windmill in Monkton gets Baltimore County's OK"
Report as inappropriate
9:43 AM MST on Sun., Jul. 20, 2008
re: "Backyard windmill in Monkton gets Baltimore County's OK"
Report as inappropriate
We are the REAL Long Green said:
To those of you who are saying this will hurt the preservation if it goes through....I think you have it backwards. Do you have any land that you are willing to put in preservation after seeing that some people think that you would forfeit ALL your rights to the land. The money the farmers get for putting land in the preservation is to make up for the drop in value of that land due to the fact that it can never be developed. You can't argue that selling farmland to a developer rather than another farmer would bring more money in the future if the Prigels or any other farmer wanted to sell. No farm will want to take that money in the future and put land in preservation if it means a costly legal battle every time they try to build something on their own property. Take a look at the MALPF website and get your facts straight about the goals of the preservation before you judge whether this is a good use of tax money. No one will put land into preservation if this doesn't go through.
0 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
long green resident said:
It humors me to read the cowardliness of the so called long green residents. It is so humorous that susan yoder writes multiple comments. If only she had the courage to put her name at the end of her ten comments. I doubt that some random person knows the going rate for milk. I dont think any one can dispute that an apartment building would look worse than the creamery. This is what our tax dollars protected us from...it is not meant to make it so farmers cannot build a structure for farm use. I am still confused why the Prigels are involved with the legal action. The Prigels had every right to build the building and have the processing facility. Can we the "people of long green" requset a hearing on the right for any person to build a permant structure past or present? If any legal action should be filed it should be on the county or MALPF. I heard there was 650 people at the fundraiser for the Prigels. Wow, we know where the real community stands on this issue!
3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
valley resident said:
Sounds like a Prigel relative's comments. Prigels have said ON PAPER they plan to bring in other dairy milk from other farmers - that is commercial/industrial.
5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Local resident said:
This article makes it sound as if all of the community is against the creamery. If you had been at the trial you would have seen that so many more people showed up for it. A new pizza joint goes up (why do we need 4 anyway?) and people are happy, god forbid a dairy farmer build an organic processing plant. This fight was not started over commercialization, no, it was started because a neighbor said the plant destroyed her view. As someone who lives just down the road, I'd be overjoyed to see this go up. This isn't going to destroy the area. No one has complained about Bordy's vineyards, saying it commercialized and destroyed the area. Over 300 tickets have already been bought by locals to support the creamery. And if you lived in the area you'd notice all the fliers protesting this ridiculous suit.Do not complain about this because of what you read in this article. We want the creamery. This article is completely one sided and does not represent the views of the local residents.
10 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Local resident said:
This article makes it sound as if all of the community is against the creamery. If you had been at the trial you would have seen that so many more people showed up for it. A new pizza joint goes up (why do we need 4 anyway?) and people are happy, god forbid a dairy farmer build an organic processing plant. This fight was not started over commercialization, no, it was started because a neighbor said the plant destroyed her view. As someone who lives just down the road, I'd be overjoyed to see this go up. This isn't going to destroy the area. No one has complained about Bordy's vineyards, saying it commercialized and destroyed the area. Over 300 tickets have already been bought by locals to support the creamery. And if you lived in the area you'd notice all the fliers protesting this ridiculous suit.Do not complain about this because of what you read in this article. We want the creamery. This article is completely one sided and does not represent the views of the local residents.
1 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Local resident said:
This article makes it sound as if all of the community is against the creamery. If you had been at the trial you would have seen that so many more people showed up for it. A new pizza joint goes up (why do we need 4 anyway?) and people are happy, god forbid a dairy farmer build an organic processing plant. This fight was not started over commercialization, no, it was started because a neighbor said the plant destroyed her view. As someone who lives just down the road, I'd be overjoyed to see this go up. This isn't going to destroy the area. No one has complained about Bordy's vineyards, saying it commercialized and destroyed the area. Over 300 tickets have already been bought by locals to support the creamery. And if you lived in the area you'd notice all the fliers protesting this ridiculous suit.Do not complain about this because of what you read in this article. We want the creamery. This article is completely one sided and does not represent the views of the local residents.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Local resident said:
This article makes it sound as if all of the community is against the creamery. If you had been at the trial you would have seen that so many more people showed up for it. A new pizza joint goes up (why do we need 4 anyway?) and people are happy, god forbid a dairy farmer build an organic processing plant. This fight was not started over commercialization, no, it was started because a neighbor said the plant destroyed her view. As someone who lives just down the road, I'd be overjoyed to see this go up. This isn't going to destroy the area. No one has complained about Bordy's vineyards, saying it commercialized and destroyed the area. Over 300 tickets have already been bought by locals to support the creamery. And if you lived in the area you'd notice all the fliers protesting this ridiculous suit.Do not complain about this because of what you read in this article. We want the creamery. This article is completely one sided and does not represent the views of the local residents.
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Easements are NOT forever said:
Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation (the group who holds the easement) has really hurt preservation with allowing this to happen. Who ARE these people who made this decision and why would they risk public trust? If easements aren't permanent, why pay them the big bucks? Whose looking over their decisions and how our taxpayer funds are spent?
10 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
go to Glen Arm where this belongs! said:
With all the money the state, county and possibly USDA are willing to give this farmer (in addition to over 1.1 million the taxpayers paid for the original easement)to build a factory/ manufacturing plant on RC2 land, they could have purchased a plant already built in a rural village within one mile of their farm and all of this would NOT be an issue! On their land, if they built a farmstead operation and NOT a RECEIVING STATION so they could bring in milk from other dairies that would be value-added business. What they are doing is outright industrialization and they should be ashamed! They are not on the brink of farming. They have said their farm is valued at 15,000 an acre (260 acres) plus they retained some house lots. When their milk was priced at $18 per 100 weight it jumped to at least $30 per hundred weight when they ;labeled it organic! Big increase in income there too. Prior to this venture they did not seem to have any debt... we should all be so lucky!
12 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I take offense to the statement that residents of the Long Green Valley are fighting the creamery. Please check your facts. You make it sound like the who valley is against the creamery. It is just a few sparked by sour grapes from another farmer and a few other residents. Most people think it is ridiculous that a dairy farmer would not be able to run a creamery.
11 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is not a farmstead creamery it is a commercial receiving station/dairy processing facility. The law states that it belongs in ML Zoned property not in the middle of RC2 Zone property. No one wants to see a farmer go out of business but they must adhere to the laws of the County like everyone else. And just think what would happen if everyone with an easement on their property requested two acres of commercial for their endeavor what we would have then in the County. Look at the whole picture before you make your decision.
13 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Times have changed- farm land used to be plentiful
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There was a time when that valley hosted a railroad, a cannery, and Lord knows what else - and nobody minded at all. I doubt a little creamery will hurt it.
15 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think that many people are missing the larger implications of this issue. Millions of dollars of taxpayers money have been given to farmers in Maryland to "buy back" the building rights of their property in an attempt to save farm land. If Mr. Prigel is allowed to develop on his property after being paid over a million dollars not to, it sets a precedent that other farmers may not have to honor their agreements. The result could be a loss of even more farm land and a collosal waste of the millions of dollars that taxpayers have invested in land prevervation. This issue is a test of the communities resolve to preverve farm land. It is time for both Mr. Prigel and the Long Green Vally Assoc. to sit down and figure out a resolution to this issue before more land, taxpayer's money, and credibility is lost, while insuring the financial viability of Mr. Prigel's farm.
14 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
In our rural county family farms are for-profit businesses - most typically family owned and operated dairy farms supporting multiple generations. I applaud the Prigel family for having the foresight to conserve their land, and for their efforts to maintain the viability of their farm in a way that will serve many needs and peope within their community. Do residents realize that preserving farmers is more challenging than protecting farmland, that without farmers there can be no farms, and without active farming those 260 acres of protected farmland will revert to unsightly brush that some may find more objectionable than the farmstead creamery and farmstand where the Prigel family would like to make and market locally-grown food? Organic land ethics, family farming and stewardship, local food production and values - this sounds like a win-win for the people of Baltimore County.
18 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I don't understand- how could Mr. Prigel build 150 "ridiculous houses" if his property is zoned agricultural? the integrity of the zoning regulations and easements is all that prevents this from happening.That is why we have to actually enforce our zoning regulations.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
As a Baldwin resident, I have to travel to North Bel Air to currently purchase organic milk, yogurt and other products from a dairy. I want Mr. Prigel to build his dairy. I want the Long Green Valley Association to stop sending me unwanted junk mail voicing all of their petty reasons why the dairy should not be built. The only thing I do not want is 150 ridiculous houses built on farm land because some self-righteous newcomers have decided to take away a farm family's livelihood. Oh, and by the way, this entire issue has caused my husband to completely rescind any ideas of leaving property to the Long Green Valley Conservancy - way to build a support base!
13 agree | 13 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
what happens if the farmer does not make a go of his new milk processing business? He could then turn around and sell his property to be used in some other commercial venture. This just opens the door to commercial development on what little farm land we have left in Baltimore County.
11 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I can understand how the neighbors would not want a milk processing facility built in a rural/residential area. This would be more akin to a manufacturing facility than a agricultural endeavor. Think tanker trucks,truck washing stations, additional road access, shipping in of raw materials from other farms, noise,traffic, etc.
9 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This farmer accepted 1.1 million dollars from the state in exchange for NOT developing his property, then decided to open a retail establishment on the same property. Any wonder people are upset?
11 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
who is he hurting in there any who? It's not like he's building a Walmart or a shopping center!! God forbid he has at most 20 cars a day visit his store. The traffic congestion will be akin to rush hour on the beltway, give me break, the only reason the neighbors are mad is because the didn't have the foresite to buy property and go into business themselves!!!
14 agree | 16 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Is the estimated cost really between $14,000 and $120,000!!?? That seems like a very wide spread, or is it just a typo?
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I still cannot believe how his neighbors are so naive and stupid. Their only real concern is aesthetics. For Christmas sake, he's a quarter mile from his closest neighbor!!! BTW I live about five miles from them and would love to have a windmill near me, or even have one myself. Maybe if his neighbors actually educated themselves on windmills instead of sitting on their back porches drinking their martinis and complaining about the price of oil. They are the same ones who complain about the price of oil and then hop into their Cadillac SUV's. They are one of the reasons why the country doesn't have an energy plan. They are the "not in my back yard generation". To Barry Antonelli and his plans - thank you for doing something for current and future generations. You have the foresight and gumption to do something. I thank you and my kids thank you.
11 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree