A Letter from Wade Regarding CZMP Conclusion | Part I, II, & III


October – November 2016

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for contacting me during the 2016 Comprehensive Zoning Map Process (“CZMP”).  Your correspondence is very much appreciated.

The 2016 CZMP concluded on August 30, 2016.  I am pleased to announce that all of my recommendations to the County Council were passed unanimously.  There were 92 Zoning Issues.  However, there were nearly 200 parcels of land subject to the CZMP in the 3rd District. Throughout the CZMP cycle, my office received over 7,000 letters, petitions and emails.  I carefully reviewed all the correspondence and calls. When the process was concluded, I felt good about the outcomes.  As a legislator, I have always welcomed challenges such as this. This letter is my report back to you about the final results from the 2016 CZMP.

During the 2014 campaign, I promised to give citizens an opportunity to express their opinions on the Zoning Issues, most of which were neither controversial nor contested.  In March and June 2016, there were two County-sponsored public hearings held, one before the Planning Board and the other before the entire County Council.  As far as I was concerned, those two hearings were not enough.

I spearheaded the effort to hold two more public hearings – one at Hereford High School and the other at Cockeysville Middle School.  Over 500 people attended.  I organized the two hearings differently from the County-sponsored hearings.  I had opponents and proponents appear together to present their opposing views, enabling both sides to meet and hear the different perspectives.  I urged both sides to meet, pinpoint the issues of concern and attempt to resolve the differences.  I believe most people are reasonable and, in the remaining five months, would be able to reach a satisfactory compromise.  I considered all resolutions that were presented to me.

My only disappointment is that some groups refused to enter into talks with the opposing side.  I did not refuse any request for a meeting.  It was my hope that interested parties would also act in the same spirit.  With each meeting, I urged the participants to negotiate on their own.  I did not expect every controversial issue to be resolved through negotiation, but I am certain that some disputes could have been resolved had good faith efforts been made.

In early August, I took all the Zoning Issue files and spent two weeks, while on “vacation”, determining my final recommendations.  Keep in mind that, although in most cases, the applicants for zoning changes presented me with proposals for how they intended to utilize a property with a new zone, I considered all the permitted uses for that zone in my decision-making.  When I returned there were under ten issues still undecided.

There were last minute moves by several special interest groups to place an amendment on the Third District legislation which was intended to negate at least three of my recommended zoning changes.  These efforts failed and the proponents abandoned their efforts to get the amendment passed.

Much to my consternation, a number of special interests also attempted to greatly influence my decision through last minute covenants.  As I will explain later, one covenant was sent to me at 7:26 pm on August 29th, the evening before the vote.

Unfortunately, those who offered last minute proposals did not understand that I spent 40 years as a member of the House of Delegates where the opposing party leadership used the last day of each Session to get their more controversial proposals passed.  I am used to this strategy – bombard the legislator with numerous issues hoping to confuse and get a decision favorable to their view.  The only change I would have made was to set a final date in the middle of August to avoid the many last minute efforts which were made.

I considered many factors when deciding on my recommendations to the County Council, the first being property rights.  I looked at the zoning history of each property, paying special attention to the zoning in place when the property was last purchased.  Some properties have had numerous zoning changes. Some were changed every four years (The CZMP process takes place every four years).  I looked at recorded covenants to make certain that promises made were kept.  When I determined that promises were made verbally, I checked to see if they were carried out.  When excuses were made for not fulfilling promises, I had my staff look at County records to see if efforts were made and the dates of the relevant documents.  I looked to see whether proposed zoning changes would set precedents.  The capacity of public facilities, particularly schools and public roads, influenced my recommendations concerning development.

Environmental concerns were also considered when making the final decisions.  Over half of the water that feeds the Public Water system, which serves central Maryland, emanates from the Third District (Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs).  The streams which feed the reservoirs must not be compromised.  Our reservoirs are already having severe pollution issues.

This letter will be reporting to you the final disposition of each issue.  Because of the number of issues, they will be grouped into four sections and sent separately over the course of the next month.  The first identifies new Neighborhood Commons Overlay Districts, the second, rural issues, the third, issues in Cockeysville and the fourth, the remaining urban issues.

Part 1 – Neighborhood Commons Overlay District

For a guide to all zoning classifications, constituents can refer to Baltimore County’s Citizen’s Guide to Zoning at: http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/citizensguidetozoning/citizensguide.pdf

Constituents can also view zoning maps by Issue number by clicking here: http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/czmp/2016/issuemapdistrict3.pdf

In early 2016, I sponsored legislation, which was enacted into law, to protect open spaces (Neighborhood Commons – NC) in established communities.  Prior to me becoming a Councilmember, only undeveloped land owned by community associations or nonprofits intended as open space was eligible.  Land owned by the County was purposely excluded.  The legislation I proposed added County owned land.

The purpose of an Overlay District is to establish special land use regulations, standards, and procedures in areas with unique land use, site planning, building design, and/or environmental resource issues. An Overlay District zoning designation is superimposed over a property’s underlying zoning classification and creates a specific mapped zone.

The N.C. Overlay District was established to provide a means to regulate the development potential of land near or within neighborhoods inside the Urban Rural Demarcation Line (“URDL”) that are typically under‑served by available community open space areas. The N.C. Overlay may be applied only to a property inside the URDL that is (a) owned by a nongovernmental, nonprofit entity and held for the purpose of community parks, gardens, or natural open space areas; (b) owned as common areas by a community homeowners’ association or condominium association organized and operated in accordance with the laws of this state; (c) owned by a state or local government, that is undeveloped, environmentally sensitive, or constitutes a passive recreational area; or (d) is specifically designated as community open space on an approved development plan.

NC is the designation given for neighborhood commons.  DR-1 is the lowest allowable density in residential areas.

Issue Number

New Zoning Classification



DR 1 NC (15.69 acres)

Krause Memorial Park on Delafield Road in Carney


DR 1 NC (0.72 acres)

York Road next to Warren Place in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (15.87 acres)

Open space from Cromwell Bridge Road to Brook Meadow Drive up to Metfield Road


DR 1 NC (139.33 acres)

Wellington Valley and Copperfield between Seminary and Timonium Road in Timonium


DR 1 NC (185.82 acres)

Open space between Mays Chapel North and I-83 in Timonium


DR 1 NC (27.08 acres)

Open space in the northern and eastern parts of the Loveton community in Sparks


DR 1 NC (70.77 acres)

Open space in the Ashland, Hunters Run, Hunt Valley Station and Huntington communities in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (28.64 acres)

Deerfox Community in Timonium


DR 1 NC (3.93 acres)

Seminary Park on Burton Avenue in Lutherville


DR 1 NC (21.06 acres)

Oak Hampton Community in Timonium


DR 1 NC (8.79 acres)

Stream north of Cinder Road and Green meadow Drive in Timonium


DR 1 NC (4.95 acres)

Open space next to Trabor Court Roland Run in Lutherville


DR 1 NC (22.31 acres)

Open space north of Old Bosley, Silver Fox and Sugar Tree Courts in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (4.76 acres)

Open space between Othoridge Road and Lincoln Avenue in Lutherville


DR 1 NC (12.44 acres)

Open space north and west of Willow Vista Way off Warren Road in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (1.56 acres)

Open space with storm water retention pond between Warren Road and Warren Manor Court in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (2.09 acres)

Open space around Valley Crossing Court of East Padonia Road in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (2.87 acres)

Springdale, the open space in back of Silent Meadow Court off Bosley Road in Timonium


DR 1 NC (1.58)

Warren Commons, the common area in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (4.29)

Open space along the Spring Branch north of East Timonium Road in Timonium


DR 1 NC (11.33 acres)

