xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement

Appeals board hears arguments against new White Marsh outlet mall

Opponents of a proposed outlet mall in White Marsh charged Tuesday that an approval of the project granted last year was legally flawed and needs to be reconsidered.

Arguing before the Baltimore County Board of Appeals, attorneys for White Marsh residents and for owners of the nearby existing White Marsh Mall said an approval granted in the fall for a new development with more than 100 outlet stores, plus offices, homes and a hotel should be overturned.

Advertisement

An administrative law judge approved plans from Baltimore-based Paragon Outlet Partners for an outlet mall on land near the intersection of Interstate 95 and Route 43, not far from the White Marsh Mall and the Avenue at White Marsh shopping plaza.

The approval was for revisions to an earlier plan that envisioned a mix of uses with heavier emphasis on offices and homes.

Advertisement

Edward J. Gilliss, lawyer for White Marsh Mall owner General Growth Properties, said that by revising the earlier project — rather than starting the approval process over – Paragon avoided review steps that would have given residents a chance to weigh in on the changes.

"The community was robbed of a voice," he said.

Gilliss also said that because the outlet mall would put a dent in White Marsh Mall's business, it violates a provision of planned-unit developments that requires them to not adversely impact existing businesses.

G. Macy Nelson, an attorney for a group of neighbors, argued against the new outlet mall on other grounds — saying it should be held to new stormwater control laws because it is essentially a new development, even though the site already has stormwater ponds in place. He also said the administrative law judge's evaluation of traffic issues was flawed.

Advertisement

Lawyers for Paragon, meanwhile, said the judge was correct in his review of the project. Attorney G. Scott Barhight noted that the approval was gained after eight days of hearings where numerous residents and experts testified.

"I felt there was a lot of input," he said.

Advertisement

The Board of Appeals did not indicate when it would rule.

twitter.com/pwoodreporter

Advertisement
YOU'VE REACHED YOUR FREE ARTICLE LIMIT

Don't miss our 4th of July sale!
Save big on local news.

SALE ENDS SOON

Unlimited Digital Access

$1 FOR 12 WEEKS

No commitment, cancel anytime

See what's included

Access includes: