Baltimore County design panel approves 44‑unit Catonsville "Valiant" project with design conditions

The Baltimore County Design Review Panel on July 8 approved with conditions the "Valiant" project, a 44‑unit age‑restricted apartment building at 44 Bloomsbury Avenue in Catonsville.

Chair Joseph Youssefaro said the panel had "quorum" and, after presentation, public comment and staff recommendations, voted to carry the motion. Mister Sala moved the approval with conditions; Mister Khan seconded and the motion passed 5‑0.

The developer's design team, led by architect Charles Alexander, presented site plans and renderings showing a stepped massing with a brick base and porch‑like facades, an at‑grade lobby, a below‑grade garage with rear entry and interior trash room, and a mix of unit types. Alexander described the project as an age‑restricted infill intended to improve walkability to Main Street. "This is something that Catonsville really, I think, if the developer were to speak, he'd bring it up," Alexander said, adding he is "a Catonsville resident as well." The team said mechanical units would be screened, most lighting would be soffit‑mounted, and roofs adjacent to porches will include green‑roof elements.

Neighbor Kevin Mercer, owner of 42 Bloomsbury Avenue across Meadowbrook, said he "supports this project in concept, but I'm concerned about the impact of its current design on my adjacent structure," raising proximity, perceived omissions in renderings and the size of a proposed "Valiant" façade sign. The architect responded that planning requested expansions to the Meadowbrook right‑of‑way in the site plan and renderings, and that the actual property line and pavement differ from some 3‑D views, which makes the building appear closer in certain images.

Marta from the Department of Planning read a staff report recommending approval with conditions: provide a safe sidewalk connection from Bloomsbury and Meadowbrook to the garage entrance; clarify whether a building‑height variance will be required; delineate required open space and supply an open‑space calculation chart; provide details for proposed signage (materials, dimensions) and a lighting plan; and confirm parking‑variance requests. Several panelists endorsed the staff recommendations.

Panelists asked for design refinements focused on exterior material composition and signage. Mister Sala and Mister Khan urged simplification or more consistent brick detailing so the multiple material and pattern choices read cohesively. "I think the massing of the building is very successful," Sala said, but requested the team "study reducing the number of materials and creating a cohesive design with the brick facade." Khan and other members asked that the Meadowbrook‑facing sign be reduced in scale.

The panel's conditions require the applicant to meet the Department of Planning staff report and to study and propose reduced signage on the Meadowbrook facade, review the range of exterior materials (with attention to brick detailing) and return to staff for administrative approval of the design refinements rather than a second public panel hearing. The motion passed with five ayes and no nays.

Next steps: the applicant will resolve the staff‑recommended conditions and any required variances through county review and administrative follow‑up; an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing and further public input opportunities were mentioned as part of the county approval pathway.