Voters to decide Baltimore County Council's power over rural development

Yahoo

10-04-2025

A proposal to limit the Baltimore County Council's ability to develop rural areas will go to the voters next year.
The council voted 5-2 on Monday to put Bill 19-25 on the 2026 general election ballot. If approved, it would take a supermajority of council members to modify what's known as the Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL), a decades-old boundary that has separated and managed the areas where growth is limited and where it is encouraged.
Now that the charter will expand the incoming council to nine members, if the bill is adopted, changing the line would require six council member votes. Currently, it requires four of the seven.
'This is landmark legislation that gives the voters the ability to better preserve our green space and protect our northern reservoirs,' said Eastside Councilman David Marks, the bill's Republican sponsor.
Council members Julian Jones and Pat Young, both Democrats, were against the measure, while the rest of the council — two Democrats and two Republicans — endorsed it.
The county has been working to offset a slowing economy and a below-normal housing supply for years. Some argued Monday's bill could hinder needed development, while others said it would encourage growth by repurposing unused, already built infrastructure.
'This pattern of unchecked suburban expansion drains resources from established neighborhoods, leaving them behind as attention and funding shift elsewhere,' said Josh Sines, president of the Essex Middle River Civic Council. 'By limiting development on raw land, we can create a stronger incentive for reinvestment in places like Essex, where infrastructure already exists and revitalization is desperately needed.'
Sines, who lives two blocks from an URDL border in Middle River, said the new bill wouldn't be a dramatic change of procedure — the council already considers recommendations from the county's Planning Board — but rather add 'an extra layer of protection' to the process.
Changing the URDL, he said, should be a more unanimous decision.
'It shouldn't just be for the purpose of one project,' he said. 'It should be an overall good decision.'
Established in 1967, the URDL was the county's response to mammoth population growth across the two decades before.
It divides Baltimore County into two land categories: urban and rural. According to the Department of Planning, 90% of Baltimore County's population lives in urban areas that make up one-third of its total land mass. The remaining 10% live in rural areas, mostly in the north and to the Pennsylvania border.
When it was created, the URDL largely coincided with the Metro line, which governs how far public water and sewer can reach. Since then, there have been adjustments. In 1999, for instance, limited water and sewer service was installed outside the URDL to reduce pollution in the lower Back River, according to a county fiscal note.
Over the last 20 years, the Department of Planning's unofficial policy has recommended 'no net change' to the URDL. In fact, the fiscal note suggests that the largest recent change has come from advancements in GIS technology, which allow for a more specific, searchable line as opposed to the 'old one's ambiguity.'
This directive of non-action has caused some to criticize Monday's bill, the Baltimore County Farmland Preservation Act, as unnecessary.
Young, one of the two opposing Democrats, said he struggled to see how shifting the number of necessary votes changes what the county's already doing to preserve its farmland.
'It doesn't add to the security of the URDL,' Young said. 'It interjects politics … and doesn't follow the spirit of the URDL.'
The initial proposal would have allowed a council member to stop an URDL change inside their district. Before the bill was amended to require a supermajority, some said the suggested veto power could open the door to corruption in other areas of the law.
'You give it validity and say this is the policy of the Baltimore County government,' said Nick Stewart, co-founder of the smart growth advocacy group We The People — Baltimore County. 'And at that point, pack it up. It's over.'
Marks argued that council members representing those most affected by a project should be able to evaluate the need for change. With the change to a supermajority, he said the bill still provides a proactive safety net for districts.
'Allowing four or five council members from outside a district to ram through new developments is hardly democratic,' he wrote in an April 2 op-ed for The Baltimore Sun.
Have a news tip? Contact Luke Parker at [e-mail], 410-725-6214 and x.com/@lparkernews.