Howard County Hearing Examiner – Case BA 25-022V: Variance Request for Pool and Sheds

On March 12, 2026, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols conducted a hybrid hearing in the George Howard Building (Banneker Room and WebEx) for application BA 25-022V. The petitioner, Kurush Mechanic (co‑petitioner with Farehabi Habibi), owner of 3704 Red Oak Lane, Ellicott City, sought a variance to reduce the rear‑yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to construct an in‑ground swimming pool and two sheds/pool houses. The property is a 3.1‑acre lot, of which approximately 2.8 acres are dedicated to sewer/septic systems or reserved for forest retention, leaving limited buildable area.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Todd Sun and Later (3681 Blackberry Lane) spoke at length in opposition, presenting 18 exhibits. He argued that the petitioner failed to meet the statutory variance criteria, citing: (1) no unique physical conditions – all four lots in the Red Oak subdivision share identical constraints; (2) the variance would alter the neighborhood’s essential character, impair adjacent properties, and harm public welfare due to tree removal and potential destabilization of neighboring trees; (3) the hardship is self‑created because the petitioner refused alternative designs that would require zero variance; (4) the petitioner ignored a recorded forest‑buffer‑retention easement, removed dozens of trees without proper authorization, and disregarded county arborist guidance; and (5) the requested reduction is not the minimum necessary – a zero‑variance design is feasible.
• Alex Chin (3707 Red Oak Lane) opposed, emphasizing that the submitted plans lack detail (e.g., no grading, fence, or retaining‑wall dimensions), and that the proposed construction encroaches on a legally recorded 20‑foot easement for forest buffer retention. He argued the variance criteria are not met: the lot is not unusual compared to others in the subdivision; alternative pool locations exist; and the hardship is self‑created (based on personal preference for symmetry and style).
• Bill Hester (3701 Red Oak Lane) provided historical context, noting that developer Lois Peters subdivided the original 14‑acre parcel in 1997 with restrictive covenants to preserve wooded privacy. He argued that further tree clearing would fundamentally alter the neighborhood’s character and diminish property values.
• John Roberts (3710 Red Oak Lane) supported the existing zoning regulations, stating that a variance would undermine fairness and predictability in the neighborhood.
• Harry Walker (12323 Benson Branch Road) testified that the character of the neighborhood remained unchanged for 30 years until the petitioner cut down many trees. He described the area as a rare wooded community and opposed the variance.
• Mike Ruane (Blackberry Lane) highlighted that his six‑acre property is entirely wooded and that the petitioner’s tree removal (approximately 30–46 trees, disputed) already altered the neighborhood. He argued the variance offloads sacrifices onto neighbors and conflicts with the community’s vision of living in the woods.
• Malika Bus (3701 Blackberry Lane) stated that a pool is a luxury amenity that should not override the established zoning protections for the community’s forested character.
• Charles Green (3731 Blackberry Lane, testifying by phone) noted that the property backs up to Benson Branch Park, and that tree removal diminishes the sound buffer from Route 32 and negatively affects the wider community and wildlife.

Discussion Items

• Petitioner’s Case: Kurush Mechanic testified that the variance is needed because 2.8 of the 3.1 acres are already encumbered; the 5‑foot reduction is the minimum to avoid relocating the septic system and drain field, which he claimed would be more environmentally destructive. He stated that the proposed pool and sheds would not alter the character of the neighborhood, impair adjacent property, or harm public welfare. He acknowledged that his personal preference for symmetry and design shapes the proposal, and that the hardship is self‑created.
• Opposition’s Evidence and Cross‑Examination: The opposition, led by Todd Sun and Later, elicited admissions from the petitioner that: (a) he had not verified the recorded plat’s 30‑foot building restriction line (believing it to be 10 feet based on county zoning); (b) he had not sought to legally extinguish the easement; (c) approximately 80% of trees within 20 feet of the property line were removed; (d) no arborist assessment of critical root zones for neighboring trees was conducted; (e) alternative pool dimensions, shapes, or locations are feasible without a variance; and (f) the requested variance is not the minimum necessary. Opposition exhibits included satellite imagery, photographs, emails from county arborist Scott Mowen showing non‑compliance with tree‑removal instructions, and a recorded set of restrictive covenants (Opposition Exhibit 19) that govern the subdivision.
• Rebuttal: The petitioner offered no rebuttal witnesses.

Key Outcomes

• The evidentiary hearing was concluded. Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols will issue a written decision and order at a later date.
• No vote was taken during the hearing; the outcome of the variance request is pending the examiner’s determination on whether the statutory criteria (Howard County Zoning Regulations §130.B.2.A) are satisfied.