Springlake community open space between Fallsbrook Road and Spring Lake Drive in Timonium


DR 1 NC (12.23 acres)

Open space surrounding Aliceview Court and Wonderview Road and Court in Timonium


DR 1 NC (62.70 acres)

County Home Park off Van Buren Lane in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (7.81 acres)

Open space in the Loveton community located at Loveton Farms Court in Sparks


DR 1 NC (3.16 acres)

Open space on the south side of Warren Road across from Epworth Church in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (5.12 acres)

Open space around Twinleaf and Silver Maple in the Hunt Valley Station community in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (17.9 acres)

Open space to the east of Clarion Court down to York Avenue in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (15.15 acres)

Open space to the west of I 83 at Timonium Road in Timonium


DR 1 NC (1.36 acres)

Pebble Creek, common area in Timonium


DR 1 NC (6.83 acres)

Open space to the east of Wellington Valley Way in Timonium


DR 1 NC (26.55 acres)

Open space around and north of the Valleywood at Five Farms community in Timonium


DR 1 NC (2.03 acres)

Storm water retention ponds and surrounding areas near in Carney


DR 1 NC (3.99 acres)

Open space to the west of Throgmorton Road in Carney


DR 1 NC (4.73 acres)

Open space surrounding Ravenridge Road in Carney


DR 1 NC (2.91 acres)

Open space to the east of York Road surrounding Beaver Dam Run in Cockeysville


DR 1 NC (152.66 acres)

Open space in the Chapelgate community and in the northern section of Mays Chapel in Timonium


DR 1 NC (2.79 acres)

Open space surrounding the Goodwin Run in the Pine Valley Community in Timonium


DR 1 NC (95.14 acres)

Open space surrounding the Jennifer Branch north of Proctor Lane in Carney


DR 1 NC (41.47 acres)

Open space in the south portion of Mays Chapel in Timonium


DR 1 NC (1.41 acres)

Common area in Southfields and Northfields Circles north of West Seminary in Timonium


DR 1 NC (3.32 acres)

Open space south of Presway Road and north of Forest Ridge Road in the Pinewood community in Timonium

The second installment will contain the Royal Farms, Grace Fellowship Church

and the Hunt Valley Presbyterian zoning issues.

~ Wade

Part 2: CZMP Issues outside the Urban Rural Demarcation Line

For a guide to all zoning classifications, constituents can refer to Baltimore County’s Citizen’s Guide to Zoning at: http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/citizensguidetozoning/citizensguide.pdf

Constituents can also view zoning maps by Issue number by clicking here: http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/czmp/2016/issuemapdistrict3.pdf


Issue Number followed by the Zoning Recommendation approved by the Council and Comments 

3-004     RC 3 (17.85 acres)     Old Hanover Road, East of 13944 Old Hanover Road and north of 13929 Old Hanover Road in Reisterstown – Zoning remains the same.  The property is eligible for seven building lots, but a new recorded covenant restricts the number of lots to no more than five.

3-006     RC 2 (84.84 acres)      15330 Tanyard Road in Sparks – Zoning remains the same.  The property owners requested a different zoning classification, but negotiations with the opponents to the change failed to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

3-007     RCC (6.52 acres)     118 Mount Carmel Road in Hereford

This represents a change in zoning.

The site in question is the proposed Royal Farms Store and Service Station (Mount Carmel Road).  The new zone will allow a Royal Farms Store, but not in combination with a service station.

This issue was the most divisive one in the Third District.  It pitted neighbors against neighbors and businesses against businesses.  Many citizens, who voluntarily contribute so much to the community, found themselves on opposite sides.

Supporters cite the need for competition and the efforts Royal Farms has made to accommodate and benefit the community.  The opponents believe that the store does not belong in a rural setting and are concerned over the environmental risks of the service station part of the proposal.

In numerous meetings with both sides, I stated that my concern was the risk posed by the installation of gasoline pumps in this rural area in which the businesses and homes depend on private wells for water.  I stated, in no uncertain terms, that I had no problem with a zone in which a Royal Farms station could be built as long as protections were in place for citizens and businesses in the case of a gasoline spill.  I suggested that the interested parties needed to get together and devise a plan which would provide meaningful protection.

Royal Farms responded by offering and committing to exceed the safety standards required by State law.  These plans were shared with me.  In addition they agreed to increase the minimum insurance required from $2 million to $20 million.  I applauded Royal Farms for these efforts.  However, specific protections, in case of a leak, were not addressed.

It was not until 7:26 pm the night before the vote that I received a proposed covenant from Royal Farms designed to protect residents and local businesses in the case that a gasoline leak from the Royal Farms station took place.  This would have been an excellent working document had it been received a week or several days before the vote.  There was not enough time to work out the problems, particularly Royal Farms’ refusal to cover lost income from businesses as well as Royal Farms’ refusal to cover any property or business beyond 1/4th of a mile radius.  Due to legal confidentiality disclaimers on the part of Royal Farms, I am unable to produce their emails sent to me. However, I encourage you to contact them at 410-889-0200 for a copy of their proposed covenant. Please see below, my response to the Royal Farms Director of Real Estate regarding the 7:26pm proposal:

August 29, 2016, 11:51pm



I just got in touch with my “pro bono” attorney and sent him the Declaration.   Hopefully, he will be in touch with me before noon tomorrow.


Just finished going through it the first time.  I am VERY upset that this was not presented to me two weeks ago.  I have asked for such a document for some time now.  You’ve had this Spring and all Summer!  


Now that I’ve seen this document, I am convinced an agreement could have been reached.  It takes time.  It is imperative that Royal Farm (or its successors), residents and businesses be on equal footing in an agreed upon final document.


It appears to be a strong basis for crafting a document which will protect both residents and businesses.  Although, businesses are not included (which would need to be addressed).  


For businesses, if closed or harmed due to contamination, the expenses and lost income must be reimbursed in a fair and equitable way.  This can be done through appraisals by CPAs, etc.


The resident part has problems.  First of all, nine months after a home becomes contaminated the value will drop.  The value should be based on the value prior to the leak.  In Jacksonville, a home worth around $900,000 was sold for $550,000 after the gasoline leak.  The stress was too much for the residents.  Other residents experienced the same problem.  Some were unable to sell because their mortgages exceeded the reduced value.


Part viii; a. and b. – should be connected with the word “and”.  If the water is contaminated, drinking the water and taking a shower/bath are problems.  Actually, taking a shower/bath is more dangerous than drinking the water.


Number 5 is a problem.


Homes and businesses which are more than a half mile from the site of a leak could end up contaminated.  There appears to be no consideration for these properties.


I will be working on a flow chart which will track the process related to resident whose home is contaminated, until I get too tired!  


Jeff, this is a very upsetting situation.  I have never opposed the Royal Farm convenience store or service station.  There are ideas which, if adopted, would have resulted in a RF which was more in line with the rural Hereford town.  It was always the possible contamination issue.  Unless you witnessed Jacksonville first hand, as I did, you can’t know the devastating effect such a leak has on the residents of a contaminated community.  Remember, at the first public meeting, I brought up the RF track record on gasoline leaks and the $600,000 fine and agreed upon order.  


From the very beginning, I let Tom Graul know that, if the residents and area businesses are protected, I would not oppose the RF.


Also, I am now considering legislation on the order of the proposed declaration.  Certainly, much work needs to take place.  The industry would need to be involved.  Without their involvement, this will be very difficult to craft.  When I was in the Legislature, I had numerous constituents harmed by some homebuilders.  I needed the involvement of the homebuilders to craft workable legislation which would protect consumers and not harm the legitimate builders.  After a number of years, it happened!  It is working quite well.


Quite honestly, there is not enough time left to craft a workable declaration.





