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.