Administrative Appeal Hearing for BA 828D – Hillstreet Overlook LLC: Denial of Alternative Compliance for Steep Slopes (March 18, 2026)\n\nThe Howard County Hearing Examiner, Joyce Nichols, convened a hybrid meeting on March 18, 2026, at 5:30 PM to hear an administrative appeal by Hillstreet Overlook LLC (the appellant) of a November 21, 2025 decision by the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) denying reconsideration of the denial of an alternative compliance application for steep slope disturbance at 8500 Hill Street, Ellicott City. The appellant sought to build a single-family home on a 6,200-square-foot legal lot of record, but DPZ determined that 78% of the site contained steep slopes (≥25%) and denied relief. The appellant argued the denial was arbitrary and capricious, particularly because DPZ repeatedly cited the property owner’s purchase date after steep slope regulations took effect as a self-created hardship. Multiple neighbors testified in opposition, raising concerns about slope instability, flooding, and ongoing road subsidence on Hill Street. The hearing concluded with closing arguments; no decision was announced, and the case was taken under advisement.\n\n### Public Comments & Testimony\n- Diane Paulis (8392 Merriman Street): Testified that her property is directly below the subject lot and that the proposed house would be within 10 feet of her property line. She stated that her historic house (built 1860) was constructed on similar steep slopes, and she expressed concern that excavation could cause a landslide similar to one on an adjacent property during the 2018 flood. She noted that Hill Street is sinking, with multiple parking spaces recently removed due to road instability. She argued that any construction would pose a risk to her lot.\n- Gail Robinson (8388 Merriman Street): Testified that soil testing on the subject lot in fall 2025 caused a crack in her dining room ceiling due to constant pounding. She described the lot as having terraced slopes held up by old wooden structures and stated she does not believe a house of any size can fit on the available land without destabilizing the hill.\n- Josh Wiker (8407 Merriman Street): Lives at the bottom of the riprap wall and would be immediately affected by any landslide. He noted that county engineers recently surveyed Hill Street for movement and mentioned that long steel rods may be needed to stabilize the street. He advised the hearing examiner to consult with the county engineering department about how building on the lot might affect road stability.\n- Nicholas Slater (8505 Hill Street): Owns a historic house (built 1824) across from the subject property. He described ongoing erosion and the removal of three additional parking spots on Hill Street due to sinking. He argued that adding another house would exacerbate the parking crisis and create further instability.\n- Laura Janiszewski (8497 Hill Street): Lives directly across from the property. She corroborated the parking space removal and noted that the no-parking signs were initially wider than their current placement, indicating continued road movement. She stated that while she sympathizes with the appellant’s situation, she believes the neighbors should not bear the burden of the development.\n\n### Discussion Items\n- Appellant’s Case: The appellant, represented by Christopher DeCarlo, called Frank Manilanson, a professional land surveyor and principal at Fisher Collins & Carter, as its sole witness. Manilanson testified that the slopes on the property are man-made (tiered with retaining walls) and that, in his experience, DPZ historically calculates steep slopes based on a continuous 10-foot vertical grade at ≥25%, which he argued does not exist within the proposed building footprint. He introduced exhibits including a June 2024 alternative compliance application showing a 22-foot by 35-foot house with less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance (later reduced by 29% to 22x35 ft). He stated that DPZ’s denial repeatedly cited the property owner’s purchase in December 2023 (after steep slope regulations in effect since 1993) as a self-created hardship, which he argued is contrary to Maryland case law. He also testified that a geotechnical report showed a factor of safety of 1.51 for slope stability, and that the appellant had agreed to provide stormwater management (a cistern) and erosion control measures (e.g., soil nails) even though the size of disturbance would ordinarily exempt the project from such requirements.\n- DPZ’s Position (presented through cross-examination): Barrett King, representing DPZ, highlighted multiple reasons for denial beyond the purchase date, including concerns about hydraulic loading from the cistern discharge, risk of slope failure similar to a 2018 landslide on an adjacent property, and the fact that the appellant’s exhibit still showed a carport that was no longer proposed. King argued that the appellant’s comparison to the Penkusky property (which received alternative compliance approval) was not analogous because that site was nearly an acre, had no stream buffer, no forest conservation easement, and no history of flood-related landslides.\n- Exhibits Admitted: The following appellant exhibits were entered into evidence: Exhibit 1 (GIS aerial), Exhibit 2 (buildable lot letter), Exhibit 3 (photographs A–D), Exhibit 4 (slope analysis plan), Exhibit 5 (Penkusky environmental concept plan), Exhibit 6 (alternative compliance application), Exhibit 7 (site plan with larger footprint), Exhibit 8 (soil stabilization analysis), Exhibit 9 (initial denial letter from September 2025), Exhibit 10 (Penkusky approval records), Exhibit 11 (reconsideration request), Exhibit 12 (reduced building footprint plan), Exhibit 13 (slope analysis overlay for reduced footprint), Exhibit 14 (reconsideration denial letter from November 2025).\n\n### Key Outcomes\n- No decision was announced at the conclusion of the hearing. The hearing examiner took the case under advisement.\n- The appellant argued that DPZ’s decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious because it improperly used the property owner’s purchase date after the effective date of steep slope regulations as a basis for denying the alternative compliance request. The appellant provided citations from Maryland case law (Richards v. Anne Arundel County, 368 Md. 294; Chelsea v. City of Annapolis, 176 Md. App. 413) to support that mere purchase with knowledge of regulations does not constitute a self-created hardship.\n- DPZ countered that its denial was based on multiple technical and safety concerns, not solely the purchase date, and that the appellant had not adequately addressed those concerns in the reconsideration submission.\n- The appellant seeks an order remanding the case to DPZ with instructions to approve the alternative compliance application consistent with all other criteria, or to reconsider without considering the purchase date.