[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,74,86],{"_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":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6211218,"mediaKeyId","3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e","parentId",3699307,"title","Bel Air planning commission recommends town board consider short‑term rental ordinance","audioSeconds",1320,"startMs",5502000,"endMs",6822000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e&start=5502&end=6822","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e/thumbnail_5502000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6211218/Bel-Air/Harford-County/Maryland/Bel-Air-planning-commission-recommends-town-board-consider-shortterm-rental-ordinance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211218-41d7890c88bb5dcdb6ae82dd87822de8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092231&Signature=C~YN~VF7CEP7V2CHPbPlmBEigrPaEh6yD46tuto4opMyOY9aAk8lZ2mLuAJ-iHTKLxbDoL5yXVt3smkYyvIPE7Xn163EJBwEojJTmGFyH8eEjC4iRHSCP6nbMyYHsgpp7v~wNDWGLovRi4h5nI3NrC722dgzGqr683OtPWoix6TyI31JELSAUs64fzp7Du2rDAZal5CRqkDVdRzGus4TdHDcCFhz9O9gm16~wTUzzXYzB5oqzrnIhoG1vwddcHSfq7C~kw0Rrnf~kg6RpRBQ4beibO~Ehz4hVNQRNlLPrwr8DT12lldNiv0qUhIK9K3qSKZjePd~Uv5SVTNzDfMtSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-06T01:56:24Z","article","The Bel Air Planning Commission on June 5 voted to recommend the town board consider an ordinance that would regulate short‑term rentals (STRs) in town.

Commissioner Jim Rutledge, the ordinance sponsor, presented the draft language and described the intended structure: short‑term rentals would be defined as stays under 28 days; in residential zoning districts (R‑0, R‑1, R‑2, R‑3) the ordinance would allow only owner‑occupied or owner‑on‑site rentals and cap the rentable area at 500 square feet. Rutledge told the commission the measure is intended to allow limited rental income for homeowners while preventing ‘‘party house’’ scenarios in residential neighborhoods. He said licensing, proof of insurance, fire‑inspection requirements, and an annual fee would be required and that licenses would be subject to revocation for violations.

Rutledge summarized the policy rationale: the town lacks licensed short‑term rental rules and currently has unregulated rentals; he said the proposed rules would provide a licensing mechanism and safeguards so the town could enforce violations. \"I believe that this legislation is of real good common sense, solution,\" Rutledge said in the meeting.

Under the draft language discussed at the meeting, short‑term rentals in business districts would be treated as a special development or special use requiring review; in residential districts an STR would require a special‑exception review and an affirmative licensing step. Staff recommended defining application requirements such as owner contact information, insurance, fire inspections, operating information, parking and buffering, and proof of compliance with town tax registration rules.

Several commissioners and residents spoke in support. Residents who have hosted short‑term rentals described modest local economic benefits — money spent at restaurants, shops and contractors — and said responsible hosts are responsive neighbors. Commissioner statements and public comments characterized the ordinance as a way to give property owners a lawful path for limited rentals while enabling town staff to have a clear enforcement process. Two speakers contrasted Bel Air’s approach with coastal resort decisions and emphasized the need for local safeguards and clear, administrable licensing requirements.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend the draft ordinance (numbered 000‑25 in the packet) to the Town Board as written. The motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor; the matter will now proceed to the Town Board for formal consideration and any ordinance drafting or fee schedule adoption.

The commission’s recommendation does not enact the rules; it forwards the draft and the planning commission’s support to the Town Board, which must adopt a final ordinance and any licensing program.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","06/05/2025 Bel Air Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The planning commission voted to recommend an ordinance establishing short‑term rental licensing and performance standards to the Town Board, with residential STRs limited to owner‑occupied units and subject to special‑exception review.","taxTitle","Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland","taxId",54308,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6211223,"Developer seeks approval for 82,924‑square‑foot phase 3 at Hartford Mall; commission continues review",3708,2973000,6681000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e&start=2973&end=6681","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e/thumbnail_2973000.jpg","/articles/6211223/Bel-Air/Harford-County/Maryland/Developer-seeks-approval-for-82924squarefoot-phase-3-at-Hartford-Mall-commission-continues-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211223-839c34248fa39f41cc1e7360ec516364/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092231&Signature=WT7rvxivW7t7GjEbVLE1bJK1ODFaLfpN5VnOBBC8wK7pJQLKpXAbG84kR18yCh9dhwflXEKsi-889SRBvd6mYQymIfSE3dn7LSMTzfNaAxWeEP2iXEsj1ppaDqg0Cg-nRu-QThuRI49X3g0Ea~bizFN0vDHIZdY9s20j2N~zMT6l8TLGR8hnl8b-aqzHer2l5CckzrIFm~5fgOVA9yBVANOXzVwwQbZ9Nnjz~jw-idMjWSMYKWJfnHCmvw3cisBMiaIH~Pfbdi4JJ1KpnAH-FEfYHn5UcWrzf7mhdZ~Z0zyqEvc8pJHnE8x0mc0G96L4f2n7eIGpU3qJztzlxwSrYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","SJC Ventures and CBL Properties presented detailed phase‑3 redevelopment plans for the Hartford Mall site to the Bel Air Planning Commission on June 5. The proposal covers roughly 10 acres and would demolish the former Macy’s building and add 82,924 square feet of retail, restaurant and grocery uses organized into multiple buildings.

Christopher Mudd, attorney for SJC Ventures, told the commission SJC is the contract purchaser of the Macy’s parcel and described a phased redevelopment strategy that envisions five buildings on the 10‑acre parcel: a 35,684‑square‑foot grocery anchor (Building 100), and four smaller retail/restaurant buildings (buildings 200, 300, 600 and 700) with programmed outdoor dining plazas. Mudd said SJC’s plan is intended to knit the new development into the town’s broader mixed‑use vision and to attract high‑end grocery and restaurant tenants.

Kevin Small of the Planning Department reviewed a lengthy staff report identifying technical conditions and code requirements. Small summarized that the overall mixed‑use ratio would remain compliant with prior approvals and town policy: after demolition and replacement, the mall will retain a commercial percentage (58.2% per the staff math) above the minimum required. Small flagged site‑plan details that the applicant must address before final approval: pedestrian connections that now terminate at landscape islands with no receiving sidewalks; refuse/recycling enclosures in the middle of parking fields that initially lacked required screening; minor adjustments to interior planting and utility locations to preserve trees; and the width of a principal north‑south drive aisle (originally proposed at 30 feet) where staff suggested narrowing to discourage speeding and cut‑through traffic.

Traffic Concepts project manager Mark Keeley presented the traffic study and told the commission his team found capacity at the eight intersections studied and adequate queuing at left‑turn bays, but he said the analysis would be revised to reflect the grocery tenant and then resubmitted to State Highway Administration and county reviewers. Keeley told the commission, \"The study findings are that there's available capacity at all 8 intersections, and there's adequate queuing at left turn bays.\" He and the developer’s team said coordination with state and county traffic reviewers is ongoing.

Applicants provided renderings, elevations and material boards showing a coordinated palette of smooth stucco, decorative block, metal panels and storefront glazing. Tom Miner and Caitlin Pierce of Frederick Ward Associates described revisions made to address staff red‑line comments, including reduced drive‑aisle width (from 30 to 28 feet in a revised plan), reconfigured parking islands to add interior planting, and added curbing and landscaping around a central refuse enclosure so it can be properly screened. The team said they had begun discussions with DPW and the town engineer and acknowledged additional engineering details would follow.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on several recurring themes: where pedestrian crosswalks currently end at landscape islands without receiving sidewalks; whether refuse enclosures could be relocated or more effectively screened so dining areas are not adjacent to service activity; the final placement of grease traps and the need for accessible service areas that do not require trucks to maneuver in constrained ways; and tree survivability for proposed interior landscaping islands (commissioners suggested larger soil volume or other tree‑support systems when islands are tight to parking stalls). Commissioners also asked applicants to explore traffic calming measures for the central spine road, including raised crosswalks or other elements to calm speeds.

Multiple members of the public and two town advisory groups spoke. The Economic and Community Development Commission provided a written letter of unanimous support for the proposal, calling it a ‘‘transformational’’ redevelopment that would revitalize the aging mall, create jobs and increase tax revenues. Several residents and local businesspeople spoke in favor, citing job creation and the benefit of activating a large, underused property; a few asked for careful attention to landscaping and pedestrian amenities. A nearby property owner, Wayne Goddard, said he supported the shared wider sidewalk idea to improve pedestrian connectivity between parcels.

Commissioners agreed the project is conceptually promising but that additional detailed revisions and documentation were necessary before a final determination. Planning staff asked for an updated traffic study reflecting the grocery tenant, refined pedestrian connections and crosswalk details, utility adjustments to preserve street trees and expanded screening/detailing of refuse enclosures. Commissioner Phil (surname not read in motion block) moved to continue the application to allow the applicant to address the staff comments; the motion was seconded and the commission set a follow‑up submission deadline and continued the public hearing to July 17 to allow time for the revised submittal and reviews.

