An
abridged version of this letter was published in North County News on January
30.
In April 2007, members of the Freeland Community Association voted to formalize a settlement that reduced the impact of the proposed Shelley's Fields development by nearly 50 percent. Covenants and restrictions allow only daytime use and prevent future expansion. Fifty-six agricultural acres were spared from the recreational component of the plan.
The
association conducted extensive research, assembled expert testimony and -- in
five days of hearings -- executed a legal strategy that allowed us to negotiate
from a position of strength, eliminating a large, indoor sports facility that
would have attracted enough cars to fill a 600-space parking lot.
Related
stormwater management facilities would have decimated a nearby stream harboring
native brook trout. Instead, we turned a 12-month, day-and-night operation into
four outdoor athletic fields that will see seasonal, daytime use only.
The
restrictions exist in perpetuity, outside the context of zoning, and they apply
to any owner, including Baltimore County, to which Shelley could sell or give
this property. Without them, the community would have been left at the mercy of
zoning changes or proposals to expand activities.
Without this negotiated settlement, and the associated covenants and restrictions, the community would be left at the mercy of future zoning changes or plans to expand activity on a 98-acre parcel of land that was part of the recreational site.
The association did not take the decision to settle lightly. Prior to negotiating this settlement, the Freeland Community Association considered fighting Shelley's Fields every step of the way through the Hearing Officer's Hearing, the Board of Appeals, the Circuit Court, all the way to Annapolis if necessary. After consultation with other community groups who had been down similar paths, and on the advice of J. Carroll Holzer, one of Baltimore County's most respected zoning attorneys, a consensus developed around three points:
1.
Complete success at eliminating Shelley's Fields was an extremely
improbable outcome, and even a partial success after extensive litigation
would leave the community vulnerable to future challenges.
2. There was a greater risk that the original plan would go forward if we continued the litigation.
3. We
would better serve the community by limiting the impact of the development
and eliminating a precedent that would make future challenges much more
difficult to overcome.
Some in our community are not in favor of what the Freeland Community Association has done. They have chosen to continue opposition to the reduced plan. Of course, they are within their rights to do so.
These readers need to be aware that a small victory for the Alliance could be a huge defeat for the community-at-large.
Per the terms of our agreement with Randy Shelley, any modification to the existing plan resulting from an appeal will render our entire settlement null and void, including all associated covenants and restrictions as described above. It is quite possible that the only "success" the Freeland Legacy Alliance will achieve in their appeal effort is the elimination of one lot adjacent to the recreational facility along with the simultaneous elimination of the restrictions we have worked so hard to secure. There would then be nothing preventing future expansion, nighttime use, or the construction of an indoor facility once the county takes ownership. If no recreational facility is developed, other possibilities exist, which are outlined below.
The stated goals of the Legacy Alliance are to
return the land to its original zoning and eliminate the sports facility.
Achieving both of these goals is an extremely unlikely outcome and achieving
only one of them represents an even greater danger for the following reasons:
1.
The land is owned outright by
the developer - Randy Shelley. He
is not a farmer; he is a businessman. Aside from whatever altruistic motivations
are behind his desire to contribute land for recreational use, his interest is
in maximizing profit on his investment. To that end, we can expect that if some
degree of success is achieved by the Legacy Alliance in their quest, it will be
followed up by a new plan from Shelley, devoid of any of the conditions outlined
in our settlement. It pains me to be in a position of having to defend a
developer who is widely perceived as having "worked a deal" to get zoning
for 13 additional homes in exchange for donating land "for the children."
Unfortunately, the time to prevent this travesty passed before we started the
challenge.
2. Rezoning requires the support of the County Councilman. As part of their strategy, the Freeland Legacy Alliance petitioned a rezoning of the Shelley property from RC2 and RC5 to RC8. It is unlikely that our councilman will support a change that reverses a rezoning he actively supported in 2004. Part of this requested change is prohibited by law, because county zoning laws prohibit RC2 land from being rezoned to RC8, which is intended strictly for watershed protection and even limits some agricultural uses. This means that the portion of the property set aside for the fields will not be rezoned, and will remain RC-2. RC-2 allows for non-residential development, which brings me to my next point.
3. A developer in possession of land he cannot readily exploit today will find other ways to do so tomorrow. Other institutional uses are currently allowed by right on RC2-zoned land, which is the current zoning of the recreational area of the property. Right now, under the terms of the FCA settlement, we know exactly what will happen on that property. Absent that agreement, the possibilities are too numerous to quantify here, but these few should be considered:
The land could be sold to a church (can you say "megachurch"?) If Shelley nixes the deal due to a change to the current plan, it could be sold to a church without any restrictions other that those inherent in the zoning laws - and these are currently insufficient to prevent a major impact on the community should this happen.
A variety of other institutions could be developed there by law. Parkton residents are painfully aware of one possibility, having been recently defeated in their latest appeal against the Loyola Multi-Use "Retreat" Center.
There are many other possibilities for this parcel if the rec facility is not developed. Since the property is owned by a developer, I believe these possibilities are more apt to occur than would otherwise be the case.
Beyond this issue, The Freeland Community Association is moving forward on multiple fronts, working legislatively with our Councilman to strengthen existing zoning laws, and remaining vigilant throughout the current rezoning process. Attentiveness today can prevent a repeat of this debacle.
In closing, the Freeland Community Association will continue taking action to strengthen our community, so we don't have to continue expending precious resources defending it. It is our hope that what we have worked so hard to achieve will not be undermined by a small group of dedicated but misguided individuals whose limited success may leave the community worse off and vulnerable to, not protected from, future institutional development.
Andy Rathgeber
President, Freeland Community Association
Associated links:
Shelley's Fields Agreement (including link to original as executed)
North County News Articles
Dec 12: Citizens against Loyola vow to continue fight
Jan 17: Board hears arguments on Shelley's Fields
Jan 17: Carrot looks good, but stick is permanent