Long Reach Village Center Redevelopment Hearing (ZB 1132M) – March 18, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Long Reach Village Center Redevelopment Hearing (ZB 1132M) – March 18, 2026
The Howard County Hearing Examiner, Joyce Nichols, convened a continuation of the evidentiary hearing for ZB 1132M, a petition by Columbia Concepts, LLC to amend the Preliminary Development Plan for a major village center redevelopment of the Long Reach Village Center. The hearing began at approximately 10:00 a.m. on March 18, 2026, and concluded after testimony from the technical staff, undeclared witnesses, and opposition speakers. The record will remain open until April 1, 2026, for submission of legal memoranda.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Todd Zimmerman (undeclared resident): Expressed support for revitalization but raised concerns about the 60% increase in density (from 315 to 505 dwellings), insufficient homeownership opportunities (only 50 townhomes out of 505 units), scale of proposed seven-story buildings, and inadequate parking. He noted that the proposed timeline of nearly 10 years introduces risk, especially if the final townhouse phase is not completed. He suggested more ownership options such as condominiums.
- Amy Bennett (opposition, Long Reach Village Board member speaking personally): Opposed the project at the proposed scale, noting that the density increased from 315 to 505 units in recent months. She requested a significant reduction in housing units and raised concerns about parking (a waiver likely needed for 950 spaces vs. 2,400 required) and phasing that prioritizes residential over community space. She urged the Hearing Examiner to consider the Village Board's community response statement.
- Karen Emory (opposition, Columbia Association Board member speaking personally): Stressed parking overflow issues based on her experience in Long Reach and Blandair, warning that inadequate parking would impact existing apartment complexes and townhomes. She noted that Tamar Drive is being reduced from four to two lanes, worsening traffic congestion.
- Richard Bannister (opposition): Opposed the sports complex, arguing it is not a community amenity (unlike a library or rec center). He stated that community engagement meetings felt dismissive and that residents were never asked what they wanted. He proposed a library and maker space instead, citing high population density and the need for educational resources.
- Susan Bannister (opposition): Echoed concerns about density, traffic, parking, and the lack of benefit to current residents. She noted that the Stonehouse and art center are valuable assets that would be lost or disrupted. She questioned the need for a sports complex when other sports facilities already exist.
- Debbie Boers (opposition): Stated she would prefer a cafe or restaurant and a library rather than the proposed redevelopment. She expressed concerns about traffic and high-rise buildings.
- Dara Baker (opposition): Highlighted the 10-year construction timeline and the need to ensure business viability before moving to later phases. She warned of construction-related road damage and urged against granting waivers without evidence of sustainability.
- Ryan Green (opposition): Opposed the parking waiver because the plan lacks a direct connection to the Ducketts Branch trail. He argued that without that connection, the parking reduction is unjustified.
- Nina Bassou (undeclared, representing Long Reach Village Board): Spoke in support of the petition, noting it generally comports with the 2025 Village Center Master Plan. She recommended phasing that prioritizes non-residential and community amenities first, increased green spaces, sustainability features, improved connectivity, and minimizing disruption to the Stonehouse and Arts Center. She clarified that the Village Board voted 4-1 to support the CRS, with internal disagreement over the 505 units.
- Joe Hurwitz (opposition, protestant): Argued the petition should be denied due to incomplete consideration of church parking easements, boundary ambiguities, and the lack of a clear map for the village center. He raised demographic concerns, stating that the sports complex may not serve the low-income and Hispanic community. He also questioned the project's compliance with county charter requirements.
Discussion Items
- Technical Staff Report (Julia Sauer, DPZ): Ms. Sauer explained the new town zoning district, the process for amending the preliminary development plan, and the role of the major village center redevelopment process. She confirmed that the 2018 boundary determination established the village center boundaries, and that the current petition covers only a portion of that area. Parking requirements will be further analyzed at the comprehensive sketch plan and site plan stages. The zoning board can set parking minimums or maximums as conditions of approval. She noted that the technical staff report identified concerns about the scale of the seven-story buildings and recommended future design review.
