Baltimore County Board of Appeals grants special exception and sign variances for Wawa at 10550 Reisterstown Road with conditions

The Baltimore County Board of Appeals reached a consensus Oct. 23 to grant a special exception and sign variances allowing a fuel service station and convenience store (a Wawa) at 10550 Reisterstown Road in Owings Mills, subject to conditions intended to limit impacts on nearby residences.

The board’s decision followed deliberations about evidence gaps in the record and planning staff comments. Deborah Dobkin, a board member, said planning had raised concerns that “were not addressed … regarding demonstrating that there will be no adverse impacts imposed on the immediate residential properties.” She added that, because there was little testimony about operations, “I don't want that happening here, and I don't know if it will or if it won't because there was no testimony. So I'm very on the fence.”

Chair Michael Stomach said the site “begs for redevelopment” and that the petitioner had met the standards for a special exception under the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations, but he and other members worried about missing design details. “I would grant a special exemption. I think they've done what, you know, what they need to do to to show that they're entitled to it,” Stomach said, while asking that conditions be attached to protect nearby residents.

The board conditioned approval on submission and administrative review of a lighting plan and a landscape plan to limit light spill onto adjacent properties, relocation of the dumpster, and restricted hours for trash removal (not before 8:00 a.m. and not after 7:00 p.m.). The board also required that all signage comply with BCZR signage regulations (cited by staff as section 4450) and treated rear building signs as either moot (if they are not visible from a public way) or, if permitted, non‑illuminated and limited to directional use.

Members discussed BCZR provisions concerning abandoned service stations and conversions, and concluded that conversion to another use can be read as non‑abandonment under BCZR provisions. The board noted anecdotal concerns raised in the record about late‑night loitering at other locations but found no testimonial evidence in this record showing impacts on the adjacent residential area.

Because the hearing record lacked operational details (for example, explicit testimony about hours or pump operation) and detailed design submissions (lighting and landscape plans were not presented at the hearing), the board attached conditions requiring those plans and administrative demonstration that there will be no adverse impacts on the immediate residences before final implementation. The board instructed staff to reflect the conditions in the written order and one member said they may write a concurring or dissenting opinion if they disagreed with certain findings.

The board’s action resolves matter no. 24249XA in favor of the petitioner, Racers Town Developers LLC, subject to the conditions outlined above. The order will specify whether rear signage is dismissed as moot or granted under strict limitations.