The commission did not grant final site‑plan approval on June 5; the application remains under review pending submission of revised engineering, landscape, refuse‑screening details and an updated traffic analysis required by county and state reviewers.","SJC Ventures and CBL presented plans for a 10‑acre, 82,924‑square‑foot shopping center at the Hartford Mall site (phase 3). Staff and commissioners requested further refinements on pedestrian connections, refuse screening, utility/landscape adjustments and traffic study revisions; the commission agreed to continue the item to July 17.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6211228,"Bel Air planning commission continues review of 102 North Bond Street restaurant and nail salon",2420,370000,2790000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e&start=370&end=2790","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3699307-9d37ed6c88aa9c3bcd931dba9f95b66e/thumbnail_370000.jpg","/articles/6211228/Bel-Air/Harford-County/Maryland/Bel-Air-planning-commission-continues-review-of-102-North-Bond-Street-restaurant-and-nail-salon","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211228-1702d52e5bc9e7d923c22c95f07ba933/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092231&Signature=NhuxbmR7wQR-G67Go0GnH01SXMCX6OXBTDwvnLSk2-K4WamcXrOBAnhu7PYGNDvwP2SO-kNskMma9-URW2GeojrVNCR3ngpty6Gs8K4IEqE1TVNJvlObmcx1LeWilXThdQxoY6L2HowSFvLNoOZm4d~4IM1AXssUtmWSb-yvkvwuFLNx-yJCgOZOIZ-6syYQ3SPwdAzd9XTBolAn7HmwbM8554vusnF4P14Z~3E7Ug1Dv91jsdRu5IGfcv27lOFbs4dc6VkmA1He385sNkp2u3xfqlz1xT2Q7icWDjaJ~NSiczsQ7hwNHVkTzd2VJEZmQfMZs1zekvQsuMjR9TGXIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bel Air Planning Commission on June 5 continued a review of an application to build a one‑story, 3,300-square-foot commercial building at 102 North Bond Street that would house a 2,200-square-foot restaurant and a 1,100-square-foot nail salon.

The item, a continued hearing from May 1, was presented to the commission by Kevin Small of the Planning Department, who summarized outstanding technical issues including parking dimensions, stacked (tandem) spaces, sidewalk and storm‑drain alignment, and the requirement that the town’s architectural consultant review the updated elevations before a final decision.

Small told commissioners the developer proposed 23 parking spaces where 22 were required but that 16 were designed as tandem spaces and therefore a waiver would be necessary. Small also said on‑street meter relocation and coordination with Public Works had not been completed and that several existing parallel on‑street spaces did not meet code dimensions. Small noted the building footprint was moved 7 feet away from the North Bond Street right of way and that staff recommended graphical depiction of outdoor dining locations on the final plan. He also said one tree’s root zone would be affected by a proposed storm drain alignment and asked the applicant to revise the alignment so the tree would not be removed.

Tom Miner of Frederick Ward Associates, the project consultant, said the applicant had addressed many items from the May 1 review. He said the revised submission adds signage and striping to identify tandem spaces, provides one additional on‑site parking space to offset a likely loss of an unmetered on‑street space, and includes a revised entrance profile intended to match the neighbor’s curb detail. Miner said the applicant had met with DPW and that a DPW representative had not reported objections to the revisions provided so far.

Applicant Danny Wynn, who identified himself as associated with 102 North Bond Street, confirmed the restaurant would not serve alcohol but that customers would be allowed to bring their own; he said liquor‑board approval would be a separate matter. Wynn said staff’s request to depict outdoor furniture on the final plan would be met on a subsequent submittal.

Neighbors and other members of the public spoke in favor of the design changes and pedestrian connections. Wayne Goddard of 108 North Bond Street told the commission he had worked with the applicant on creating a shared sidewalk and suggested a brick treatment for aesthetics. Dylan Daniels, a resident, said he preferred the darker building color that was in the earlier submission.

Commissioners and staff stressed code compliance for parking space length (20 feet), sight‑distance setbacks (8 feet from driveways), sidewalk continuity, and the town requirement that the architect’s consultant provide comments on elevations before final action. Several commissioners said stacked parking can be acceptable with clear striping and signage but voiced operational concerns about vehicles blocking each other.

Chair Lois Kissinger Kelly called for a motion. A commissioner moved to continue the hearing; the motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor to carry the item to the next month’s meeting so the applicant could supply the revised plans and the required architectural consultant review.

The commission did not approve or deny the site plan at the June 5 meeting; the application remains under review pending the additional materials and formal consultant comments requested by staff.","The Planning Commission continued a June 5 continued hearing on a proposed 3,300-square-foot combined restaurant and nail salon at 102 North Bond Street after staff and the applicant agreed additional details and consultant review were needed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bel Air planning commission recommends town board consider short‑term rental ordinance

Developer seeks approval for 82,924‑square‑foot phase 3 at Hartford Mall; commission continues review

Bel Air planning commission continues review of 102 North Bond Street restaurant and nail salon