Tag: zoning code

UPDATE- Harford County Council Passes Zoning Amendments That Go Beyond Planning Recommendations

Council Members Reilly (8 amendments) and Boyle-Tsottles (1 amendment) introduced changes that allow high-intensity zoning- see how each member voted.

The chart below summarizes how each Harford County Council member voted on Amendments 1 through 9 to Bill 25-002, the Comprehensive Zoning legislation currently under consideration. The council members introduced, seconded, and acted on all amendments. 

As shown, all of the amendments were approved, which increased zoning intensity beyond what was recommended by Planning & Zoning and the Planning Advisory Board (PAB).

Notably, Councilman Bennett consistently voted “No” on amendments that sought higher-intensity zoning without public justification. He shared the following during the meeting:

Councilman Bennett stated:
“As we go through each of these amendments, I wanted to make sure I shared that… all involve going higher than the recommended placement from Planning and Zoning and the PAB. I think it’s really important for public clarity and consumption that thorough rationale is provided for each one. Without that, I wouldn’t feel comfortable supporting these.”

We appreciate the importance of transparency and accountability in the zoning process, and we will continue to keep you informed on the County Council’s final vote on Bill 25-002, expected during the special legislative session on April 22nd.

Thank you for continuing to be part of the voice for responsible land use in Harford County.

Sincerely,
Friends of Harford

 

Bill 25-002 Amendments Vote Tracker (4_15_25) CorrectedDownload

Scorecard Update May 2022

View the lastest Harford County Council legislative “scorecard” provided by Friends of Harford. 

Stay tuned for updates on land use legislation and track how your County Council representative voted! 

Highlights include: 

Bill 22-003- Perryman Peninsula Moratorium– Passed unanimously by Council, then vetoed by County Executive.

FOH OPINION– Failure to submit the opportunity for individual Council members to support the moratorium again shows a lack of transparency in the local legislative process. Seven Council members voted to approve the moratorium and now not one of them were given the opportunity to speak to the public about the bill.

County Executive Glassman vetoed the bill May 2, 2022 and County Council President Vincenti chose not to discuss overriding the veto the following legislative session. By Harford County charter, the council has until the following legislative session, which would have been the May 3, 2022 meeting, the day after the veto to override the veto of a bill. 

The legislative branch, led by Vincenti should have been aware of the process of veto and should have been prepared to discuss this in the presence of citizens. Instead, there was no discussion, disappointing many citizens. 

Friends of Harford SCORECARD UPDATE MAY 2022Download
Scorecard Update May 2022

Friends of Harford Scorecard, Update March 2021

View the lastest Harford County Council legislative “scorecard” provided by Friends of Harford. Stay tuned for updates on land use legislation and track how your County Council representative voted! 

Highlights:

Bill 21-001 Community Solar Energy Generating System (CSEGS)

Sponsor: Council President Vincenti for County Executive Glassman
Adds CSEGS to Zoning Code definition as a principal use of sun for electric power generation

  • Added as a Special Development where Director of Planning & Zoning has sole authority to allow
  • Limits to 2 megawatts of capacity (AC)
  • Not allowed in AG
  • Not allowed in Natural Resource District or Chesapeake Bay Critical area
  • All residential has acreage limitations and added buffering
  • Allowed in all business, commercial and industrial districts with current buffers
  • Required decommissioning to original land with a payment to the County of 115% of anticipated cost for the
    entirety of the use For more Information

FOH: Opinion: A Special Exception rather than a Special Development should be required for approval to allow neighbors the opportunity to weigh in on the use. This use should be allowed in the AG District.

Amendments introduced by Councilman Wagner and sponsored by all County Council members.

New Definition- Viewshed as an area of land, water or other environmental element that is visible from a fixed
vantage point, in context with historic preservation. Viewsheds may be described as areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation from impacts resulting from development or other
forms of change.

