[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6569306,"mediaKeyId","3191132-53be7deb2207812fb30fa7173c328d2e","parentId",3191132,"title","Landmarks Preservation Commission issues certificates of appropriateness for 11 properties, planning board informed","audioSeconds",88,"startMs",2202000,"endMs",2290000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191132-53be7deb2207812fb30fa7173c328d2e&start=2202&end=2290","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191132-53be7deb2207812fb30fa7173c328d2e/thumbnail_2202000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6569306/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Landmarks-Preservation-Commission-issues-certificates-of-appropriateness-for-11-properties-planning-board-informed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569306-63253aa6f67baa1eb129634d64f08afc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771102663&Signature=KMgkuzMkY-FwMZ~GEbbnw0Fpbq4Xi4xiJ5~Rebz~J0KwVAGMxj0glGIFXInnYshgdcVq5pU4RI9KoZpJL1~OsGMPI27cO2jGSBCjXHE7Ru7ipwalUAAV9lWo1QEVONgr9m6T-C~83mLciu2olwsM6Mo26IIKMFjd3UJ-E4t0ssxJR0PHydukO5Sp0NZHrR870AZgFgvVjc99vHtCQWk2LryCBrd6Xtox~wLusIrcmL5XjMYTuztIFfDoGRgMIIkIKVp~iDs09lF2ul2jOaTzIZh3ZPYM2mYZgEkcm3-ZSZ3o~3EY-M6kVcX2Pr0Wh~~Avb-0qrIg4famzgrsPI9OTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baltimore County","date","2025-05-05T14:46:30.813Z","article","The Planning Board was notified at its May 1 meeting that the Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission issued certificates of appropriateness for 11 properties across two recent meetings.

Staff reported that at its March 13 meeting the commission issued certificates for four properties: the Hadaway property at 4946 Tulip Avenue in Relay; the Hart property at 410 Fairmount Avenue in Towson; the Carnaval property at 800 Francis Avenue in Halethorpe; and the Rogueme House at 14943 York Road in Sparks.

At its April 10 meeting the commission issued certificates for seven properties: the Monde property at 1554 South Rolling Road in Haworth; the Hammond property at 710 Clifton Road in Pikesville; the Mitchell property at 2101 Mount Carmel Road in Parkton; the Scott property at 315 Central Avenue in Glendora; the Schulman property at 614 Milford Mill Road in Pikesville; the Wheaton property at 207 West Seminary Avenue in Lutherville; and a Baltimore County property at 1935 Black River Neck Road in Essex.

Why it matters: certificates of appropriateness indicate the Landmarks Preservation Commission has approved proposed exterior changes or work that affects a property’s historic character under the county’s landmarks rules. The board was reminded that one member of the Planning Board serves on the Landmarks Preservation Commission and staff solicited volunteers to serve in that role going forward.

No vote was required of the Planning Board; staff concluded the report and thanked commission staff for the update.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Baltimore County Planning Board Meeting, May 1,2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Board received a report that the Landmarks Preservation Commission issued four certificates of appropriateness on March 13 and seven on April 10 for historic properties across Baltimore County.","taxTitle","Baltimore County, Maryland","taxId",3882,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":44,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":82,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":83,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":84,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6569309,"Baltimore County Council sends multiple zoning and planning bills, resolutions to planning board for review",626,2828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191132-53be7deb2207812fb30fa7173c328d2e&start=2202&end=2828","/articles/6569309/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Baltimore-County-Council-sends-multiple-zoning-and-planning-bills-resolutions-to-planning-board-for-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569309-1690f777025ae5c14efe567487412a62/orig.mp4?Expires=1771102663&Signature=ie9GW8-~~WhG22LoJSTzf8JPe-j0Cw07HohXYLy4ZE~bWuVJGPkFKT14sOoTefH4NuF5f7n8HUJX4f3RJbYIcR2SXyZ5NdazhNzyRKnr0e-OGRnsVoxeVfkYd1sjz3GVZcLgv7dDO7csqOmZT6C85tgTMOeexEtnCAPVV8Rt1olazuBOOLscbuXkKCQJU8eWB0r9~-GWFzvLyE0r3ayXSTSimxAk9KB~gkGgnw5k0xmv92VDTUSaeWgN5En8Sc2Cy7G1mU9jaiDyhhEvH5p8gdX5hUTBOJ33r7lOIBtViQZae414VQzJRZj8WU088S0h1qYic1QRNULD2jCm29G3jQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning Board staff presented a briefing on recent Baltimore County Council legislation and resolutions pertinent to planning at the May 1 meeting, listing bills and resolutions the council has forwarded for the board’s review or that the board previously recommended.

Ms. Bensley read an abbreviated list of measures the board had already received electronically, including zoning changes, a proposed county charter amendment, and multiple resolutions to adopt planning manuals and area plans.

Key items summarized for the board included (as read into the record):
- Bill 13‑25: zoning amendments to permit tattoo and body‑piercing establishments by right in parts of the BR zone and to change proximity restrictions.
- Bill 14‑25: permitting an automotive enthusiast club by right in certain ML‑zoned areas.
- Bill 15‑25: changes to uses permitted in the BMCT district to allow age‑restricted and eldercare housing types in certain areas and make the overcrowded‑schools district provision inapplicable to those age‑restricted developments.
- Bill 16‑25: permitting certain combinations of farm and nonfarm uses by right in the RC‑5 zone (resource conservation 5).
- Bill 19‑25: County Charter amendment proposal that would require a higher affirmative threshold of County Council votes to change the URDL (urban‑rural demarcation line); the charter question would go to voters in November 2026 if advanced.
- Bill 20‑25: transfer of a recreational‑vehicle parking prohibition from zoning regulations to the county code.
- Resolution 10‑25 and 11‑25: adoption of the Baltimore County landscape manual and the local open space manual, as approved by the Planning Board on Jan. 16, 2025.
- Resolution 12‑25: adoption and incorporation of the Reisterstown Streetscape Action Plan and design guidelines into Master Plan 2020 and the comprehensive manual of development policies.
- Resolution 13‑25: request for Planning Department and Planning Board review of the Greater Middle River Design Guidelines developed by the Essex‑Middle River Civic Council.
- Resolution 15‑25 and 17‑25: boundary amendment for the Baltimore National Pike Commercial Revitalization District (14 acres) and establishment of the White Marsh Commercial Revitalization District (89 acres) to encourage redevelopment.
- Resolution 18‑25: County endorsement of Towson’s application for Main Street Maryland designation.
- Resolution 19‑25: adoption and incorporation of the Jacksonville Community Plan into Master Plan 2020.
- Resolution 20‑25: approval and ranking of three Maryland Rural Legacy Plan applications (Gunpowder Valley, Manor and Piney Run watersheds) for FY2026 funding consideration.
- Resolution regarding the Brandon Shores retirement mitigation/overhead transmission lines project urging resolution of land‑title issues prior to active work.

Why it matters: many of the council measures would change permitted uses in specific zoning districts, amend revitalization district boundaries, or incorporate local plans and manuals into county planning guidance; the Planning Board’s review or prior recommendations are part of the decision pathway for these items.

No formal board action was taken on the measures at the May 1 meeting; staff provided the texts for board review and noted some items (for example, the charter amendment on URDL boundaries) have scheduled voter steps or separate council processes.

A copy of the full bill and resolution texts was on file with the board and was sent to members before the meeting.","At the May 1 Planning Board meeting staff summarized a package of County Council bills and resolutions that affect zoning, redevelopment districts, landscape and open‑space manuals, and other county planning matters; board members were given the texts for review.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":92,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6569313,"Baltimore County planning staff present 2024 annual growth report; planning board to vote May 15",502,232000,734000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3191132-53be7deb2207812fb30fa7173c328d2e&start=232&end=734","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3191132-53be7deb2207812fb30fa7173c328d2e/thumbnail_232000.jpg","/articles/6569313/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Baltimore-County-planning-staff-present-2024-annual-growth-report-planning-board-to-vote-May-15","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569313-e4446e30dcc515d00771f5f95d863acd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771102663&Signature=WnK3Gt7yiHCoQ5PhK0VpppLYseS3iCY9EH5ItGW16IA2SLqsD86LYYqNcUyBf~hxGXdPXr1muqSvo5HycK6gWlBU-e0xrl2VgkrLQBUujyMJb074nvae~GuYGoV8ys4e7MbAeI-mypDiPQtZ4K9t7HQl7IocXI5L~NDtuBYQJiirUE5UUzlU8bVok6ZlvysywhGEzsm9h8NigYNQVZjz1QakYNIMLA6DO0s1B~gGSB-GGO-QnhQ8lr6vBAv8E-JwyXZ1rFTOJTa-EPnxt0~CNragraDXHKYoacWxsC3Tx2aa-9m5eRbB5dpfF9oIWi7ybUzES5bBWM6sbN6HYh77yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore County Department of Planning presented its 2024 Annual Growth Report at the Planning Board’s May 1 meeting, summarizing residential and nonresidential approvals, development‑capacity modeling and infrastructure status. The board received the staff report; a formal vote is scheduled for the board’s May 15 meeting.

