The Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals had been scheduled Tuesday to consider a request by the developer of 25th Street Station for an extension of the deadline for submitting a detailed time schedule for the project.
But during the past few days, residents who live near the proposed North Baltimore shopping center peppered BMZA executive director David C. Tanner with emails asking why notice of the meeting had not been posted at the site, as required by city charter, 21 days before the meeting.
Today, Tanner told The Brew that the matter will now be heard a month later – at the March 25th meeting – and that the proper notice will be posted.
“We are not in agreement that it is necessary for this on-going matter, but the developer has agreed voluntarily to comply and to post this,” Tanner told The Brew by phone.
Some matters to be discussed on Mar. 11
Attorney Jon M. Laria, who represents the development team, had been furious at the November Planning Commission meeting, when a lawyer representing the Remington Neighborhood Alliance rose to say the developers had missed the deadline in 2012.
If that were the case, attorney J. Carroll Holzer had argued, the Planning Commission’s approval at that meeting of the Planned Unit Development for the project would be invalid.
Laria had disagreed about having missed the deadline, but since then has submitted a written request to the Board to grant an extension.
Tanner said the BMZA had also been scheduled on Tuesday to discuss other matters involving the 25th St. Station project.
Residents have appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to approve design revisions to the project’s Planned Unit Development as a “minor amendment.” They have also objected to the Planning Department’s handling of subdivision plan filings.
“The Board has to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over these actions,” Tanner said, noting that the question now will be taken up at the BMZA’s Mar. 11 meeting.
UPDATED with this from Jon Laria:
“We were really disappointed by the mischaracterizations in your 2/19 piece. It’s just factually wrong to say “After developer fails to post…”. We were never advised of a February 25 hearing date so there was no “failure” to do anything. While we don’t agree that posting is required under the law for this type of BMZA action, we nonetheless volunteered to post the property because we have come to expect the ultra-litigious in the community to raise this and any other issue they can think of to obstruct progress without regard to merits. So, we pre-emptively agreed to post 21 days in advance of the Board’s hearing, as if this were a conventional zoning appeal, and that necessarily takes us to the March 25 hearing.
Perhaps those who have filed a negative appeal to the BMZA should be required to post the property at their expense, so the hundreds of community members who support the project and greater City shopping options would have adequate notice of these ongoing obstructionist actions by their neighbors?”