Baltimore County Planning Board declines to support rezoning request for Loch Raven Boulevard property

The Baltimore County Planning Board voted July 17 to not support a cycle zoning reclassification petition affecting parcels on Loch Raven Boulevard and East Joppa Road (Case R-2025-50), recommending adoption of the Department of Planning’s Cycle Zoning Reclassification Petition Report dated June 5, 2025, and asking that the Board of Appeals schedule hearings in the September–December 2025 period with a decision by Dec. 31, 2025.

The motion, which was seconded and approved on a roll-call vote, directs the Board of Appeals to hear the matter during period four of the cycle so the statutory decision deadline can be met. Scott Alopka, chair of the Planning Board, opened the discussion; Department of Planning staff were present to answer questions.

Board members debated whether the recent Board of Appeals determination that there was no “technical drafting error” in how parcels were described affected the Planning Board’s review. Jason Vittori, representing the petitioner (Smith, Golday and Schmidt), told the board his client had not submitted additional documentation to the planning department and said the issue stemmed from three parcels owned by his client being imperfectly described when filed. He said the omission was not intentional and that if the parcel had been included originally the entire property would have been rezoned and the current hearing would not be necessary.

Planning staff and board members discussed the legal standards that apply when considering reclassification petitions 97 including whether there has been a substantial change in the neighborhood or whether the prior classification was established in error. Mr. Vittori referenced Baltimore County Code section 30-235-10 as listing criteria the Board of Appeals will use to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether an error or a change in the neighborhood occurred.

Board members also noted procedural constraints: several members observed that the Board of Appeals had already concluded there was no technical drafting error as to the filing; that distinction affects the remaining grounds (change-in-neighborhood or mistake) the Board of Appeals must consider. One board member asked whether the petitioner or client could provide additional evidence of a substantial change to the character of the neighborhood; Vittori said no additional documents had been filed since the public hearing and explained the petitioner relied on address information provided by the client rather than an ALTA survey when filing.

After discussion the board moved and approved a recommendation to not support the rezoning petition, to adopt the June 5, 2025 Department of Planning report, and to request that the Board of Appeals schedule hearings in period 4 of the cycle so a decision can be rendered by Dec. 31, 2025. The board recorded the motion as carried following a roll-call vote.

The Planning Board’s action is advisory; the Board of Appeals will make final factual findings and legal conclusions on whether a change in neighborhood character or an error occurred under the county code. The board concluded this agenda item before moving to reports and other business.