PRESERVING RURAL LANDS DEVELOPMENT FROM INCOMPATIBLE

Transcription

1 PRESERVING RURAL LANDS FROM INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT AN APPROACH FOR PRESERVING THE RURAL CHARACTER OF BALTIMORE COUNTY S RURAL LANDS FROM INCOMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL & OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prepared By Richard D. Klein COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE SERVICES 811 Crystal Palace Court Owings Mills, Maryland Fax: info@ceds.org Web Page: October 3, 2007

2 INTRODUCTION The rural lands of Baltimore County are protected through ten Resource Conservation (RC) zoning districts (see table on next page). These RC-zoned rural lands account for two-thirds of the County s area. However, due to a major loophole in the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations, the Resource Conservation zones only partially protect rural character. Presently, there are clearly defined limits on how much residential development can occur on RC-zones lands, but not for nonresidential uses. The limits on residential uses are shown in the Lot Size-Impervious Area table on the next page. Specific limits do not exist on the amount of commercial, institutional and other nonresidential development allowed on RC-zoned lands. In other words, there really isn't anything to limit how much of, say, an RC-2 zoned property might be covered by a church, a recreation complex, a conference center, a country club, or other nonresidential uses. This has resulted in a number of projects proposed for rural lands which are incompatible with the primary intent of the RC-zones: preservation of rural atmosphere. As a first step towards reining in these incompatible land uses, the zoning regulations should be amended to establish a percent Impervious Area (IA) limit. The Lot Size - Impervious Area table on the next page, shows that six of the ten RC-zones presently carry impervious area limits. The limit ranges from 5% for RC-8 to 20% for the RC commercial zone (R.C.C.). In other words, no more than 5% of a property zoned RC-8 can be covered with buildings, parking lots, streets, and other impervious surfaces. Preliminary discussions with the Office of Planning indicate that they might support an across the board 5% limit for all RC zones, with the exception perhaps of R.C.C. A simple 5% limit will not fully address the compatibility issue. Instead, a further limit of 2% should be applied to uniquely sensitive areas, such as watersheds supporting brook trout. A map showing the brook trout watersheds of Baltimore County follows the Lot Size - Impervious Area table. EXAMPLES - INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT Following are three examples illustrating how the 2%-5% imperviousness cap would protect rural communities from incompatible development projects. Bethel AME Church: This project was proposed for a 255-acre site in Granite (southwest 1 Baltimore County). Nineteen acres or 7.6% of the site would have been covered with buildings, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. This massive project was totally out of character with its RC-zoned rural setting. The Greater Patapsco Community Association (GPCA) fought this project aggressively, but was unsuccessful despite the expenditure of large sums of money. Had the 5% IA limit been in place, the applicant probably could have designed the project in a incorrect. 1 An earlier version of this document stated that 31% of the site would have been impervious. This was

3 BALTIMORE COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION ZONES - RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALLOWED & PERCENT IMPERVIOUS LIMITS RESOURCE CONSERVATION ZONE RESIDENTIAL LOTS PER ACRE Maximum Allowed Actual PERCENT IMPERVIOUS Maximum Percent of Lot Actual Imperviousness R.C.-2 Agricultural Zone None 1.8% R.C.-3 Deferral of Planning & Development Zone None 7.2% R.C.-4 Watershed Protection Zone Clustered 0.2 None 0.17 Not Clustered % 5.1% R.C.-5 Rural-Residential Zone % 8.7% R.C.-6 Rural Conservation & Residential Zone Maximum lot size met 0.2 Too few projects 10% Too few projects Maximum lot size exceeded 0.1 Too few projects None Too few projects R.C.-7 Resource Preservation Zone 0.04 Too few projects 10% Too few projects R.C.-8 Environmental Enhancement Zone 1-10 acres 1 lot Too few projects 5% Too few projects acres 2 lots Too few projects 5% Too few projects acres 3 lots Too few projects 5% Too few projects 51 acres or more 0.02 Too few projects 5% Too few projects R.C.-20 Critical Area Nonintrafamily transfer 0.05 Too few projects None Too few projects Intrafamily Transfer 7-12 acre lot 2 lots Too few projects None Too few projects Intrafamily Transfer acre lot 3 lots Too few projects None Too few projects Intrafamily Transfer 60 acres or more lot 0.05 Too few projects None Too few projects R.C.-50 Critical Area, Agricultural Nonintrafamily transfer 0.02 Too few projects None Too few projects Intrafamily Transfer 7-40 acre lot 2 lots Too few projects None Too few projects Intrafamily Transfer acre lot 3 lots Too few projects None Too few projects Intrafamily Transfer 160 acres or more lot 0.02 Too few projects None Too few projects

4

5 4 way that preserved the rural character of the area. And had this been done, citizens would not have been forced to spend so much time and money fighting to preserve the rural character of the Greater Patapsco area. Loyola Multiuse Center: The Coalition Against the Loyola Multiuse Center fought this combination school, church, and camp, which was proposed for 58-acre, RC-2 zoned site in Parkton. The project would have created 1.7-acres of impervious area and would have raised site imperviousness to 3%. The Lot Size-Impervious Area table shows that RC-2 lacks an imperviousness limit. Since the site is located in a brook trout watershed the 2% impervious area cap would apply. Shelleys Fields Recreational Complex: The Freeland Community Association opposed this project which consisted of a 32,000 square-foot building, 500-space parking lot, and athletic fields. The complex would have covered 11% of the 98-acre RC-2 zoned site with impervious surfacings. Again, the Lot Size-Impervious Area table shows that RC-2 lacks an imperviousness limit. Since the site is in a brook trout watershed the 2% impervious area cap would apply and the applicant would have been forced to scale back the project by 82%. The Association eventually settled with the applicant. The settlement agreement allowed some recreational uses of the 98-acre site, but reduced impervious area very close to the cap proposed in this concept. EXAMPLE - COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT One might think that the 5% IA limit might prohibit essential services in rural areas, such as schools, churches, etc. This is not the case. Instead, as the impervious footprint of a project increases, so does the need for the applicant to find a site of sufficient size so the buildings and other impervious surfaces can be situated so as to preserve rural atmosphere. Sparks Elementary School: This school is one of the best examples of how an essential use can achieve compatibility - even with a large impervious footprint. The school occupies a 63- acre site zoned RC-2 and located at I-83 and Belfast Road. The impervious surfaces on the site include the school building, the parking lot, sidewalks, and the access drive. The impervious footprint of the school is about 3.15-acres, which equates to an impervious area of 5%. An aerial photo of the school campus and adjoining farmlands appears on the next page. The 63-acre site is bounded with red lines. Note that the school building is situated in about the center of the site. Though not apparent from the aerial photo, the school building is nestled in a shallow valley. This siting along with good landscaping obscures the school from the view of those traveling on I-83 to the west and Belfast Road to the north. Views from both roads are also shown on the next page. Had a smaller site been selected then it is less likely that rural character could have been preserved by keeping the massive school building hidden. NEXT STEP At this point citizen groups active in the rural parts of Baltimore County are being asked to consider the Resource Conservation-Impervious Area Limit concept and to think of ways the concept could be improved. When we reach consensus on a concept most groups can support then we ll schedule a meeting with Office of Planning staff to get their input on the concept. After making any refinements suggested by the Office of Planning, we ll meet with each

6 5 member of the County Council to solicit their support. Hopefully representatives of several of the citizen groups active in each Councilmatic district can attend the meeting with their Council representative. In the meantime, please contact Richard Klein at or to discuss the concept further.

7 Sparks Elementary School An Example of How the 5% IA Limit Fosters Rural Compatibility By Keeping The Development Envelope Small Enough To Be Easily Hidden On Most Sites View from I-83; School Not Visible Only Sign & Entrance Visible from Belfast Road Sparks Elementary School School Building & Parking Lot