The past few meetings of the Baltimore County Council have laid bare just how far off the rails this council has gone in regulating land use and development.

Once again at the center of the controversy was the extraordinary extent of the control exercised by individual council members over decisions on specific pieces of property and specific development projects.

The micromanagement of land use and development by individual council members is achieved by applying “councilmanic courtesy” to processes such as the quadrennial Comprehensive Zoning Map Process (CZMP) and to the approval of planned unit developments (PUDs).

Most county councils give considerable weight to the views of a member whose district is affected by legislation, as they should. In Baltimore County, however, the practice of councilmanic courtesy is sacrosanct. Other members almost always defer to the wishes of the member in whose district a property or project under consideration is located.

One of the fundamental checks on legislative power in a democracy is that it is exercised collectively. Councilmanic courtesy as practiced in Baltimore County eliminates that and turns council members into what the editorial board of the Baltimore Sun called “veritable zoning czars of their own districts.”

The practice, which effectively Balkanizes the county into seven separately administered zoning districts, has been criticized not only by the Sun editorial board, but also by good government organizations and in numerous op-eds, including my own. It has rendered effective countywide planning impossible and has hurt the economic vitality of the county.

Legislative Spot Zoning

Perhaps the most pernicious application of councilmanic courtesy involves what other critics have called legislative spot zoning and I refer to as bootleg zoning reclassifications.

Zoning requirements are tailored to apply to specific pieces of property and to allow uses on those properties not permitted on other similarly zoned properties. The juxtaposition of two bills passed last week by the council, described below, demonstrates just how vulnerable this practice is to abuse.

Under state law and the County Charter, the proper role of the council in determining how land may be used begins with enacting zoning classifications that list the uses permitted in each type of zone and by adopting regulations governing those uses.

One of the fundamental checks on legislative power in a democracy is that it is exercised collectively. Councilmanic courtesy eliminates that.

The council then adopts zoning maps that must apply to all or a substantial part of the county (hence the term “comprehensive”) and that determine the zoning classification for each property in the county. The maps periodically are revisited through the CZMP.

The council itself is prohibited from “piecemeal rezoning” or rezoning individual properties. A property owner has the right to petition the county Board of Appeals for a zoning reclassification, which may be granted only if there was a mistake in the most recent CZMP or a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood since it was adopted.

The council circumvents its lack of authority to rezone individual properties by adopting “text amendments” to the regulations governing the uses in a zoning classification that limit the effect of the changes in the text of the regulations to specific properties.

The text amendments invariably are introduced by the council members in whose districts the properties are located.

The county council circumvents its lack of authority to rezone individual properties by adopting “text amendments.”

For example, Bill 16-25 created a new permitted use in an RC-5 zone described as “a combination of a Christmas tree farm and a plumbing, mechanical, and utility company” and initially limited the location of the new use to “a combination of lots that together are greater than 15 acres in size; within the Kingsville Regional Planning District; and east of Interstate I-95.”

In other words, the site of G.A. Mechanical Inc. The locational restriction was expanded slightly by amendment, but there never was any doubt what the target was.

Example No. 1

Bill 16-25, sponsored by Councilman David Marks (R, 5th), was intended to rescue the owners of the property on which G.A. Mechanical is located from zoning enforcement action for allegedly operating a commercial plumbing business on a parcel of land that also is used for a Christmas tree farm. The parcel is in a resource conservation zoning district that does not allow that type of business.

A $3,000 fine and an order to remove the business office and illegal commercial equipment parked on the property was issued on January 8 by the county’s code enforcement office. A hearing on the charges was scheduled for January 30.

The hearing, however, was postponed, and on February 18, Marks introduced Bill 16-25 to create the new permitted use described above. The bill, which had an accelerated effective date and required five votes to pass, was dutifully approved by the council last Monday by a unanimous 7-0 vote.

Had the matter been before the Board of Appeals as a zoning reclassification, the plumbing company’s neighbors would have enjoyed the protection of due process.

Neighbors of G.A. Mechanical protested Bill 16-25 as allowing a large and intensive commercial use out of character with the rural character of the neighborhood.

Had the matter been before the Board of Appeals as a zoning reclassification, the neighbors would have enjoyed the protection of due process. Reclassifications must be based on objective criteria specified by county law and decisions by the Board are reviewable by the courts.

But because the bill was a text amendment, the neighbors were at the mercy of the subjective judgment of their local council representative and the practice of councilmanic courtesy.

Example No. 2

Councilmanic courtesy not only giveth; it can also take away.

Bill 18-25 was tailored to stop another Kingsville property owner from placing an array of solar panels on his property.

The use of the property for solar facilities is lawful, and the owner was in the final stages of getting approval when the bill was introduced on March 3 by Marks and co-sponsor Wade Kach (R, 3rd).