- Closing Arguments:
- Petitioner (Owen Jarvis): Arguing that the petition satisfies all 10 criteria for major village center redevelopment, emphasizing the mix of uses, open space, and community engagement. He noted that no parking waiver has been submitted yet and that the phasing is flexible. He stated the developer is willing to work with neighboring property owners on easements.
- Protestant (Joe Hurwitz): Argued that the application is incomplete because easements with the church were not properly addressed and that the sports complex may not serve the local community. He urged the board to consider the operational viability of the athletic facility.
Key Outcomes
- The evidentiary hearing was concluded. The record will be held open until 4:00 p.m. on April 1, 2026, for the submission of memoranda of law from the parties.
- After that date, the Hearing Examiner will issue a report with a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
- No votes were taken during this hearing; the zoning board will make the final decision on the petition.
Meeting Transcript
Is being recorded and summarized. Good morning, everybody. It is approximately 10 o'clock on the 18th of March. We are here for continuation of a hearing from March 13th for zoning map 1132 and Columbia concepts. And we were just about to call. We are in the undeclared portion of our testimony, and we were just about to call Mr. Zimmerman. On the afternoon of the 13th, Mr. Zimmerman is present today, and I'm going to call him as the first witness. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Todd Zimmerman. I live at 8868 Spiral Cut in Columbia Longreach. All right, thank you. What would you like to say today? So I can begin. Pardon me? Begin. Begin, yes, please. Okay. Well, thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I am a resident of Long Leach Village as just stated and happily have resided there for many years. Revitalizing the Long Reach Village Center is much needed and welcome, but I have concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment as submitted. I base my comments on my experience as a longtime resident, conversations with other residents, and my recollection of what was shared at meetings I have attended. The proposed redevelopment plan is a mixed-use approach that includes residential dwellings. With regard to the residential aspect, the plan proposes a significant increase in density, specifically 505 dwellings, which is a 60 percent increase over the previously approved number of 315 dwellings. In the community engagement meetings during the spring and summer of 2025, I recall multiple attendees raised concerns regarding the number and type of units that potentially would be proposed, especially as the number of units increased at the meetings as the meetings went along. Some attendees also expressed concerns of the lack of dwellings proposed for ownership. 455 of the 505 proposed dwelling rentals, with roughly 200 of those for seniors. The proposed 50 dwellings for ownership are comprised only of townhomes. Diversity, inclusivity principles have been mentioned, but with respect to the dwellings, the plan largely proposes more of what already is located close to the village center, which are multiple family rental communities, including a multifamily dwelling community owned by Howard County, and apartment communities for seniors. The proposed 50 townhouses out of the 505 dwellings will not do enough to address the lack of homeowners home ownership opportunities in the village center area. Consistent with the Howard County Executive's goal of promoting homeownership opportunities as well as the goals of diversity and inclusivity. More consideration should be given to ownership opportunities in this redevelopment, such as condominiums, which could include 55 plus condominiums, and less consideration given to apartment dwellings, of which there is a disproportionate amount clustered in the village center area. The density is such that the proposed seven-story buildings will alter the appearance of the area and overshadow existing dwellings. The communities in the Long Beach Village Center are mostly comprised of garden-style units of three or four stories or similar-sized townhomes. The nearby high school, recent business park and tennis club on Old Dobin Lane, the nearby, are also similar in height to the residences of the community. The two proposed seven-story buildings would stand out and dominate the surrounding communities. These should be scaled back to be more in line with the area aesthetic. Parking. As already mentioned, a redevelopment is welcome. However, the lack of sufficient parking in the proposed version could negatively impact the potential success of the redevelopment as well as the surrounding communities that are not prepared to contend with the issues of overflow. More than 70% of Columbia residents travel by personal vehicle. The average car ownership in Columbia is two cars per household, with an average commute of close to 30 minutes. The usage rates are due in part to commuting patterns. The addition of dwellings, retail and entertainment within the village center area, likely will do little to change the commuting patterns. The sports complex has been touted as potentially drawing from outside Columbia, outside the county, and possibly outside the state. If so, that likely would be done by means of vehicular traffic. Sufficient parking is essential for dwelling occupants as well as those coming from elsewhere for the commercial and entertainment aspects for any version of the read of a redevelopment to be successful.
openpublica.com