Replaces uses and districts with the following:
• Requires the use to be a Special Exception (not a Special Development)
• GI District will be a permitted use and not require a Special Exception
• Removes parcel size limitations
• Increases structure location to 250′ from offsite dwelling unit from 200′
• Adds that no location will be within the Viewshed of a property listed on Harford County Historical list.
• Site shall avoid visual corridors that are scenic Viewsheds or areas. Shall not be located within 1 mile
on either side of any designated scenic by-way on any County or State maintained road.
• Increases time for restoration of site for decommissioning from 6 to 12 months.
• Increases bond, surety, letter of credit or other financial assurance from 115% to 125% of anticipated
cost of removal.
Vote was unanimous in approval of all amendments.

View Scorecard

Current Zoning Board of Appeals Docket

Variance/Special Exception cases in Harford County.

NOTES:

Appeal of Written Determination

Appeal of Written Determination, proposed for the First Election District, 240, 241, 242, 243 and 245 Ogden Court, Abingdon, by ERICH BAIN and STEVEN GOLDEN.

Appealed because an appeal of a final written determination by the Director of Planning, pursuant to Section 267-7A(6) of the Harford County Code, in a letter dated December 30, 2019, where it was concluded that the five (5) existing single-family detached residences, operated by New Points, LLC, are “Residential: Conventional Development as Single Family Detached Dwellings”, and are permitted in the R3 Urban Residential District, requires approval by the Board of Appeals.

Village Business (VB) District

“This district is intended to provide business services to rural areas and to preserve and enhance the character and function of long-established rural settlements. This district compliments the VR district by providing a mix of business and residential uses at an appropriate scale. The Rural Village Study shall be used as a guide for achieving architectural compatibility.” § 267-58

There are nine Villages in the County: Churchville, Coopstown, Darlington, Dublin, Forest Hill, Jarrettsville, Norrisville, Upper Crossroads and Whiteford.  These have been villages long before there was a Zoning Code.

Follow Zoning Board of Appeals here: http://hcgweb01.harfordcountymd.gov/Legislation/Zonings

Abingdon Business Park

Abingdon Business Park – Forest Stand Delineation and Forest Conservation Plan
 
In response to plans to create an industrial park on a 326-acre parcel near the Route 24 and Interstate-95 interchange, land use advocacy groups from Harford County and beyond signed a letter addressed to Mr. Brad Killian, Director of Planning and Zoning for Harford County.

The proposed Abingdon Business Park is located within Abingdon Woods bounded by I-95, Route 24, Route 7 and Abingdon Road. The legal and practical concerns include extensive deforestation (planned clear cut of 220 acres of forest) and potential for negative impacts to water quality are detailed in the full letter printed below. 

The letter begins…

“The undersigned citizens and organizations are writing in opposition to the proposed Abingdon Business Park, located at the southeast corner of I-95 and Route 24. The undersigned have serious legal and practical concerns about the extensive deforestation proposed under the current plan and the associated negative impacts to water quality. This project proposes substantial deforestation that appears to violate local and state laws regarding forest conservation and is contrary to County policy as stated in the County’s Green Infrastructure Plan.”  READ LETTER Continue reading “Abingdon Business Park” →

Auston Pyrolysis Decision

The Harford County Circuit Court upheld the decision in Case 5886 to deny the tire pyrolysis operation by Auston Transfer and Processing on 6 acres in Joppa off Route 7. 

The property, Auston Transfer, used for shredding and recycling scrap tires requested a new system to incinerate tires within a closed chamber.  The property is zoned CI- Commercial Industrial.  Planning & Zoning approved the use in this zoning category. 

Within the time frame allowed, two Joppa citizens appealed the determination made by the Director and asked that the matter be reviewed by the County’s Hearing Examiner.  They were assisted by the People’s Counsel.  That decision was appealed because it considered the determination of the Planning and Zoning Director to allow this use in CI, was improper and that the pyrolysis system belonged in GI-General Industrial zoning.

As of this decision, the Hearing Examiner, County Council and now the Circuit Court all agree that the Director of Planning & Zoning overreached his authority and made a “legal error” in deciding to allow this use in CI. 

