Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Havre de Grace Board of Appeals approves amendment to allow 39 lots at 1535 Pulaski Highway
Summary
On April 3 the Havre de Grace Board of Appeals approved an amendment to a 2024 conditional-use approval that increases the permitted lots at 1535 Pulaski Highway from 37 to 39, subject to returning for review if the developer seeks more lots; further planning-commission review and preliminary subdivision approvals remain required.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Havre de Grace Board of Appeals on April 3 approved a request to amend a January 2024 conditional‑use approval for 1535 Pulaski Highway, permitting an increase from 37 to 39 dwelling lots, with a stipulation that any additional change would require the developer to return to the board for further review.
Eric Lawrence, planner with the Department of Planning, read a staff memorandum into the record and told the board the applicant’s request to add two lots is limited to evaluating the appropriateness of increasing the number of dwelling units under the same lot specification type D. Lawrence said the request meets the findings that supported the board’s January 4, 2024 decision and that additional reviews — including a final staff report and a planning commission recommendation tied to subsequent preliminary subdivision and site-development plans — will be required.
Eric McLaughlin, attorney for the applicants and Bob Ward Development, told the board the application is a narrow request to amend case number 541 from 37 to 39 lots and that the underlying reasons for using lot specification type D have not changed. “We’re not here to talk about water or sewer or transportation,” McLaughlin said, adding the new layout provides what he described as improved buffering and site features compared with the prior plan.
McLaughlin described several changes he said improved the proposal since the 2024 approval: the primary access has shifted to a Bulle Rock parcel (identified in the record as Parcel N), an improved emergency access between the Bulle Rock access road and the development, added active open space, and roughly 10 overflow guest parking spaces. He said the property is intended to be annexed into the Bulle Rock homeowners association so roads and stormwater facilities would remain privately owned and maintained, and the plan would allow future pedestrian connectivity along a CSX easement if constructed by a third party.
Chip Place, who identified himself as a resident at 301 Cigar Loop and a member of the planning commission, urged the board to post updated applicant materials to the online calendar entry so the public can review the specific site plan submitted with the amendment. Place also asked the board to clarify whether the prior 37‑lot condition was a “not to exceed” figure; the chair said the board would set the number in its motion.
During deliberations a board member summarized that the change represents mostly a lot‑line shift and that the acreage covered by lots on the subject site increased by about 0.6 acres; McLaughlin said the change results in a net increase of only one lot for the developer when accounting for a lot removed on an adjacent parcel. The board then moved to approve the request “as written, with the stipulation that if they do exceed the additional 2 that are being approved tonight, that once again you would have to return” for review. The motion was seconded and approved by roll call: Board of Appeals members Richard Weiner, Anis Passoli, Phil Putland and Phil Powell voted aye.
The board’s action amends the conditional‑use approval tied to Board of Appeals case number 541 (January 4, 2024). Staff and the applicant made clear that the decision on April 3 only addresses the conditional‑use question to permit the additional lots under specification type D; separate approvals for preliminary subdivision plans, site and development plans, and related documents remain required before construction or recording.
Next steps include the applicant’s submittal of the final staff‑report materials to the planning commission for recommendation and the usual review of preliminary subdivision and site‑development plans. The board adjourned following the vote.

