Bel Air adopts new mixed‑use and density rules after months of debate

The Bel Air Board of Town Commissioners on March 3 approved two changes to the town's development code, adopting Ordinance 8-39-25 to refine mixed‑use center rules and Ordinance 8-40-25 to set density limits. The votes followed a public hearing that generated more than two hours of testimony from business owners, developers and residents.

The ordinances amend Chapter 165 of the Bel Air Town Code. Ordinance 8-39-25 adds language giving the planning commission new authority to require public improvements before occupancy permits and modifies the mixed‑use threshold language; the board amended the draft to set a 40% guideline tied to the underlying land‑use designation for certain mixed‑use projects. Ordinance 8-40-25 establishes density limits in multiple zoning districts and updates lot requirement tables and related code text.

Supporters who testified said the changes provide regulatory clarity and help sustain downtown businesses by guiding where residential and commercial uses should locate. "These projects will locate elsewhere in the county, and the town will see no tax benefit," said Chris Street, a Main Street property owner and chair of the Economic and Community Development Commission, arguing that restrictive thresholds could push development out of town. Jenny Earhart, executive director of the Bel Air Downtown Alliance, said residential projects bring customers to small businesses and urged the board to avoid unpredictable rule changes.

Opponents warned of stretched infrastructure and loss of commercial space. Gavin Hanley, a resident, said parking, schools and emergency services were already under pressure and argued that "allowing mixed use residential to go beyond 50 ... undermines the designated land use and fails to consider quality of life for existing citizenry." Several commenters pressed the board not to retroactively alter approvals for projects that had relied on prior rules.

Commissioner Thomas Rutledge framed his vote around property rights and fairness, telling colleagues that "equity does not reward those who sleep on their rights," and saying he would vote for the ordinances after weighing notice to property owners and public input. Mayor Eddings made a point of distinguishing legislative change from past approvals: "To be clear, we are not rescinding any approvals. We are not terminating any agreements," she said at the meeting.

Procedural history and votes: Ordinance 8-39-25 was moved by Commissioner Chismar, seconded by the chair; the board approved two amendments (adding the word "harmony" to compatibility language and authorizing the planning commission to require public improvements before occupancy) unanimously, then adopted a separate amendment changing the planned threshold from 35% to 40% (motion carried; Rutledge and Chance split on that amendment). The final vote to approve Ordinance 8-39-25 as amended was 4–1 in favor: Rutledge aye, Chismar aye, Taylor aye, Chance nay, Chair Eddings aye. Ordinance 8-40-25 (density limits and table corrections) passed later the same evening on a 4–1 vote: Rutledge aye, Chismar aye, Taylor aye, Chance no, Chair Eddings aye.

The board rejected making a special legislative 'carve‑out' exempting specific pending projects from the new rules. Commissioners who supported that position said they were following Maryland vesting principles and fairness; those opposing an exemption cited the need to treat all applicants under a consistent legal standard. The town attorney and staff noted that some projects whose permits are already vested would not be affected in any case.

What happens next: Both ordinances become town law per the code's effective dates and will be applied by town staff and the planning commission in reviewing future mixed‑use and higher‑density proposals. Developers, property owners and members of the public who testified were told the changes aim to give clearer standards for design and for preserving commercial activity in key town corridors.