Every four years, Baltimore County endures a tumultuous zoning reshuffling known as the CZMP, or Comprehensive Zoning Map Process. The process elicits anger, fear, hope and frustration from residents, and provides a rare window into the politics of the state’s third-largest county. No jurisdiction in the metropolitan area rezones property as often, or as liberally, as Baltimore County does. It lasts a few months, and can change the fabric of a neighborhood forever.

“This is the County Council member’s biggest power,” said David Marks, a Perry Hall Republican who has served on the County Council through four rezonings. Council Chairman Izzy Patoka calls the process “an opportunity to make zoning adjustments that are appropriate for the current time.” Both Marks and Patoka, a Pikesville Democrat, have used the process to protect thousands of acres in their district from development, keep country roads rural and maintain the character of historic neighborhoods.

But some residents have complained that the process concentrates power in the hands of one elected official — their councilman — and is rife with opportunities for corruption. With no term limits, some councilmen have had the opportunity to rezone properties multiple times, with applicants making slight changes in their proposals to have another go at what has already become a substantial investment.

“The system pretty much sucks,” said Pat Keller, the county’s former planning director and president of the Perry Hall Improvement Association. “And I think people understand that it sucks. It just confers so much power to one councilman.”

Keller used to tell his planning staff to “lead with need, not greed,” asking if the petitioner’s request made the county better in some way, or just helped the applicant enrich themselves. Often, Keller said, the decisions made at CZMP allowed for haphazard zoning that did not conform to a master plan for the county. When the planning director from Prince George’s County came to take a look at the system, Keller told her that under no circumstances would he recommend it to anyone else.

James Blum agrees. He’s a resident of Boring opposed to a plan to rezone the community’s fire hall to a manufacturing designation so the owner can relocate his construction business there. His family fought this battle four years ago, when Boring was in Councilman Wade Kach’s district. Now, it’s in Councilman Julian Jones’ district, so the Blum family and dozens of neighbors are making their case again.

“This will ruin our whole town,” Blum said. “It’s not like if they rezone it now, they will be able to take it back next time. They can’t.”

The process works like this: Any county resident can request a change to any property’s zoning, whether or not that person owns the property. Residents can petition the county to protect a patch of green space by limiting development on it. Conversely, a developer can see that patch of green and ask the county for permission to build more townhomes on it than the zoning currently allows. County councilmen can proactively ask for zoning overlays to protect green space on certain properties in hopes of holding on to parks or creating future ones, or ask for more allowable density in places where they’re trying to encourage development. Members of the planning board can also ask for zoning changes, and then the board votes on those same changes.

Zoning requests often come from a few influential attorneys that represent property owners looking to change or increase what they can build. During the CZMP year, councilmen are not allowed to raise money. But that doesn’t mean the developers have no influence on the process.

First, Baltimore County’s professional planning staff review the requests and make recommendations. They then flow to the county’s planning commission, made up of a mix of real estate professionals and community leaders appointed by the Baltimore County Council and county executive. Sometimes, the staff and commission recommendations differ. Planning commission members hold hearings in the districts and collect feedback from residents; they also hear from attorneys for property owners.

The county’s planning staff puts together a list of the properties for which zoning changes have been requested and the staff and planning commission recommendations. On Tuesday, the councilmen will vote at a public meeting on all 389 requests for zoning changes.

In theory, seven votes mean a democratic process. In practice, it’s one man, one (deciding) vote. The Baltimore County Council practices councilmanic courtesy, meaning each member defers to the representative of that district to make the best decision. So, if a councilman representing Essex thinks the townhouse development proposed in Pikesville is unsightly and will worsen school overcrowding, he might not speak up — if he does, the Pikesville councilman could block his park plans on land that could generate valuable property tax revenue for the county. Councilman Mike Ertel, who was elected in 2022, said he had no problem voting to oppose a project in another district if he felt it was the wrong place for it. But in order to scuttle a project, an opposing councilman would need four votes. That has rarely happened.

