In announcing that he will run for county executive next year, Baltimore County Councilman Pat Young observed that he had not seen “an adult in the room” during his two years on the County Council.

A council work session two weeks after that interview was a perfect illustration of what Young was talking about.

If childish is defined as impulsive and irresponsible, then the apparent support for two bills discussed at the session confirms my own observation that this is the most childish county council that I have ever seen.

The first bill singles out a landowner for arbitrary and capricious treatment because his neighbors don’t like his plans to improve his property and have gotten the ear of their council representative, David S. Marks (R, 5th).

The second bill would take control of the zoning of two-thirds of the county out of the hands of the county council acting as a whole and place it in the hands of individual council members.

Both bills are important for different reasons. The first raises questions about the ability of the council to distinguish right from wrong, and the second threatens the economic future of the county.

Marks is the primary sponsor of the two bills, both of which involve the use of land outside the county’s Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL), whose main purpose since 1967 has been to protect agricultural land from being lost to development.

About two-thirds of the county’s land area and about 10% of its population are outside the URDL. I am sure that 10% of the population subscribes to the general goal of preserving farmland and preventing suburban sprawl.

But they also can be fiercely protective of their own verdant views and bucolic lifestyles, as apparent in the history of Bill 18-25

11th Hour Legislation

Robert Persaud is the owner of a 22-acre parcel of land outside the URDL in the Kingsville area of the county.

The parcel is near I-95 and, according to his lawyer, is not being farmed and is unbuildable because it cannot pass the percolation test required for installation of a septic system. It is located in Marks’ councilmanic district, not far from where Marks lives.

Persaud has completed all but the final step in gaining approval from the county to install a “solar facility” (solar collector panels) on the land. The final step is a hearing before a county administrative law judge (ALJ), which was scheduled for March 6.

His lawyer, Patricia Malone, stated that he agreed to postpone the hearing to meet with community members despite meeting with them in the past, and despite the fact that the proposed facility satisfies all legal requirements.

Persaud said in a statement given to the Baltimore Sun that he incurred “substantial cost” by meeting with Marks and representatives of the Greater Kingsville Association over the course of two years before deciding to apply for a permit for the solar facility. At the work session, he described efforts made to accommodate his neighbors’ concerns.

According to Malone, Persaud has proposed placing the nine acres of the site not used for the solar facility in an environmental easement.

Malone said that Marks used the postponement of the March 6 hearing as an opportunity to try to block the project by the enactment of Bill 18-25. I’d call it an ambush.

Bill 18-25 would prohibit a solar facility within 1,000 feet of a property on which an existing solar facility is located, a prohibition tailor-made to block Persaud’s facility.

Restrictions Exist Already

A solar facility in the resource conservation zoning applicable to Persaud’s property is subject to numerous restrictions.

It cannot be placed on land subject to an agricultural preservation easement, an environmental preservation easement, a rural legacy easement or a forest conservation easement. It cannot be located in a designated conservancy area, county historic district or on a property listed on the county’s Final Landmark List.

Solar facilities do not generate traffic, noise, fumes or odors. Councilman Julian Jones pointed out at the work session that the bill is purely aesthetic zoning, comparable to regulating the color of someone’s house.

Current law already contains measures intended to reduce the visual impact of solar facilities.

They must be no more than 20 feet high, set back 50 feet from property lines and screened by vegetated buffers. If the administrative hearing in this matter is rescheduled, neighbors will have the right to ask the ALJ to impose other requirements on the facility “as necessary to protect the environment and scenic views.”

No more than 10 solar facilities are allowed in a councilmanic district. There are only three in Marks’ district, one of which is on property next to Persaud’s, the hook Marks is using to try to stop Persaud’s project.

And stopping Persaud’s project is the sole purpose of Bill 18-25. If Marks believes that this new regulation should be applied to future projects, fine.

What is not fine is to use it to block a project in the final stages of approval.

Politics to the Fore

The Kingsville residents who object to the solar facility may not have had the law on their side, but they were able to enlist the support of a powerful neighbor.

Marks moved to Upper Falls in 2023 and lives less than a mile from the site of the proposed facility.

Because Persaud is so far along in the permitting process, Marks had to take two unusual steps in drafting the bill to make sure that it would halt the project.

The language of the bill provides that it would apply “to any project that has not received final, non-appealable approval as of the effective date of this Act,” even though it is customary not to apply a change of this nature to projects so far along in the pipeline.

The bill also specifies that the effective date would be only 14 days after enactment. The normal effective date for a bill is 45 days after enactment, and it takes the affirmative vote of five council members to pass a bill with an accelerated effective date, one more than otherwise would be required to pass Bill 18-25.

An accelerated effective date generally is used only to address an urgent situation, which does not include a councilman’s anxiety attack brought on by fear that his new neighbors will be upset with him if he doesn’t block a project they don’t like.

It is unconscionable for Marks to go to such lengths to block Persaud’s project just because the neighbors would prefer to look at something more pleasing than the solar panels on Persaud’s property.

It is worse if Marks’ colleagues, who should have a bit more objectivity, go along with him.

Integrity Test for the Council

The idea of whipsawing an applicant for a permit for a major project with a bill like Bill 18-25 should be repugnant to lawmakers for both moral and pragmatic reasons.

Pulling the rug out from under a permit applicant at the last minute is not conducive to a welcoming business climate. Ordinary business risk does not include this kind of abuse of governmental authority.

But councilmanic courtesy reigns supreme in Baltimore County, which means that members accede to the wishes of the member in whose district a project is located, even when they know they shouldn’t.

The vote on Bill 18-25 will be an integrity test for those council members.

(The next work session on it is April 1, with the vote scheduled on April 7.)

Councilman Wade Kach has already jumped onto the bandwagon as a co-sponsor, and Marks has expressed confidence that his bill will pass.

Don’t be surprised if he’s right.

• David A. Plymyer retired as Anne Arundel County Attorney after 31 years in the county law office. He can be reached at dplymyer@comcast.net and Twitter @dplymyer.