Royal Farms had months to work with the community to craft a covenant.  They knew very well how important it was to me that the residents and businesses be protected from a possible gasoline leak.  Despite the additional protections proposed by Royal Farms, it is impossible to have a full-proof protection against human error.   One need only to look at Jacksonville leak to show this risk. This is why I insisted for at least six months that residents and local businesses be protected should a leak occur.

It’s been over 10 years since the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) responded to the major release of 26,000 gallons of gasoline from the ExxonMobil gas station at the intersection of Jarrettsville Pike and Paper Mill Road.  The underground tank leakage was not discovered until five weeks after it had begun.   Today, the gas station is closed and all storage tanks and piping have been removed.

After witnessing firsthand the effects of this spill on citizens and businesses and the devaluing of property in Jacksonville, this incident has left me determined to take every measure to meaningfully protect citizens and businesses in rural areas from possible future spills.  Currently, I’m looking at drafting legislation which will require all service stations in rural areas to provide meaningful protections.

As you are probably aware, the Jacksonville spill has led to multiple lawsuits brought by Jacksonville residents and businesses.  In a jury trial, the plaintiffs were awarded $1.5 billion in damages.  However, the award was struck down by the Court of Appeals.  Exxon reached a $4 million settlement with the Maryland Department of the Environment in 2008.  Exxon declared that it spends ten times that amount on the cleanup efforts under the Department’s direction.

Water remediation continues.  Many years after the spill, the pumps were running day and night, treating about 32 gallons of water a minute.  Under an agreement with the MDE, Exxon had until June 2014 to finish the job of treating groundwater and gasoline vapor.

Today, Jacksonville residents and business owners still live with the effects of the spill.  It should be emphasized that more than 4,000 households in the area depend on private wells for drinking water.  Residents attest to the toll the spill has taken in lost property value, gross inconvenience, stress and worry regarding ill effects to health and on and on.

So far, the long, bitter and expensive court battles have not adequately compensated the people of Jacksonville for their loss.  Many were forced to accept settlements for pennies on the dollar.  Others were forced to sell their homes at a substantial loss.  Many Jacksonville residents were utterly devastated.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that these accounts of people who suffered loss from the spill are not hearsay.  As the elected representative of the Jacksonville area, I met with numerous residents many times in an attempt to help them with problems related directly to the spill.  I was taken aback to see the disruption and loss the spill has inflicted on so many people in the area.

On this 10th anniversary of the worst spill in Maryland history, we have learned some bitter lessons.  The most important lesson we should have learned is that rural populations who depend on wells for water must be protected before the fact.  For in truth, we cannot offer protection after the fact.

When a gas station, proposed in a location in a particular area – even in a worst case scenario – poses a potential threat to the area and the well-being of its residents, the logical step to be taken during a comprehensive zoning process, is to urge those with competing interests to work together to craft a solution that can be presented for the consideration of the Council-member.  The Council-member’s only task is to decide the appropriate zone, keeping in mind all the permitted uses, and to consider other factors, including a covenant agreement.  The covenants must be constructed to address potential damage or unwanted changes inherent with the facility’s location and/or operation, based on past experience of other communities, as well as the latest scientific evidence regarding the establishment of specific protections for community residents and property.

During the next two years, should the opponents and proponents of the Royal Farms station want to enter into discussions with the goal of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution, I have the ability to introduce legislation which would result in the carrying out such an agreement.

3-011     RC 5 (20.83 acres)     North side of Seminary Avenue, 350 feet east of Falls Road in Timonium – this is the Planning Board recommendation.

The zoning remains unchanged on the site of the proposed Grace Fellowship Church on the north side of Seminary Road. Down zoning this property was proposed by the Falls Road Community Association to discourage Grace Fellowship from locating on the property.  For quite some time, the property has been zoned RC 5, which is the densest rural zoning classification.  The association proposed that the zoning be changed to RC 7, which is the most restrictive rural zoning classification.

