Board of Elections Nixes Zoning Referendum

A decision released Tuesday said the opponents of zoning issues in two council districts had enough signatures but ruled the petitions were legally deficient.

UPDATED (9:23 p.m.)—The Baltimore County Board of Elections ruled that petitions to referendum zoning decisions in two council districts will not be placed on the 2014 ballot.

Baltimore County Elections Director Katie Brown wrote in a decision issued Tuesday afternoon that while opponents had collected the required number of signatures, the petitions were legally deficient.

Andrew Bailey, an attorney for the county Board of Elections, reviewed five challenges to the petition filed by attorneys representing Greenberg Gibbons, the developer of the proposed Foundry Row project on the grounds of the old Solo Cup factory.

"I believe that the form of the petition, as circulated to potential signers, was insufficient to alert them to what exactly they were being asked to petition to a vote," wrote Bailey.

Bailey ultimately sided with County Attorney Michael Field who, in a letter, challenged the referendum effort on the basis that the petitioners failed to provide voters copies of the maps of the 78 zoning issues covered in the bills.

David S. Brown Enterprises and The Cordish Companies are seeking to overturn bills that rezoned nearby properties that could be redeveloped and ultimately compete with their projects.

Brown is the developer of Metro Centre at Owings Mills which is near the former Solo Cup plant that is to be redeveloped into a shopping center called Foundry Row. That project would feature a Wegman's grocery store as its anchor.

In Middle River, Cordish is opposing the redevelopment of the Middle River Depot. The depot, if redeveloped, could result in Walmart leaving its current location in the Carroll Island Shopping Center and moving to the new depot location, Cordish said in July.

Cordish owns the Carroll Island Shopping Center.

No county law, much less a zoning bill, has ever been petitioned to referendum in Baltimore County.

The to collect 170,000 signatures to place the two bills on the 2014 ballot.

Councilwoman Vicki Almond, who represents the district where the Solo Cup property is located, said the board's decision was correct.

"How can you explain this complicated bill to someone in a parking lot in five minutes or less?" Almond said. "You just can't do it."

Stuart Kaplow, an attorney representing the developers challenging the zoning bills, said the board of elections misinterpreted the law.

"The insistence that the County Charter some how requires petitioners to do what is not only impossible to do but is also contrary to state law is wrong," Kaplow said. "Claiming 78 pages of zoning maps should have been attached to the petition is clearly wrong."

Kaplow said his clients are likely to file for a judicial review of the board's decision in Baltimore County Circuit Court.

That challenge must be filed within the next 90 days.

Ruth Goldstein, a coordinator and founding member of Don't Sign it, said a successful petition effort would circumvent the county's quadrennial rezoning process.

"This is the way it's always been done," said Goldstein, whose group opposed the petition drive. "There was a very open, public process for people to voice their opinions and people overwhelmingly voiced their support for this."

One opponent of the Solo Cup project called the board's decision "disappointing but not surprising."

"The fix was in from the beginning," said Shirley Supik, a member and leader in the group Say No to Solo. "The fight was really over openness in government and fairness to the people.

"Once again, the voice of the people will not be heard," Supik said. "We collected 170,000 signatures from county voters and that tells me the people want to be heard."

Buck Harmon February 08, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Tom, I believe that if the required signatures were obtained to have the issue placed on the ballot, that the issue should in fact be placed on the ballot...real simple.. If there were any legitimate laws broken during the process of acquiring these signatures, the party that broke the law should be prosecuted and held accountable... equally as simple. ... I respect the question and challenge to local government decisions ...and so far the government behavior of ignoring the fact that the required signatures were legally obtained is lacking...I would say that the government is misleading with this decision....and I really don't have the passion to care about the way this turns out either....just responding to the way that I see it play out..
Tom Hope February 08, 2013 at 11:53 PM
I hear what you are saying Buck. The thing is the petition process is controlled by rules and not by laws. And although SNTS presented 170,000 signatures the process they used did not follow the rules. No laws broken just rules not followed. No need to prosecute anyone the rules say the petition is found to be invalid. The information is there to be reviewed. You can see what is required for the referendum process and what was delivered. I will not tell you it is so to try and convince you, you can see for yourself. I am no big fan of the 1 party government we have here in MD but, I will not let someone else with a personal agenda lie and manipulate facts supposedly in the name of the people. I know what I was told by these folks pushing these petitions and Shirley Supik cannot tell me any different nor say I didn't.
Chuck Burton February 09, 2013 at 01:18 AM
Have those 170,000 signatures been verified? Who pays the cost of verification - the taxpayers? Those who aquired them? As a taxpayer, I would somewhat resent tax money being spent to verify something that was to the potential financial gain of an outside party.
Tom Hope February 09, 2013 at 01:57 AM
Hey Chuck, Shirley says they're all good. Isn't that good enough for you? But seriously, that responsibility falls under the responsibility of the Board of Elections. I encourage all to go to this link: http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/6-201-3a.pdf and see what is necessary for a legitimate petition. I can say with reasonable confidence the rules were not followed by SNTS. All the documentation for the rezoning was to be attached to each petition signed. I see no provisions for there to be a fee to be paid by the petitioner. That would mean it is taxpayer funded. I guess I will be accused of being a law partner for Gibbons if I keep looking into things and spreading truths.
amanheights March 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Flats in Crossing Republic Aman heights is the place which might give you your dream home with all the facilities and amenities you ever unreal of return, build these stylishly crafted life style flats your home and revel in a life-style that's sought-after by several and skilled by few. Flats in Crossing Republic Vision has brought the top Class Real Estate Groups together to Create Crossings Republic Flats – India’s first global city in Delhi NCR. Keywords Flats in Crossing Republic CONTACT US AMANDEEP INFRAHOME PVT. LTD B-85, Sector-63, Noida, U.P Tel: 0120-4330125, 0120-4330126, 0120-4330127 Mobile: +91-8527702677 http://amanheights.co.in/flats-in-crossing-republic.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »