Residents press council at lengthy Region 5 rezoning hearing; multiple parcel amendments adopted

A joint public hearing on bills 17‑26 and 18‑26 — the comprehensive rezoning and general development plan for Region 5 — opened May 4 before the Anne Arundel County Council, drawing multiple residents who urged caution on parcel‑level changes and asked the council to preserve existing protections.

The council and Office of Planning and Zoning staff described the bills as the last phase of a multi‑year comprehensive rezoning effort. Mark Wildonger of OPZ said the pair of bills would finish the region’s consistency rezoning and explained staff recommendations that some split‑zoned properties be consolidated to a single zoning district. Ethan Hunt, representing the administration, attended the presentation and answered technical questions.

Residents who live near the 2 Rivers planned unit development framed much of the testimony. Jim Holman urged the council to avoid amendments that would add lots for high‑priced homes and to follow recommendations of the Region 5 advisory committee. Laura Murray said she would be filing an application by July 15 to request that Saint John’s AME Zion Baptist Church be evaluated as a potentially significant African‑American historic resource tied to the Underground Railroad, and urged the council to defer approvals or add binding conditions until cultural‑resource reviews and a traffic impact study were complete. "This request does not stop development. It ensures the county follows its own code, protects the public record, and avoids irreversible harm," Murray said.

Other speakers sought corrections to zoning errors and divergent map treatments. William Steffey and adjacent property owners asked the council to retain existing C2 commercial zoning on a parcel where a tax‑map discrepancy had produced an unintended residential designation. Several parcel‑specific amendments were introduced by councilmembers during the session; OPZ generally did not object to amendments that preserved existing adopted zoning where the owner had not requested a change.

Council members debated the tradeoffs between preserving rural plan land use and allowing limited rezoning where property owners sought commercial designations. On one contested cluster of parcels, councilmembers discussed whether changing plan land use would affect future water‑and‑sewer master plan amendments and the property’s theoretical development capacity; OPZ and planning staff noted environmental constraints and septic‑system limits could substantially reduce the number of buildable lots even if density were changed.

After questions and debate, the council adopted several parcel‑specific amendments (including amendments numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 in the packet) and defeated at least one amendment (amendment 7). The bills as amended were set to be heard again on May 18, 2026 for final consideration.

The council’s action preserved some landowner requests to retain commercial zoning where split zoning produced inconsistency, while leaving several larger planning and policy questions — including traffic mitigation, cultural‑resource surveys and whether some properties should remain on septic — for follow‑up. The council will reconvene on May 18 to complete votes on the two Region 5 bills.

The Office of Planning and Zoning will provide updated maps and a staff memo ahead of the May 18 session; the council did not adopt final ordinances on the comprehensive map tonight and several petitioners asked for additional procedural clarity on historic‑resource review and traffic studies.