Bel Air commissioners debate mixed-use and density changes: shared parking, 50% commercial target and B2 concerns

Bel Air — Commissioners spent the bulk of the Jan. 14 work session debating two linked zoning amendments: Ordinance 837-24, which would amend mixed-use definitions and permitted-use tables, and Ordinance 838-24, which would add density limits for several form-based zones.

Staff and commissioners described the package as an attempt to codify mixed-use expectations developed during review of large redevelopment projects, but several substantive disputes emerged: whether shared parking should be a mandatory feature of mixed-use centers or left to Planning Commission discretion; whether commercially-designated mixed-use sites should retain a 50% commercial minimum (with limited flexibility down to 40% under planned criteria); and whether Main Street’s B2 zoning district should be subject to new density caps.

Planning staff said mixed-use rules would apply only to developments that qualify as ‘‘mixed use’’ — notably properties with at least 10,000 square feet of total floor area — and that most existing Main Street buildings fall below that threshold. Staff also said the proposed change would make shared parking a required performance standard; the Planning Commission and the Economic and Community Development Commission (ECDC) recommended changing that requirement so shared parking would be permitted at the planning commission’s discretion to allow flexibility where developers maintain reserved parking (for example, a dedicated parking garage serving residents).

Several commissioners supported keeping a firm 50% commercial target for land designated commercial, arguing the town should preserve commercial uses rather than allowing majority-residential projects to replace commercial land. Others, citing current market conditions that make office and retail harder to lease or build, urged flexibility and suggested lower thresholds (some participants referenced 35% or 33% as potential alternatives) so mixed-use projects remain financially feasible.

A recurrent issue was the B2 district (Main Street): planning commissioners and ECDC urged caution about imposing a density cap on B2 because many existing Main Street properties are old, small and would become nonconforming; staff suggested options such as setting a cap informed by the densest existing B2 use or exempting B2 from the new limits while applying limits to B2A and B3A form-based zones.

Commissioners also discussed appeal paths and procedural differences. Sponsor language that would allow the Planning Commission to approve projects below the 50% commercial threshold under defined design and amenity criteria was intended to create a predictable administrative path rather than forcing developers to seek variances from the Board of Appeals under Maryland’s hardship-based variance standard.

No ordinance vote was recorded at the Jan. 14 work session. Commissioners asked staff to refine definitions, examine comparable density limits in neighboring jurisdictions, clarify the ‘‘excellence of design’’ criteria and provide a narrower set of thresholds and explicit criteria for when the Planning Commission could approve reductions below 50 percent.