Here’s a look at some of the most contentious proposals for 2024:

Boring fire hall

Details: The town of Boring, near Upperco and close to the border with Carroll County, loved its local fire hall for bingo nights and annual picnics. When the volunteer fire company that owned it merged with one in Upperco, it put the building up for sale. The buyers, Santo and Debra Mirabile, were leaders of the Hanover Road Association, which represented the 200 or so homes in the community. In 2020, the Mirabiles tried to change the zoning from rural conservation to a more industrial zoning so they could move their family construction business there. Residents objected, eventually forming a rival community association. Kach, the councilman at the time, split the difference, designating part of the property for local business uses such as a shopping center and animal boarding, and designating the rest for rural conservation to protect local streams. The Mirabiles are asking for a manufacturing zoning for the whole property, which both the old and new community associations oppose.

Planning staff vote: Keep the existing zoning.

Planning board vote: Change it to what the Mirabiles want.

Decider: Jones, who inherited this area from Kach after a redistricting.

Decision: Jones has a policy of never saying how he will vote prior to the vote.

Berrymans Lane trucking facility

Details: Berrymans Lane LLC wants to change the zoning from rural conservation to business major at Berrymans Lane and Deer Park Road. Neighbors are worried that the company could develop 4 acres near Soldiers Delight Natural Environment Area, a rare serpentine forest in Owings Mills. The area uses well water and septic tanks. Residents have poured into meetings to oppose this change.

Planning staff vote: Keep the existing zoning, which is rural.

Planning board vote: Change it to what the developer wants, which is business.

Decider: Jones.

Decision: Jones has a policy of never saying how he will vote prior to the vote.

Mohrs Legacy in Perry Hall

Details: The developer wants to build 45 senior housing units at 8745 Gerst Ave. in a now-forested area between Gerst and Magnolia Road. Residents along Gerst Avenue oppose the plan, saying traffic is already too heavy and they worry about stormwater flowing to their homes. The developer’s attorney, Adam Rosenblatt of Venable, said the developers of Mohrs Legacy LLC have reduced the number of units from the 62 originally planned and plan to use Magnolia as the access main road. He hoped landscaping changes would allay concerns.

Planning staff vote: Keep the nearly 10 acres DR 1, as it’s been.

Planning board vote: Change it to what the developers want.

Decider: Marks.

Decision: Marks is unsure if the developers’ concessions are enough for him to vote for the change.

305 W. Chesapeake Ave. office building

Details: Southland Hills and West Towson residents sometimes call this office building the “Spiro Agnew Special” because it’s so incongruous with the rest of the residential neighborhood that they assume some favors were traded to build it. They’re not wrong about the favors. A judge’s son owned 305 W. Chesapeake Ave. in the 1950s; he hired influential lawyer Daniel Brewster, just years before he became a U.S. senator, to represent him. Homeowners objected, but the county Board of Appeals let Brewster’s clients tear down two frame houses to construct the office building. New owners want to change the zoning for the structure assessed at $3.88 million to OR 1, which would let them convert the building into 22 units. Current zoning allows for fewer than five residential units. Residents oppose any change, arguing that the building is “illegal” in the first place.

Planning staff vote: OR 2, which would allow a total of 11.6 units.

Planning board vote: OR 2, which would allow a total of 11.6 units.

Decider: Ertel.

Decision: Ertel said he does not intend to change the zoning.

Church Lane hair salon

Details: Of all the developments in the Pikesville area, Patoka never would have guessed that the most contentious issue of 2024 would be a hair salon in a small shopping center. The council chair had to hold a separate meeting on the 2.6-acre property, which also includes a real estate office. The property is zoned residential/office. The influential zoning law firm Kotroco & Associates is representing 8-18 Church Lane. Residents are concerned that the higher-density office zoning will result in more customers parking in their neighborhood.

Planning staff vote: Change it to business local, which the petitioner requested.

Planning board vote: Change it to business local, which the petitioner requested.

Decider: Patoka.

Decision: Patoka assigned a representative from each side to come up with a solution; he will abide by whatever they agree to, he said. He reports the parties are close to an agreement.

This story has been updated to correctly state the acreage for the Berrymans Lane property, 4 acres, and the zoning designation for the Church Lane hair salon, which is residential/office.