Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning board delays vote on residential CMDP update after debate over proposed 30% visitor parking standard
Summary
After staff proposed raising residential overflow/visitor parking guidance from 15% to 30%, developers and board members asked for more review; the Planning Board voted to defer the residential section of the Comprehensive Manual of Development Policies for 60 days to allow industry and public comment.
The Baltimore County Planning Board on Nov. 20 deferred a final vote for 60 days on the residential section of the Comprehensive Manual of Development Policies (CMDP) after a contentious public hearing and board discussion about a proposed change to visitor/overflow parking.
Jennifer Nugent of the Department of Planning presented the residential updates and described the project as an effort to modernize and reformat the CMDP (subsection-based pagination, hyperlinks and graphics) and to ensure the manual reflects current references in the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (BCZR). She also said staff recommended increasing the recommended overflow/visitor parking percentage in the CMDP from the long-standing 15% to 30% based on staff experience and resident feedback about parking shortages in recent developments.
Patsy Malone, an attorney with Venable representing development interests, told the board her clients and engineering firms had not been given adequate time to review the draft and that the increase to 30% would have “significant impacts on projects.” Malone gave project examples, saying a pending 79-townhome project would require 48 visitor spaces under the 30% figure and a 250-unit apartment project would need 94 visitor spaces. She asked the board not to vote that night.
Chris Mudd, also with Venable, urged the board to circulate the draft to industry groups (the Baltimore County Engineering Association and the Maryland Building Industry Association) and to set a deadline for written feedback, suggesting the planning board delay action to allow more informed comment.
Jennifer Nugent said staff did not intend wholesale regulatory change and that much of the CMDP update was formatting and alignment with existing zoning regulations; she said the 30% figure was a staff recommendation and that the department was open to feedback and to keeping the existing 15% if the board preferred.
After public testimony and board discussion about process and substance, a member moved to defer the residential section vote for 60 days so the development community and public could provide additional review and comment. The board adopted the deferral by roll-call vote.
Next steps: The board asked staff to solicit input from stakeholders during the deferral period and return the residential section to the board for reconsideration after the 60-day review window.