The Church had a contract with the property owners, contingent on the County approval of the proposed church.  It should be noted that down zoning the property would have severely reduced its value.  Currently the property is zoned for eight building lots; the proposed zoning would have allowed two, at the most.  Each building site is worth at least $200,000.  So, if I had changed the zoning, the Church would not have purchased the land and the owners of the property would have been left with land worth far less.

At the April 2016 Public Input meetings, I had representatives of both sides of the issue testify.  They made their deep differences obvious.  When testimony ended, I prevailed upon both sides in the strongest terms to meet and identify areas of concern, then attempt to resolve them in a satisfactory way.  In short, I urged them to come up with a compromise on which they both could agree.

At the June public hearing before the County Council, I instructed the Council staff to distribute a specific list of issues which were controversial, including this one, and urged the opposing sides to negotiate.  In making my introductory remarks, I stressed the need for these discussions to take place.

My office made five calls to the Falls Road Community Association, which proposed changing the zoning of this property to RC 7, urging them to meet with church representatives.  I received no response!  Early this year, at my urging, the Church had agreed to participate in such meetings, open to making changes to their initial plans.

To be perfectly honest, I was angry and frustrated that the Falls Road Community Association flatly refused to meet.  As I have said before, my very strong belief is that people are reasonable and a satisfactory accommodation could have been achieved.  And if not, it would not have been for lack of trying.

On August 25th, five days before the vote on August 30th, I received a petition signed by 700 people opposing the construction of the Church on this site.  It takes a major effort to gather hundreds of signatures on a petition.  I wish the community association had used some of that energy to engage in meetings with the Church at the same time.

As a Council-member, I am prohibited from organizing or participating in such meetings.  One week before the final vote, when it became obvious that negotiations were not taking place, I contacted Church representatives.  I requested that, in order to show its good faith, the Church take meaningful steps to address my concerns about the storm water.  I also expressed concerns about screening in front of the property, which had been expressed by many in the community.

I am pleased to report that Grace Fellowship Church agreed through a covenant to two changes designed to address both issues.  This was done voluntarily.  I did not threaten to down zone the property if the Church failed to address these issues.  In fact, by law, I am prohibited from taking such action.

The covenant has two parts, addressing the two concerns.  The first part concerns storm water management and the use of pervious surface.  The Church has committed to constructing a significant number of parking places with a pervious surface.  Pervious surfaces are significantly more expensive and difficult to maintain.  Under County law, the Church must construct a certain number of parking places which are determined by the capacity of the building.  The covenant calls for half of the parking places above those required by County law (up to 100) to be constructed of a pervious surface.

The second part of the covenant concerns the frontage of the lot along Seminary Avenue.  The Church will be constructing berms and plantings to soften the frontage.

I sincerely regret that talks between the parties did not take place as I recommended.  However, I want to thank Grace Fellowship for their willingness and cooperation in voluntarily addressing some of my concerns.

The zoning of the property was not changed.

3-012     RC 4 (2.88 acres), RC 5 (1.62)     12923 Falls Road, 700 feet north of the ridge in Timonium  – The property is surrounded by RC 4 and RC 5.

3-013     ML (19.84 acres), RC 6 (0.15)     180 – 200 Sparks Valley Road in Sparks – Property owner requested zoning that would allow apartments/townhouses to be built on the land.  The roads serving this area are inadequate.  By making it a priority, I am actively advocating that Baltimore County urge the State Highway Administration to take action to relocate the part of York Road from Phoenix Road to McCormick Road due to safety concerns.  If economic development is to continue in the area of Sparks designated for commercial/industrial development, this York Road relocation is vital.

3-016     RC 2 (38.01 acres), RC 8 (32.12)     19223 Resh Mill Road, 880 feet north of Beckleysville Road in Freeland.  Part of the property is used for farming; the other part is environmentally sensitive and part of the Prettyboy Watershed.

