Proposals in a community development plan to address growth in Middle River would infringe on Baltimore County?s protected rural district and doesn?t do enough to protect existing residents, activists said.
The Baltimore County Planning Board recently approved an action plan addressing expected growth in Middle River from the federal base realignment and closure and recent 3.8-mile extension of White Marsh Boulevard. But the board supported proposals ? including rezoning several large parcels to accommodate as many as 2,400 new homes ? that several members of an eight-member community panel who drafted the plan lobbied against, they said. Residents packed a public hearing before the County Council Monday evening to protest the changes.
“There was a majority on the panel that did not feel the plan reflected what should be occurring,” said Kathy Stumpf, who served on the community advisory panel. “We want to make sure there aren?t additional town houses and condominiums and cookie-cutter houses piled on top of each other.”
The plan, which must be approved by the County Council, encompasses a 4.78-square mile parcel bound by Route 40, Ebenezer Road, the Windlass Run, Bengies Road and Martin Boulevard. Middle River?s population has grown by 385 since 2000, but has seen a net loss of nearly 600 homes, according to the plan.
More than 1,000 new housing units already are in the pipeline in 14 approved and eight proposed projects, officials said. BRAC could bring 3,900 new jobs and 3,600 households, which creates “even greater sense of urgency” to complete infrastructure investments, officials said.
“I think Middle River will be a certain target for BRAC,” said Councilman Joe Bartenfelder, D-District 6.
Planning board members are recommending the county extend its “rural urban demarcation line,” an area separating areas identified for dense growth and preservation, based mostly on the availability of public water and sewer.
The document as approved by the planning board in June suggests extending the URDL to include a triangular area roughly bound by Ebenezer, Vincent and Bird River roads.
The property already is zoned for residential use, and sewer and water infrastructure will likely be added to accommodate a new elementary school, the plan says.
But extending the URDL would set a detrimental precedent to the “small, quiet,” community, resident Courtney Topolski said.
“Our property has been farmed, mined and now it?s going to be urbanized,” Topolski said. “It?s time we promote preservation of our natural resources.”
MIDDLE RIVER DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
» 306 acres: rural conservation to residential with one home per acre
» 277 acres: residential with one and two homes per acre to 3.5 homes per acre
» 60 acres: residential with two homes per acre to 3.5 homes per acre
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
» Pipeline Development: 1,044 units
» Potential units with existing zoning: 967
» Potential units with changed zoning: 450 to 773
» Units from developers? proposals: 838
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
» 10100 Bevans Lane: 32 single-family homes
» Gambrill Property: 2 single-family homes
» Grantleigh Station: 58 single-family homes
» Greenfields at White Marsh: 96 single-family homes
» Greenwood Manor: 51 townhomes
» Laubach Property: 14 single-family homes
» Miramar Landing: 126 single-family homes, 381 townhomes
» Jack Powell Property: 30 single-family homes
» Gerald D. Sherman Property: 18 single-family homes
» Sterling Reserve: 15 single-family homes
» Tito Inc. Property: 156 single-family homes
» Wellman Property: 1 single-family home
» Windlass Run: 14 single-family homes
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
» Byrnes Property: 3 single-family homes
» Daisy Woods: 2 single-family homes, 8 semi-detached
» Eichberg Property: 12 townhomes
» Norman Marley Property: 1 single-family home
» Newton Property: 1 single-family home
» Still Meadows: 5 single-family homes
» White Marsh Run: 18 single-family homes
