Baltimore County Board of Appeals denies special exception for four campsites at 9043 Old Court Road

Baltimore County Board of Appeals members on Sept. 18 denied a petition from Freedom 40 Farms LLC to establish four noncommercial campsites at 9043 Old Court Road, saying the application did not meet the petitioner’s burden of proof and raised neighborhood-safety and enforcement concerns.

The board’s deliberation focused on the site plan’s vagueness and conditions along the unpaved right of way that accesses the property. Joseph Evans, a member of the Baltimore County Board of Appeals, said, “I did not think that the petitioner met his burden of proof, frankly,” and noted the petitioner had orally reduced an earlier commercial-campground request to four campsites intended for friends and family.

Why it matters: The board found the property’s access and neighboring circumstances make the request materially different from campsite requests in other parts of the zoning district, and the members said approving the request could worsen tensions among neighbors living along the right of way. “The notice of the neighborhood implications and the physical limits of the right of way mean this request would adversely affect the road,” Evans said.

Board members cited specific concerns: the right of way is unpaved, narrow and winding, is subject to washouts in bad weather, and in places is only about one to one-and-a-half vehicle lanes wide, making vehicle passing difficult. Members also noted the petitioner planned no on-site sanitation or utility hookups and would rely on extension cords to draw electricity from the house. Fred Lauer, a member of the board, said, “Everything was very vague, and I think it will be detrimental to everyone involved” without clearer or verified information.

The board also referenced community input and local organizations opposing the request. The People’s Council participated in the earlier hearing and opposed the petition; the Greater Patapsco Community Association flagged the broader implications because multiple similar right-of-way properties exist in the area. William Paul Schock, a member of the board, said the reduction from a larger commercial plan to four sites indicated a willingness to compromise but added the current filing failed to provide necessary details, saying, “We just don’t have any perspective from the proposal that was before us.”

History and procedure: The petition originally was presented as a commercial campground at a July 30 hearing but was orally amended by the petitioner at that earlier session to request four campsites without charging fees; the board treated the current matter as a special-exception request. Board members agreed a variance was not before them and noted the petitioner had not sought one. The petitioner was referenced in the record as Mr. Kratz, identified by the board as the legal owner and the petitioner’s representative.

Decision and next steps: The three board members present agreed unanimously to deny the special-exception petition. Joseph Evans stated, “So we’ve agreed unanimously to deny the request for the special exception,” and later: “It is our decision that the petition for a special exception will be denied. And a written opinion on this matter will be issued in due course.” No further directions for mitigation or follow-up conditions were made on the record.

Discussion vs. decision: During deliberations the board discussed possibilities and concerns (site-plan clarity, frequency of use not specified, access and enforcement problems) but issued a formal decision to deny the petition; the board did not adopt any interim directions requiring additional study or conditions.

The case is recorded as Case No. 24-243-X; the board said a written opinion explaining the denial will be issued in due course.