3-017     RC 8 (39.03 acres)     5930 Glen Falls Road, 6700 feet west of Hanover Pike in Reisterstown – This is the Planning Board recommendation.

3-019     RC 4 (42.15 acres), RC 7 (73.48), RC 6 (0.46)     1337 Phoenix Road in Sparks – A section of this property is part of the Loch Raven watershed.  The remaining part of this property can be developed similarly to the neighboring properties.

3-020     RC 4 (26.53 acres), RC 2 (61.10), RC 7 (15.76)     560 Quaker Bottom Road in Sparks – A small zoning change was made which applies to the portion of this property which is part of the Loch Raven watershed.

3-021     RC 4 (23.69 acres), RC 7 (72.79)     501 Belfast Road in Sparks – The largest portion of this property is part of the Loch Raven watershed.  The zoning of the rest of the property allows development similar to others in the area (north side of Belfast Road).

3-022     RC 2 (14.55 acres)     12916 Harford Road in Hydes – Zoning remains the same.  This is the Planning Board recommendation.

3-023     RC 3 (10.04 acres)     5601 Patterson Road in Baldwin – A covenant was recorded which prohibits the land owners from creating an additional building lot.

3-028     RC 2 (12.87 acres)     14300 – 14310 Cooper Road in Phoenix – The owner of this property has committed to donating it for preservation.  This individual has a track record of fulfilling such promises.

3-029     RC 7 (4.27 acres)     1211 Corbett Road in Monkton – The land adjacent to this property is zoned either RC 4 or RC 7.  Neither zone would yield the two building lots desired by the owners.

3-033     BL CR (0.47 acres)     102 Mount Carmel Road in Hereford – The adjacent properties are zoned BL CR and RC 5 CR.  The community is in support of this zoning change.

3-034     RC 6 (2.50 acres)     5423 Mount Gilead Road in Reisterstown – Zoning change is supported by the community.

3-035     RC 7 (30.80 acres)     16350 Matthews Road in Monkton – Four years ago the zoning was changed from RC 7 to RC 8, which clearly violates County law.

3-036     RC 2 (2.79 acres)     28 Glenbrook Road in Phoenix – This is the Planning Board recommendation.

3-037     RC 3 (26.57 acres), RC 4 (0.03)     13015 Beaver Dam Road in Hunt Valley – This is the Planning Board recommendation.

The proposed expansion of the Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church on Beaver Dam Road and I-83 was opposed by the Falls Road Community Association which petitioned to down zone the proposed Grace Fellowship property.  The association wanted to down zone the Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church to reduce the size of the proposed expansion.

Early in 2016 as well as later in the year, I did meet with neighbors who lived adjacent to the Hunt Valley Church.  At both meetings I urged them, in the strongest terms, to meet with Church representatives and negotiate.  At the last meeting, the community members informed me that their attorney had advised them not to meet with Church representatives.  Their attorney later denied he had made such a comment.

Once again, my attempts to get the opposing parties to negotiate among themselves met resistance from the community association.  Once again, no negotiations took place.

I don’t give up easily.  Several weeks before the final vote, I again met with some of the neighbors who live adjacent to the Church.  I urged them to present the Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church with a list of their concerns and proposals to resolve these issues.   Instead, their attorney presented me, not the Church, the neighbors’ list of concerns and proposals. It must emphasized that I am not allowed to be part of their discussions with the Church.  In addition, I didn’t receive the list until the Thursday before the final vote.

When it became obvious that negotiations would not take place, I contacted the Church and requested that  they voluntarily address my storm water concerns.  The Hunt Valley Church agreed through a covenant to address the storm water issue.  The Church committed to the same exact action as the Grace Fellowship Church in regard to pervious parking surfaces.

I am extremely upset that no talks took place.  Perhaps nothing would have changed, but at least a good faith effort would have been made.   I want to thank Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church for voluntarily addressing my storm water concern.

3-038     RC 2 (6.99 acres), BR CR (0.09)     14929 – 15003 Hanover Pike in Reisterstown – This is the Planning Board recommendation.  The predominant zone in the area is RC 2.

3-040     RC 4 (28.96 acres), RC 7 (43.64), RC 6 (0.89)     End of York Manor Road and Sagewood Road, North of Sunnybrook Road in Phoenix – the current zoning is tied up in court.  The developer and community negotiated and arrived at a verbal agreement which is reflected in the zoning change.

3-041     RC 2 (21.65 acres), RC 6 (9.67)     5323 Glen Arm Road in Glen Arm – Through negotiations with the community, the petitioners’ goals were satisfied without granting the most permissive RC designation.

3-042     RC 7 (226.53 acres), DR 1 (0.16), DR 2 (1.31)     9700 Old Harford Road in Parkville – Hickey School.  This is the Planning Board recommendation.

3-043     RC 4 (17.19 acres)     821 Shawan Road in Hunt Valley – Site of the proposed Hunt Valley Baptist Church.  This proposal is in the courts.  This is the Planning Board recommendation.

3-047     RC 2 (2.76 acres), RC 4 (62.04), RC 8 (3.40)     Northeast of Queensdale Road in Reisterstown (Knob Hill) – This is the Planning Board recommendation.  This proposed development has been recorded and vested.

3-049     DR 2 (0.23 acres), RC 7 (69.50)     1527 Providence Road in Towson – This property has recently been added to the Cromwell Park.  The parkland is all zoned RC 7.

Part 3: CZMP Issues in Cockeysville

For a guide to all zoning classifications, constituents can refer to Baltimore County’s Citizen’s Guide to Zoning at: http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/citizensguidetozoning/citizensguide.pdf

Constituents can also view zoning maps by Issue number by clicking here: http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/czmp/2016/issuemapdistrict3.pdf

In making changes to the existing zoning along York Road in Cockeysville I made decision with the following goals in mind:

  1. Maintain the current AS (auto services) zoning only for existing automotive businesses.
  2. Terminate the ability to locate new or used car dealerships in Cockeysville along York Road from Warren Road to the York Road bridge over the Western Run.
  3. Eliminate high density residential development in front of the Sherwood Episcopal Church
  4. Preserve the open space north of the Warren Place Senior Citizens Apartments
  5. Help revitalize the Cockeysville business district by advocating that the State of Maryland do a Street Scape project along York Road.


Issue Number followed by the Zoning Recommendation approved by the Council and Comments 

3-008     BL AS (0.54 acres)     10630 York Road in Cockeysville – Site of the proposed Bill Kidd Volvo dealership.  This proposal is in the courts.  The new zoning will not allow a new car dealership.

3-018     CB (0.25 acres)     10635 York Road in Cockeysville – The adjacent properties are zoned CB and RO.

3-050     DR 3.5 (0.12 acres), RO (0.21), BL AS (3.86)     Northeast corner of Warren and York Road in Cockeysville – Slight zoning changes.  The zoning and current businesses match.

3-051     DR 1 NC (0.72 acres), DR 1 (5.24), BM IM (3.16), BL (1.84)     10540 York Road in Cockeysville – Open space to the north of the Warren Place Apartments is preserved.  Existing automobile services are preserved, while changed zoning will not allow additional automobile services or new car dealerships.

3-052     DR 1 (0.79 acres), BM IM (10.10), ML IM (0.71), DR 3.5 (4.22), DR 16 (1.09), BL (6.45), BM AS (0.64),     BM (3.19), BL AS (0.47)     North of Cockeysville Road, Southwest of Cockeysville and York Roads and South of Sherwood Road in Cockeysville – Zoning was maintained for existing automobile services along York Road, while new zoning will not permit additional automobile services or new car dealerships.  Zoning which would have allowed the development of apartments/town houses along York Road in front of the Sherwood Episcopal Church was changed.

~ Wade