Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Great Seneca Masterplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows master plan language on Bellwood adaptive reuse, parks and green cover; removes annexation opposition
Summary
At a continuation of the Great Seneca Science Center master plan review, the PHP committee recommended changing 'require' to 'encourage' for adaptive reuse of four Bellwood Farm historic buildings, clarified park and transit‑proximity language, endorsed a 35% green‑cover aim with implementation via concept plans, and removed a proposed 'oppose annexation' clause from the plan.
The Planning, Housing and Parks Committee on June 27 continued its review of the Great Seneca Science Center master plan (Life Sciences Center area), focusing on opportunity sites, social and natural environment goals, and implementation measures.
On the Bellwood Campus — a roughly 96‑acre site owned in part by Johns Hopkins University — planning staff reiterated the plan’s long‑standing recommendation to preserve and pursue adaptive reuse of four historic Bellwood Farm structures (the Bellwood House, Dairy Barn, Milk Barn and Cow Barn). Planning staff said adaptive reuse can range from active cultural or recreational uses to more modest public‑access arrangements and noted that specific reuse would be addressed through the regulatory process and review by the Historic Preservation Commission (Chapter 24A).
Several council members, including the district representative, said making adaptive reuse mandatory would be prohibitive given the high cost of rehabilitation. The committee agreed to a preliminary edit changing the plan’s language from a requirement to encouragement: the committee will recommend language to "encourage adaptive reuse of the historic Bellwood Farm buildings" and to explicitly name the four designated buildings in the plan text so outbuildings and sheds are not unintentionally included.
The committee also reviewed multiple opportunity sites (Treville, Decoverly, the former Johns Hopkins Medical Center site and several publicly owned parcels) and accepted planning staff recommendations to retain the plan’s descriptions while noting where site‑specific flexibility or further study is needed.
Park and open‑space guidance drew detailed discussion at the Adventist Healthcare site. Planning staff recommended a dedicated public urban park of at least one‑half acre located near one of the planned transit stops; parks staff emphasized that the site should be publicly owned or dedicated and visible from a public road or transit stop to ensure genuine public access. Committee members sought more flexible wording that preserves proximity to transit without rigidly specifying a single roadway; staff agreed to adjust the language to say the park be "provided near at least one of the future transit stops."
On environmental goals the plan recommends a minimum 35% green cover on private property (excluding existing forest cover) to meet stormwater and heat‑island objectives. Property representatives asked whether the 35% requirement could be applied at the entire property scale rather than parcel‑by‑parcel for very large ownerships. Planning staff and implementation experts explained that a concept or preliminary plan can establish an area‑wide target and that later individual site plans may show phased compliance — for example, one site at 32% and another at 38% can be consistent with the overall concept as long as the concept plan documents the approach.
The plan also recommends at least 50% tree canopy coverage for surface parking lots, with an allowance to meet the coverage through solar canopies if 50% tree canopy is infeasible. Staff said applicants would need to demonstrate infeasibility during development review.
Under implementation, the committee supported staff’s less‑prescriptive edit to recommend establishing an organizing entity to help implement master plan recommendations (rather than prescribing a specific place‑management structure). The committee removed a staff‑proposed 18‑month deadline for exploring funding mechanisms so that funding work remains evergreen.
Finally, the planning board’s draft text that would have opposed municipal annexation of parts of the Life Sciences Center prompted strong objections from some members who said annexation policy belongs in a different forum; the committee agreed to remove explicit "oppose annexation" language and asked planning staff to draft alternative language focused on preserving plan integrity.
The committee will continue neighborhood portions of the plan at a subsequent meeting and requested follow‑up materials (including data on buildings meeting the proposed fire‑call thresholds and refined language from historic‑preservation staff).
