Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Baltimore zoning board rejects neighborhood appeal over brewerygrain silos
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals on March 17 declined a challenge to permits that allowed two grain silos at 1639 Guilford Avenue, ruling the Greenmount West PUD permits warehousing and storage and leaving the permits in place by a 3-1 vote. The board said planning staff reviewed the application and found no requirement for further planning commission design approval.
The Baltimore City Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals (BMZA) on March 17 rejected a negative appeal seeking to overturn permits for two grain silos and concrete pads at 1639 Guilford Avenue, a lot associated with Guilford Hall Brewery.
Alex Votoff, counsel for the appellant Paul M. Levine Jr., argued the silos are not allowed under the Greenmount West planned unit development (PUD) and its land-disposition documentation. "Grain silos are an explosion hazard," Votoff said, adding that the structure visible from adjacent homes is an outdoor storage use not contemplated by the PUD. Votoff presented Board of Estimates minutes and a partial release of a land-disposition agreement that, he said, limited 1639 to residential or parking uses and required additional city action to change that designation.
Property-owner counsel replied that the PUD text expressly permits "warehousing and storage" and that the silos meet definitions in the zoning code when treated as structures for grain storage. The property-owner attorney said planning staff reviewed the permit application and concluded planning-commission design review was not required. "Warehousing and storage . . . is precisely what my client is proposing to do," the property owner's counsel said.
Board Chair Leland Shelton framed the core question as whether the PUD allows storage uses on the lot. After hearing detailed legal arguments about whether the development agreement recorded in land records restricts subsequent use and whether the silos are indoor warehousing versus outdoor storage, the board voted 3-1 to deny the appeal, meaning the permits will remain in force. One member voted to remand the matter to the planning commission for design review.
Appellant counsel raised additional concerns about accessory-structure height and location (arguing accessory structures must be on the same lot as the primary use) and about whether the silos had been properly routed through required planning approvals; property counsel disputed those points and said planning determined no further design approval was necessary.
The BMZA said it will issue a written decision in the coming 30 days that will state the legal basis for the vote and any conditions. The board did not make findings on potential civil claims or permit-related licensing that fall outside its land-use review authority.
Meeting participants mentioned safety and property-value concerns raised by neighbors; the BMZA record reflects that those concerns were considered as part of the appellant's argument but were not the dispositive legal basis for reversing the permit.