In addition, the Circuit Court added that material and information which is not in the Zoning Code itself, should be made available to the public.  In this case it was the Industrial Codes used by the Department of Planning & Zoning. 

Why is this relevant?

Friends of Harford is sharing news of this decision because it is an example of how the system is supposed to work. The community had concerns about the potential for negative effects to the environment and of the proximity of the tire burning near their homes. At each level, the facts were brought to light and the decision was made not to allow this type of facility in a Commercial Industrial Zoning. Had the tire pyrolysis plant been allowed in CI, it would have set precedent for future types of facilities in CI zoning.

 

Zoning Changes Update & New Scorecard

Friends of Harford News and Views
June, 2019

Bill 19-016 – Zoning Code Changes- Public Hearing Input- June 4, 2019

Recently, Friends of Harford President, Stephanie Flasch provided public input on Bill 19-016 (Zoning Code Changes) See full text of comments here. 

See full text of Bill 19-016 HERE. 

There is still time for citizens to send their comments to the County Council.
Call or email the County Council at (410) 638-3343 or council@harfordcountymd.gov 

Friends of Harford tracks the voting records for land use legislation via the SCORECARD. The Friends of Harford scorecard will be updated with amendments and voting record for land use legislation. 

Scorecard

Friends of Harford Annual Report and Meeting Presentations-2019

Thanks to all who attended the Friends of Harford Annual Meeting on April 28, 2019 at the McFaul Center. Annual Report and Presentations in links below. 

Welcome 2019 Board of Directors

President Stephanie Flasch 
C0-Vice Presidents Alan Sweatman & Bill Onorato
Secretary Lee Crush & Mary Ann Forgan
Treasurer Gloria Moon
Communications  Beth Poggioli 

Board Members 2019
Judy Blomquist, Morita Bruce, Veronica Cassilly, Patti Dallam, Glenn Dudderar, Janet Hardy, Sally LaBarre 

Friends of Harford Annual Report 2018-2019

Friends of Harford 2019 Annual Meeting Presentation

Special Exceptions in the Zoning Code

Friends of Harford News and Views
February, 2018

Special Exceptions
 
The Zoning Code tells us what we may do with our property. Build a house? 7 houses? A restaurant? A gas station? We read the code to find out what uses are automatically permitted, but there are exceptions to the rule. If the code shows a use as a special exception, it may be approved with certain extra conditions to protect the neighbors, or it may not be approved at all. That use must also be compatible with what is already allowed in the neighborhood.
 
A Special Exception is unique in that neighbors can object to the proposed site plan during a required, formal hearing. The public may be represented for free if the People’s Counsel agrees to represent the interests of the public.
 
The overriding rule for a Special Exception is if it causes too much harm to the neighbors, and changing the site plan won’t stop the harm, it should not be approved.

In all there are 10 requirements** for approval of a Special Exception. So for example, the code states one may build a sawmill in CI (Commercial Industrial) or GI (General Industrial) zoned properties, but one must ask for a Special Exception for a sawmill on an AG (Agricultural) zoned property.

A Hearing Examiner decides whether the request is approved or denied for that plan at that particular location. The decision may be appealed to the County Council which sits as the Board of Appeals.
 
1.  Zoning Code, Article IX, Special Exceptions page 315
     
 2.  Friends of Harford Newsletter-Public Participation for Special Exception
 
**  Special Exceptions consider the effects of the proposed site plan on: the number of people living or working in the area; traffic conditions; orderly growth of the neighborhood and any fiscal impact the County may have because of the approval;  the effect of odors, gas, smoke, fumes, vibration, glare and noise on the surrounding properties; if there is adequate police, fire, water, sewer or garbage services; if the development is consistent with good planning; any harm to existing structures nearby such as churches, schools, etc.; environmental impact or opportunities for recreation or harm to sensitive land; the preservation of cultural and historic buildings or places.