From Friends of Harford:
A Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting has been scheduled for the following project(s):
SOUTHERN RESOURCE ANNEX – 2ND SUBMITTAL: Located on the south side of Pulaski Highway (Route 40); east of Magnolia Road (Route 152). Tax Map 65; Parcel 506. First Election District. Council District A. Construct 4 story office bldg. w/garage for Health Dept. /Housing
RIVERWOODS AT TOLLGATE – PRELIMINARY: Located at the end of Arundel Court. Tax Map 61. Parcel 103. First Election District. Council District B. Create 3 commercial lots; 15.54 acres; CI.
RIVERWOODS AT TOLLGATE – SITE: Located at the end of Arundel Court. Tax Map 61. Parcel 103. First Election District. Council District B. Lot 3A construct 84 garden apts w/clubhouse; Lot 3B construct 79 units.
2001 CONOWINGO ROAD, LLC: Located between Conowingo Road (Route 1) and Hickory Bypass; west side of Ady Road (Route 543). Tap Map 41; Parcel 8. Third Election District. Council District E. Mulch, topsoil, firewood, stakes storage/sales; 48.86 acres CI.
EVERGREEN WOODS APARTMENTS: Located on the west side of Vietnam Vets Memorial Highway (Route 24); south side of Tollgate Road. Tax Map 56; Parcel 591; Lots 1 & 2. First Election District. Council District B. BOA 5781 & 5782. Create 198 garden style apartments; 17.54 acres; R1/ R3/R4.
Date/Time: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 9:00 am
Location: Second Floor Conference Room, 220 South Main Street, Bel Air, MD 21014
The DAC meeting announcement with links to the proposed site plans is available at http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/PlanningZoning/index.cfm?ID=106&DACID=303 .
The public is invited to attend, ask questions and voice any concerns.
County government has a description of the DAC process at http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/PlanningZoning/index.cfm?ID=53
Do you want to know where this fits into the development process? Read A Citizen’s Guide to the Harford County Property Development Process by Friends of Harford.
Just tried to research these areas…..does anyone know how to view tax maps.
I found them on the state’s site, but surprise, surprise, you have to pay for them, which is outrageous.
you can try using the Real property database. to get a plat of the areas in question. you can also use plats.net
I can’t believe they can build all those apartments for seniors behind Target with one entrance/exit. The planners said at the meeting the only time the traffic got bad there was Christmas. Really? How they can get away with just one way in and out is beyond me.
Yes I have made a written complaint about this as well. I have also asked for a study to have a circle put in at Arundel Ct and CF Blvd.
Putting any apartments at this location is a horrible idea. I can’t stress that enough.
Also being completely overlooked is the very high probability that the “garden” apartments which make up more than half the apartments will be subsidized housing. But the developers aren’t talking about that.
Affordable housing in and of itself is a fine thing, so long as it is well thought out and well managed, and I have serious concerns about both in this instance.
It also gets bad at movie let out times for big films. It is bearable Christmas is dangerous.
I will also add that I spoke with staff at DPW, because the original plan called for a walkway and a pedestrian crossing to be built at the lower exit from Lowes, Pet Smart, etc, and DPW asked that the pedestrian crossing be removed from the plans, so I asked why.
They told me because of the amount of traffic on CF Blvd and “limited need” for a pedestrian crossing, and that having a crossing would create traffic congestion.
So I’m not sure how they decided there was “limited need” for a crossing before 200 apartments were built across the street, and I’m not sure why they presumably think it’s safe to cross CF Blvd at Arundel Ct where the road is the busiest, but not at Lowes? That doesn’t even make any sense. Or are pedestrians not supposed to cross CF Blvd at all? If not, why did we install sidewalks? And if there wasn’t much need for the crossing, how could it create congestion, which is contradictory logic?
Obviously they are concerned for pedestrian safety, but how about we have the developer actually pay for all the proper construction for a crossing that slows down traffic (which is already too fast) and reduces congestion by allowing people to walk around?
Totally bizarre decision by DPW.