6 More Acres of Perry Hall Open Space Proposed
County Councilman David Marks has proposed the protection of three Perry Hall areas from development, a total of more than 55 acres.
Pdfs
About six acres at Hines Road and Joppa Road could be barred from nearly all future development, according to a proposal by County Councilman David Marks.
"It is a densely populated corridor, with almost no forest area left between Joppa and Belair roads, and I think it should remain undeveloped," Marks said. "Frankly, I think this is in the best interest of the community."
Marks announced plans for the additional open space at Joppa Road about a week after he proposed 49 acres of open space along Honeygo Boulevard, also in Perry Hall.
Marks was the principal sponsor of a bill, passed by the County Council in March, that created a new open space zoning classification known as Neighborhood Commons. Previously, the lowest a potentially residential area could be downzoned was one house per acre, DR 1. Classification NC-DR 1, however, essentially leaves an area untouched by any construction.
Most of the 6.32-acre property, east of the Perry Hall Apartments on Joppa Road before the Hines Road intersection, is privately owned, Marks said, with a small portion belonging to Baltimore Gas and Electric.
The property owners were notified about the potential for a zoning change, he said, back in September 2011. They have not, however, contacted Marks or made any effort to oppose the downzoning.
"I have to make a decision in the best interest of the community," Marks said.
A representative of Perry Hall, LLP, the property management company of Perry Hall Apartments, declined to comment on the portion of land that is owned by the company and is proposed for open space.
Marks has made several attempts at downzoning areas in Perry Hall since taking office in 2010. He first announced plans to lower the development potential of nearly 300 acres of land in Perry Hall in December 2011. The Baltimore County Office of Planning, however, has stated its opposition to nearly all of the downzoning proposals, claiming that they would needlessly devalue the land.
Marks' proposals and the Office of Planning's stance, as well as Planning Board recommendations and community feedback, will be factored into the county's 2012 Comprehensive Zoning Map Process, which reexamines zoning designations every four years. The County Council is scheduled to vote on the final zoning map by Sept. 16.
Do you think Perry Hall is in need of more open space? Tell us in the comments which areas you believe should be protected from development.
John Dingedahl
1:04 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Thank you David for proposing this change in the zoning. Maybe down the road it could be used as a wooded park facility for the west side of perry Hall.
Stacey Schantz
1:54 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The more open space, the better!!!!
Nicole K.
2:15 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Good job, David.
Steve Redmer
2:31 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
I think it is bs to change the zoning on someone private property...you are stripping that individual of the value of that property...if the county and the taxpayers want that land to stay wooded...then open up your wallets and buy the land for market value
Tim
3:03 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
"The property owners were notified about the potential for a zoning change, he said, back in September 2011. They have not, however, contacted Marks or made any effort to oppose the downzoning."
Steve Redmer
3:44 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
David, so what are the consequences on individual right? I never argued unlimited private property rights... obviously there are zoning laws that currently stand. Obviously the owners of the property are not exploiting the value of the land, the last time i checked, it's full if trees... i don't know who owns the land, or how long they have owned it, but it is certainly a valuable asset... your rezoning for the "common good" is simply robbing the owner of their valuableasset
Steve Redmer
3:48 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The government is supposed to be there to protect the rights and property of individuals...your stance is clearly contrary to that...if you want to control or limit the use of that property, and in doing so rob it of it's value, then negotiate a fair price with the owner, purchase it and do whatever you want with it...
Steve Redmer
3:53 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
By the way David...i am one of your constituents...and if you are going to debate with me openly, please don't resort to the typical politician tactics that you used...you took my argument to the far-most extreme and countered it... I never argued for a world without zoning laws or regulation...i only argued against a government that steals from the individuals it swore to protect
Kris
4:44 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
I think I speak for everyone when I say, Shut up, Steve.
Steve Redmer
6:08 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Really? I don't get to voice my opinion? Bring something to the discussion, or leave it... Thanks
Other Tim
9:03 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
No, you don't speak for everyone. I agree with Steve. If the county wants to keep someone's property undeveloped, then buy the property from the owner.
David Marks did a little political double talk when he said "in a world where there is no zoning". We have plenty of zoning laws. The property in question has a zoning designation. He wants to change it, and that could cost the owner money. That is not fair!
Steve Redmer
4:52 pm on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The last name is Redmer... i don't question changing zoning, nor am I very familiar with the Zoning process... the article states that it will be designated "open space" which i assume means that no development AT ALL eill be allowed...so to ME that sounds like the county will be robbing the property owner of a valuable asset, without compensation...might as well go SB 509 on them and use eminent domain... just my thoughts, please correct me if I'm wrong... all these "constituents" who support this would probably be singing a different tune if it was their property affected
Steve Sanderson
7:13 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
But Steve, as the article states, the property owners didn't fight the zoning change. I think we should be thanking the property owner for not fighting it. I'm sure I would be pissed about it, but it's not my property. You say David Marks is taking your argument to the extreme with the "what ifs", but you ended your argument similarly with "what if it was your property". Well it's not, and the owner of it didn't care. Win. Win.
Bart
1:25 pm on Thursday, June 14, 2012
Mr. Redmer, you and your friends would be the first ones complaining if this was being developed. It's nice to live in a Fantasyland where government has hundreds of millions of dollars to hand out subsidies to landowners whose "property rights" are dimished. I thank Councilman Marks for his fiscal responsibility.
Steve Redmer
2:47 pm on Saturday, June 16, 2012
@ Steve S....The article states that the property owners were notified of a "Potential" down-zoning, I'm assuming from Mr Mark's office...the fact that they haven't responded is irrelevant...The Government shouldn't be running around taking peoples property rights & value away from them....I followed a few patch links to a hearing Mr Mark's attended where a number of properties were discussed and a couple of them were COUNTY owned, and there were no proposals to down-zone those properties...one person was even quoted as saying they won't down-zone county-owned property because it would drop the property value....WELL DUH!!! so why is it cool to do it to private property owners?
And to address your accusation about argument tactics...I never said Mr Mark's was taking my argument to "what if" arguments....What Mr Mark's did was use a classic "Red Herring" political argument...which is designed to mislead or distract from the actual issue....again, I never argued for unlimited property rights OR zero zoning laws...just that the county shouldn't destroy the value of privately owned property just to score points with their supporters
Steve Redmer
3:01 pm on Saturday, June 16, 2012
@ Bart...You don't have a clue what you are talking about...First off, you have no clue who I am or the issues I feel strongly about...but just to fill you in, I have lived in Perry Hall for over 30 years, and NEVER in that time have I ONCE complained about development...sometimes it is sad to see farmland turn into houses and condos...BUT that isn't my property and it was done following all zoning laws... so it isn't any of my business...
As for the "Fantasyland" you speak of...I don't know what country you live in...but the one I live in we don't put Property Rights in "Quotations" as if it is some fictional thing...Property Rights are at the very foundation of our free society...look it up
Also you have a very strange definition of "Fiscal Responsibility"... let me get this straight...It is fiscally responsible to use government power to strip private property owner of their land's value?
Paul Chiericoni
8:41 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
I believe in the Open Space concept and Mark's efforts in general, but also find myself agreeing with "Steve" who apposes rezoning land against the owners will (rendering the land valueless). In my opinion, a more effective way to protect farmland and open space would be to on ocation reject builders request for rezoning farmland for residential use. Has this ever been done in Perry Hall? Because all I see are residences where farmland use to be. I don't think we need more houses right now, soon every inch of Perry Hall will look like Seven Courts (over developed).
RickF
9:27 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
If the property owners didn't respond then that's on them. BUT...if they did respond and oppose the down-zoning than a fair price should be agreed on and the property be bought...with the stipulation that the property NEVER (if that's even possible) be zoned any other way. Would be a terrible thing if the property was negotiated away from the original owner than a store strip get erected 10 years later.
Tim
11:58 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
Philosophically, I agree here.
It's easy for the majority to like this measure (and I do of course), as long as it's not my land value being neutered. Just like everyone wants more prisons, or more X, but NIMBY (Not In My BackYard)
Steve Redmer
3:04 pm on Saturday, June 16, 2012
@ Rick...I disagree with your first point....as a property owner you shouldn't have to defend yourself against the government...the government is supposed to be there to protect YOU...just because they haven't responded (According to Mr Marks & Perry Hall Patch) doesn't mean that the government should be allowed to do whatever it wants
RickF
9:30 am on Monday, June 18, 2012
@ Steve....If government tries to contact you to discuss a matter of any kind, you shouldn't simply ignore them. You need to respond. What gets accomplished if you decide to ignore the request because you feel you shouldn't have to defend yourself. Im not suggesting that there should be ultimatums...there should be a fair process in place to allow the property owner to make a decision that is best for them .
Spring Heeled Jack
10:26 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
I personally support more open spaces and less backyard developments. We don't want our communities to look like Baltimore City were every foot is developed. Do you realize what Kingsville, Mt. Vista and that locale would look like if serious zoning laws weren't put into place in the 1970's?
However, restricting one's land usage or development should have better perks for the owners of the land. No, the state should never be able to buy private land just because they want it protected. BUT, I feel when open spaces are written into law and the land was privately owned; the land owner should get one huge perk. The owner should never have to pay property taxes again for that land.
FIFA_archived
11:46 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
With such a down-zoning from DR 5.5 (townhouses) to Open Space I have a sneaky feeling a re-assessment will render the property nearly valueless, thus accomplishing your goal.
Spring Heeled Jack
3:56 pm on Thursday, June 14, 2012
Nice point.
Tom Henry
11:35 am on Thursday, June 14, 2012
As a proud Republican and fiscal conservative, I applaud Councilman Marks for doing whatever he can to block property tax increases. He's doing job where it's impossible to please everyone.
Steve Redmer
3:07 pm on Saturday, June 16, 2012
I too am a Republican & Fiscal Conservative... I also strictly adhere to Common sense and The Constitution... just because I oppose Councilman Marks on this issue does not mean that I don't agree with him on many more
Emily Kimball
11:04 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
UPDATE (June 19)—See Perry Hall's proposed open space, in photos - http://patch.com/A-vv2q
Does open space classification needlessly devalue land, or does it provide a worthwhile community benefit? Tell us in the comments.