Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals - October 28, 2026 Hearing Summary

On October 28, 2026, the Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) convened the fifth day of hearings in Case #6609, a continuation of Rachann Mayer's application for a conditional use and multiple variances for a commercial kennel of more than 10 dogs at 6270 Davis Road, Woodbine, Maryland, on property zoned Conservation District. The hearing included rebuttal testimony by the applicant's witnesses, questions from unrepresented neighbors, closing arguments from both attorneys, and a unanimous board vote to deny the application. Applicant's counsel noted the hearing had previously convened on May 26, June 26, July 28, September 22, and now October 28, 2026.

Rebuttal Testimony

• Rachel Mayor, the applicant and owner of the existing Mariah Bell Kennel, testified that the traffic data she provided was a raw, unaltered export from Paul Partner, an industry-standard customer management database; she also described industry employee-ratio standards of 1 staff to 15 daycare dogs and 1 staff to 20 to 25 boarding dogs. She confirmed the six comparable kennels identified by appraiser Tom Wygand all hold Class D licenses (more than 50 dogs), and introduced applicant exhibits 17 and 18 showing those kennels are on agricultural or conservation-zoned parcels ranging from 6 to 37 acres. She said the existing outdoor riding arena was installed by the previous owner and confirmed as permitted at closing, that she planted 50 additional trees near that property line, and that she intentionally placed the proposed kennel at the bottom of a hill for buffering at added excavation cost. She also said 38 of her current clients signed the opposition petition, and that her discussion of the petition aligned with letters received by the board saying some signers did not realize the applicant was Mariah Bell. She withdrew the access-drive width variance and agreed to conditions comparable to her 2025 BZA Case #6574 approval: a maximum of 140 dogs on site and supervision of dogs outdoors between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m.

• Mike Van Sant, a professional land surveyor previously qualified as an expert in surveying and site design, testified that site-distance issues at existing county intersections are not a county requirement for a property owner to fix, and that fire and EMS review is part of site plan approval. He presented applicant exhibit 19 comparing Davis Road to seven other county roads: Brick Church Road (11.5 to 13 feet wide), Dr. Stitely Road (14 to 18 feet), Jordan's Retreat Road (12 to 16 feet), Hoffman Road (12 to 14 feet), Old Westminster Road (13 to 16 feet), Sam's Creek Road (12 to 16 feet), and Stellar Road (11 to 13 feet). He found no sidewalks on any of them. He also measured substandard sight distances at Old Westminster/Stone Chapel (126 feet available versus 555 feet required) and Stellar/Nicodemus (95 feet versus 390 feet). He described Davis Road as recently paved with asphalt, about 20 to 22 feet wide near the site but 15 to 16 feet in some sections, and said he had no reason to believe the project could not meet stormwater management and health department requirements during site plan review.

• Tom Wygand, the applicant's appraisal expert, presented applicant exhibit 20: 13 closed sales near the subject property since March 2026, with nine agents confirming fair negotiation and no influence from the proposed kennel, plus 14 sales within 0.5 miles of Green Acres Pet Center, with 11 agents confirming no influence from that kennel. He criticized opposition appraiser Tom Casper's 10 percent external-obsolescence conclusion as not credible, testifying that Casper did not verify the sale and that Mr. Wygand's own contact with the listing agent for 683 East Watersville Road confirmed the adjacent kennel had no effect on the $350,000 sale price. The board admitted the exhibits with continuing hearsay objections from opposing counsel.

• Nick Dribben, the applicant's traffic engineering expert, rebutted opposition traffic expert Lawrence Green. He said the daycare-center trip-generation analogy was inappropriate for a dog daycare/boarding operation with staggered arrivals and overnight boarders. He cited zero police-reported crashes on Davis Road in the vicinity and on Gillis Falls Road near Davis Road from January 1, 2019 through the most recent available 2026 data. Applicant exhibit 21 doubled the previously analyzed traffic to 80 trips per peak hour, and all study intersections still operated at level of service A. Dribben said his best estimate was 28 total trips per peak hour (14 in and 14 out), versus 40 in the original analysis, and that Green's daycare approach assumed 140 dogs instead of the proposed 92 daycare dogs. He also discussed driver familiarity factors, the availability of speed and queuing studies, and said he observed no queuing problems at Mariah Bell.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Today's unrepresented public participants did not give new formal testimony; they asked cross-examination questions of the applicant's witnesses. McKenzie Cantrus of 6245 Davis Road asked Mr. Van Sant about pedestrian use along Davis Road and the lack of sidewalk space near the subject property. Stephen Uphoff and Julie Uphoff of 6120 Davis Road asked about sidewalks, school bus stops, the recent asphalt paving of Davis Road, whether paved roads encourage higher speeds, and whether sight-distance code requirements have changed over time. Several safety-related questions were objected to and not answered because roadway safety was outside the surveyor's expertise.

Closing Arguments

• Applicant's attorney Kelly Schaefer Miller argued that the applicant had met the conditional-use standard of Schultz v. Pritz because the proposed kennel would not create adverse effects above and beyond those inherent to any commercial kennel, regardless of location in the zone. She argued the variance standard was satisfied through the property's unique topography, stormwater easement, and irregular shape, and that purchasing property that cannot comply with zoning is not a self-created hardship under Maryland case law. She characterized opposition testimony as based on presumptions rather than evidence, noted the use is permitted by the code in the Conservation District, requested approval of the conditional use and distance variances, and confirmed withdrawal of the access-drive variance.

• Opposing counsel Grant Hamadayas Keel argued that the applicant failed both the conditional-use and variance standards. He said the property was not unique, that more than a dozen distance variances could not be justified, that the traffic study underestimated trips and ignored local road conditions and school bus stops, that the external obsolescence analysis relied on distant and non-comparable sales, and that the petition and testimony from nearby residents showed substantial opposition and impacts on quiet enjoyment, property values, school children, a nearby church, and an autistic neighbor. He asked the board to deny the conditional use and variances.

Board Deliberation

• Board members expressed concerns about the size and intensity of the proposed kennel, which they described as much larger than other kennels in the record, and about the large number of distance variances, with more than half of the requested variances for distances less than 300 feet when 600 feet is the code requirement.
• Board Member Caldwell said the use would harm the community, reduce surrounding property values, create a potentially dangerous unmarked left-turn entrance on Davis Road, and impose noise and visual impacts on close neighbors; he did not find the uniqueness argument persuasive.
• Another board member said a smaller request, such as a 35-dog kennel, would be a different conversation and would be open to discussing a cap on dogs, but would not approve the current plan with roughly 15 or 16 variances.
• Another board member said the case had not shown the use was compatible or appropriate for the location under Section 158.133G and voted no.
• Another board member noted the property's very small usable footprint for a kennel without variances, but concluded the scale and intensity of up to roughly 150 dogs, the lack of comparable kennels that size, the road width, sight-distance problems, and impacts on nearby homeowners made the location unsuitable.

Key Outcomes

• The applicant withdrew the access-drive width variance during rebuttal testimony; the conditional use and remaining multiple variances were considered by the board.
• Applicant exhibits 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 were entered into evidence, with hearsay/relevance objections noted for several exhibits.
• The BZA voted unanimously on a motion to deny Case #6609, denying the conditional use for a commercial kennel of more than 10 dogs and the associated distance variances.
• The board's written decision is to be issued within 30 days, and any appeal must be filed with the Carroll County Circuit Court within 30 days of the written decision.