The report, presented by Chris Weaver of the Research, Analysis and Design Division, reviews last year’s approvals and projects county compliance with state growth‑management principles. “The land use article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires that charter counties prepare an annual report on growth,” Weaver said. He told the board the report is due to the Maryland Department of Planning by July 1, 2025.

Why it matters: the report compiles where new housing and commercial space were permitted in 2024, how much existing undeveloped land remains inside the county’s Urban‑Rural Demarcation Line (URDL), and whether school and utility capacity could constrain future projects.

Key findings reported to the board included:
- The county approved 23 residential development plans in 2024 (including nine major development plans, seven minor subdivisions, three planned unit developments and four limited subdivisions), representing 450 residential units. Weaver reported unit mix as 60.8% multifamily, 27% single‑family attached and 12% single‑family detached.
- Weaver reported that roughly 91% of the proposed residential units and about 93% of nonresidential permitted square footage were located inside the URDL.
- The county recorded 889 residential units permitted for occupancy in 2024; Weaver said that number was similar to 2023 (871 permits) and lower than 2022 (1,230 permits).
- For nonresidential development, the report listed 42 plans approved in 2024 totaling approximately 2,000,785 square feet of approved space (the report compares that to 4,170,173 square feet approved in 2023).
- A GIS‑based development capacity model estimated potential additional residential units on vacant or underdeveloped parcels inside the priority funding area at between about 8,857 units under a moderate scenario and 23,453 units under a full‑build‑out scenario; the report noted redevelopment and densification of commercially zoned lands were not included in those figures.
- Based on recent average annual construction, staff estimated the URDL could reach build‑out from roughly 9 to 24 years if current trends continued.

Board members asked follow‑up questions on several topics. Emily Profe asked where development capacity details appear in the packet; Weaver pointed to the development capacity discussion in the written report. Board members requested clearer year‑over‑year comparison charts for 2022–24, and Weaver and Director Lafferty said earlier reports and tables contain much of that data and staff could provide comparative tables on request.

School capacity and adequate‑facilities questions were a recurring concern. Weaver said school impact analyses are performed for each residential project under the Baltimore County Code; he noted the report flags that 13 elementary schools and six high schools are at or above 115% of their state‑rated capacities for the 2024–25 school year and projected 2025–27 enrollments. Board members asked whether the development‑capacity model accounts for adequate‑facilities limits; Weaver said it does not — the model examines vacant or underdeveloped land and does not incorporate school capacity or other adequate‑facilities constraints.

Utility and transportation updates in the report included Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT) assessments that no public water deficiencies were known in 2024, ongoing sewer relief metering and monitoring, a list of 10 F‑level and one E‑level intersections identified on the 2024 basic service transportation map, and 42 road projects built, extended or relocated in 2024 totaling about 6.925 miles (all within the URDL). The report also shows 6,98 acres added to preserved land in 2024 (the transcripted figure appears in the packet) and a county total of approximately 71,592 acres preserved, with the largest single addition in 2024 coming through the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program.

Board chair Scott Haloka closed discussion by reminding members the board will vote on the report at its May 15 meeting and encouraged staff to provide the requested comparative charts and any additional school‑capacity clarification prior to the vote.

Notes: staff described the document as a state‑required report and did not present any accompanying zoning or regulatory changes for immediate board action.","Department of Planning staff summarized residential and nonresidential permitting, development‑capacity modeling and infrastructure constraints in the 2024 Annual Growth Report; the planning board received the staff report and will vote on it at its May 15 meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Landmarks Preservation Commission issues certificates of appropriateness for 11 properties, planning board informed

Baltimore County Council sends multiple zoning and planning bills, resolutions to planning board for review

Baltimore County planning staff present 2024 annual growth report; planning board to vote May 15