Howard County Hearing Examiner Case ZB 1131M: Palmetto Group Zoning Map Amendment Petition, March 3, 2026

On March 3, 2026, Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols conducted a hybrid hearing on Zoning Board case ZB 1131M. The petition, filed by The Palmetto Group, Inc. (owner of 6871 Dorsey Road and contract purchaser of 6875 Dorsey Road), requested a piecemeal map amendment to rezone two parcels (Tax Map 43, Parcels 706 and 726, totaling approximately 0.4 acres in Elkridge) from the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) District to the R-12 (Residential: Single) District, or alternatively to the RSC (Residential: Single Cluster) District. The petitioner argued that a mistake occurred during the 2013 comprehensive zoning because the parcels were not accurately depicted and are undevelopable under TOD due to size, shape, environmental constraints, and lack of connectivity to the larger TOD area. The record was held open for memoranda of law due by March 17, 2026.

Discussion Items

• Petitioner’s Opening Statement (Mr. Erskine): The petitioner alleged that the 2013 comprehensive zoning map showed the subject properties as a single 1.1-acre parcel rather than four subparcels, and that the council was unaware of the true size (0.4 acres) and environmental features (wetlands, stormwater easement) that isolate the parcels from the TOD district. The petitioner argued that the parcels lack safe pedestrian access to the Dorsey MARC station (approximately 3,200 feet via Dorsey Road without sidewalks) and cannot be assembled into the larger TOD. They claimed that despite over 20 years of marketing (including MLS listings, a commercial broker, and a public auction), no offers were received. One parcel (6875 Dorsey Road) has $67,000 in unpaid property taxes since 2007; the owner of 6871 Dorsey Road has paid over $33,000 in taxes but the property is assessed residentially while zoned commercially. The petitioner argued that the mistake justifies rezoning, and the alternative RSC zone (6,000 sq ft minimum lot size) would make both lots conforming and allow greater design flexibility (e.g., zero lot lines).
• Testimony of Eric Burrs (President, Palmetto Group): Mr. Burrs testified that he has owned 6871 Dorsey Road since 2000 and has a contract to purchase 6875 Dorsey Road. He stated that the parcels were created when Dorsey Road was realigned in the 1950s, leaving odd-shaped lots less than 9,000 sq ft each. He confirmed that the properties have not attracted any offers despite extensive marketing efforts (including an auction with no bids). He noted that the neighboring R-12 zoned properties north of Dorsey Run are closer to the MARC station but separated by Dorsey Run stream. He stated that the lack of connectivity to the TOD, combined with environmental constraints, makes the parcels economically unviable under TOD zoning. He indicated that if rezoned to RSC, he would develop entry-level single-family homes.
• Testimony of Michael Van Sant (Engineer): Mr. Van Sant testified that he prepared unreviewed sketches for potential TOD uses (e.g., a 2,000 sq ft office with seven parking spaces), but found the property physically unable to accommodate commercial development due to parking, stormwater management, and forest conservation requirements. He stated that the RSC zone would provide more flexibility (zero lot lines, ability to adjust internal lot lines) than R-12, given the lots' sizes. He noted that a connection to the TOD would require crossing wetlands and a stormwater easement, requiring waivers and mitigation, which is impractical.
• Testimony of Julia Sauer (DPZ Division Chief): Ms. Sauer confirmed that Dorsey Road is a major collector; access from such a road is permissible if it is the only means of access, as is the case here. She stated that the parcels are not key parcels for TOD because they do not provide connectivity to the larger TOD district. Under TOD’s 20 units/acre minimum density, the 0.4 acres could only yield about 8 units, below the minimum 20 units/acre for residential development. She noted that the county’s general plan encourages residential development, and single-family detached homes on these lots would be consistent with the general plan.
• Protesting Party (Joel Hurwitz): Mr. Hurwitz questioned whether the 2013 mistake claim could rely on marketing efforts that predated 2013, and noted that the 2004 rezoning (when TOD was applied) was not challenged. He argued that the three-acre minimum for residential use in TOD conflicts with the TOD purpose of allowing beneficial use of small parcels, and suggested that the record should inform future comprehensive zoning. He did not take a firm position on whether a mistake was found or which corrective zone was appropriate, but noted that RSC might be more appropriate than R-12 given the character of the neighborhood and the allowed uses.
• Zoning Counsel (Mr. Foreman): Mr. Foreman acknowledged that the inaccurate depiction of the parcels on the zoning map could constitute a mistake, and that the evidence of 20 years of failed marketing and unpaid taxes suggests the property has no reasonable economic use under TOD. He leaned toward finding that a mistake was made and that RSC would be the appropriate corrective zone.
• Petitioner’s Summation (Mr. Erskine): He reiterated that the council’s reliance on an inaccurate map (showing a single 1.1-acre parcel) was a mistake, and that the lack of market demand (19 years of unpaid taxes on one parcel) confirms the error. He argued that even if the property could be sold at tax sale (it never has been), it would not be developed. He emphasized that the RSC zone would allow two conforming lots and produce entry-level housing, consistent with the state’s declared housing emergency (referencing an executive order).

Key Outcomes

• Evidentiary Record Closed: The hearing examiner deemed the evidentiary record closed as of March 3, 2026. The record will remain open only for the receipt of memoranda of law.
• Memoranda of Law Deadline: All parties are directed to file memoranda of law by 4:00 PM on March 17, 2026. The hearing examiner will issue a report following receipt of the memoranda.
• Motion to Disqualify: Mr. Hurwitz made a motion to disqualify the hearing examiner and zoning counsel (referencing motions in related cases ZB 1130M and ZB 1133M). The hearing examiner took the motion under advisement, to be addressed in the report.
• Requested Rezoning: The petitioner formally requests that the zoning be changed to R-12, or in the alternative to RSC. The hearing examiner will make a recommendation to the Zoning Board based on the evidence and memoranda.