LETTER: College Manor Defends Huff Legislation, Zoning Talks

co-owner Bunny Renaud has responded to Lutherville Community Association president Lawrence Hooper's assertions that legislation introduced by County Councilman Todd Huff is actually a detriment to the Historic Lutherville community.

Read Hooper's letter to the County Council .

To catch up on the back-and-forth between College Manor and the Lutherville Community Association read our article, ""

From Ms. Renaud:

Mr. Hooper is certainly entitled to his opinion about the bill but I might remind the neighborhood that it was a similar bill written by Councilwoman Bachur FOR the community association in the 80s that started the rift between the business and the community.

At that time legislation was written to prevent any senior facility of less than 15 acres from building in an historic district. Of course College Manor was the only facility that matched that description in Ms. Bachur's district. 

That legislation was rescinded and in its place the Community Association had all properties between Lincoln Ave, Bellona Avenue, the railroad tracks and Ridgely Road down-zoned to DR-2.  College Manor, at that time was DR 3.5. 

Contrary to that which is printed on the LCA website, College Manor did not agree to being down-zoned, asked at that time for a DR-16 designation and was categorically down-zoned per community pressure to DR-2. 

It is a very active and vocal board who does what they can to preserve the "Village" just as it is.  That is understandable. It should be equally as understandable that a business who has maintained the taxes and been custodians of the property for 84 years should be allowed the same rights as any other landowner in the historic district, to add on and enhance their property. 

Any building that would be done would have to go through both the Historic Committee of the Association and County Landmarks. So it isn't as if the community would lose input in the size and design. 

The legislation written by Mr. Huff was only initiated after talks broke down between College Manor and the Association.  We saw it as a bridge between the needs of the community and the needs of the business. 

We applaud him for trying to move the process forward and it did bring the Community Association back to the table.  The breakdown in discussions had been over the length of the covenant which the Community Association had insisted be forever until this legislation was introduced. 

The problem had not been about the amount of land the facility was asking for a change for building purposes. The request was changed early in the process from 11 acres to 4 and now has been reduced to 3.6. 

The length of the covenant we thought to be very generous for any business at 20 years has been altered in favor of resolution of this problem as well. 

We, of course, consider ourselves as reasonable. It is maddening to consider the entitlement that some of our neighbors feel to our property and to be misrepresented and maligned.  If we had wanted to sell the property we would have long ago. 

The scale of this project is not worth the fuss it has caused and I am looking forward to a resolution of the problem.

The bill is scheduled for a vote on Aug. 6. The County Council will discuss the matter in a work session on July 31.

Stay with Patch as we continue to update this story.

_______

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, send an email to editor Nick DiMarco at nickd@patch.com or consider starting a blog.