The bill would change the law to prohibit solar facilities on property less than 1,000 feet from another property containing solar facilities. Such wording would disallow the proposed facility because there is a solar facility on a neighboring property.

On what basis did Marks decide to save one property owner from the consequences of his actions, but stop another from the lawful use of his property?

The bill does not include the usual exception for projects for which applications have already been submitted. And like Bill 16-25, has an accelerated effective date. A vote on the bill was postponed until April 21 so that the council can evaluate the impact of solar power siting legislation passed by the General Assembly.

On what basis did Marks decide to save one property owner from the consequences of what the county alleged was a major zoning violation, but stop another from the lawful use of his property?

In my opinion, it had nothing to do with fairness to the neighbors of G.A. Mechanical or fairness to the property owner seeking to build solar panels.

A Foiled Attempt

A third bill, sponsored by Marks and co-sponsored by four of his colleagues, would have hard-wired councilmanic courtesy into the County Charter when it comes to changes to the county’s Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL).

As introduced, Bill 19-25 would have given individual council members veto power over any changes to the URDL in their districts.

It would have been a veto power that exceeded the veto power over legislation given to the county executive because a veto by the county executive can be overturned. The veto power conferred by the bill would not have been subject to legislative, administrative or judicial review – just the kind of absolute power some council members crave.

After it was pointed out to the council that delegating such power to a single council member undoubtedly would violate the Maryland Constitution, an amendment was introduced by Izzy Patoka (D, 2nd) to strike the veto power from the bill.

The amendment passed 4-3, with the four Democrats voting to delete the veto power and the three Republicans voting to retain it.

Comments to the Patoka amendment revealed how far down the rabbit hole two of the lawmakers had fallen.

Marks lamented that there were no “alternatives” to institutionalizing councilmanic courtesy – “I gave you councilmanic courtesy. I ask for the same respect,” Marks told Councilman Julian E. Jones earlier in the session –  while Kach described the Patoka amendment as “terrible.”

In the course of defending councilmanic courtesy, Kach touted his continuing efforts to “negotiate” the scope of the proposed redevelopment of Lutherville Station with the developer.

Bending to Special Interests

A career state delegate and councilman, Kach is not a planner, an architect or an engineer qualified to evaluate whether a project complies with the county’s master plan and regulations governing development, including adequacy of public facilities laws.

Instead, he is making a political decision under pressure from nearby residents. In the meantime, he has been legitimately criticized for blocking one of the best opportunities for a transit-oriented, mixed-use development in the county – precisely the type of redevelopment needed to increase the supply of housing inside the county’s Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL).

Council members have no more business “negotiating” the approval of individual projects than they have usurping the role of the Board of Appeals in zoning reclassifications. They truly consider themselves land use czars unrestrained by the limits of their legislative roles.

At last Monday’s meeting, Kach noted that “in the past” some council members used their powers on behalf of special interests to the detriment of the county in general. He certainly was correct in pointing out that elected officials bear a share of blame for decades of poorly planned, sometimes chaotic development because of the manner in which they catered to the desires of builders, developers and influential lawyers.

His claim that such favored treatment no longer occurs, however, was laughable. If there is less of it now, it is only because the pace of development has slowed to a crawl.

Councilmanic courtesy, whether employed in the service of narrow business interests or used to appease constituents anxious to keep out unwanted development, has done enormous harm to Baltimore County.

Mixed with Campaign Money

With little raw land left for new development, the county must turn to redevelopment to revive its economy and satisfy the critical need for more moderately priced housing.

Redevelopment can be challenging because of its impact on established communities, especially if measures are proposed that increase residential density.

The current seven-man council responded to legislation proposed by the former county executive to increase residential density by killing it and replacing it with much weaker legislation that emphasized – what else – councilmanic courtesy.

With little raw land left for new development, the county must turn to smart redevelopment to revive its economy.

Other metropolitan counties in Maryland are making genuine efforts to meet the challenges of redevelopment. Baltimore County is not, and until politically self-serving habits such as councilmanic courtesy end, little progress will be made.

Unfortunately, those habits are reinforced by the enormous campaign fundraising leverage that council members possess, in large part because of their unique power over land use and development decisions in their districts.

The amount of the campaign war chests of the seven members of the Baltimore County Council was $2,877,192 at the start of 2025 – far more than any other county council in the state.

The top fundraiser in the county, and in the state, was Council Chair Izzy Patoka with $1,287,500.

Councilman Julian Jones came in second with $1,019,414. David Marks came in third with $228,486, followed by Pat Young with $227,699.

The majority of this cash comes straight from real estate and developer interests.

With this kind of money sloshing around before the 2026 election, don’t look for members of the Baltimore County Council to break their self-serving habits until voters compel them to do so.

• 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.