Hearing Examiner Hearing on ZB 1133M – Rezoning Petition by Howard Research and Development Corporation (March 26, 2026)
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Hearing Examiner Hearing on ZB 1133M – Rezoning Petition by Howard Research and Development Corporation (March 26, 2026)
Opening Remarks
The hearing began at 10:00 AM on March 26, 2026, before Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols. The case concerns ZB 1133M, a petition by Howard Research and Development Corporation (HRD) to rezone two undeveloped parcels (approximately 11.01 acres) at 9121 S. Commerce Center Drive, Columbia, MD, from B-2 (Business: General) to M-1 (Manufacturing: Light).
Petitioner's Opening Statement
Tom Cole, representing the petitioner, argued that the current B-2 zoning is a mistake originating from the 2003 comprehensive zoning. He stated that in 2003 the area was zoned for customer-facing retail (big box stores), but since then trends have changed due to the rise of e-commerce (Amazon) and the property has remained a vacant grass field. He asserted that retaining B-2 zoning in the 2013 comprehensive zoning was a clear mistake because the zoning authority failed to account for changed conditions. He cited case law (Beechwood Limited Partnership, Chapman v. Montgomery) to support that an error or mistake is established when the assumptions relied upon were invalid, and that a more liberal standard applies when reclassifying within commercial categories. He noted that the Planning Board had also recommended rezoning.
Testimony of Dan Sweeney (Civil Engineer/Planner)
Dan Sweeney, a civil engineer retained by the petitioner, testified that the property is an 11-acre vacant grass lot fronting Commerce Center Drive. He reviewed planning documents and the Technical Staff Report. He stated that the surrounding parcels are mostly zoned M-1 (light industrial), and that the B-2 zoning is inconsistent with the Gateway Master Plan, which for Sub-Area 6 recommends light industrial/employment uses. He testified that the assumption of retail viability was incorrect, as evidenced by the property's prolonged non-development (40+ years). He argued that the 2014 comprehensive zoning authority had constructive knowledge of the vacancy but retained B-2, constituting a mistake of fact (not judgment). Under cross-examination by Mr. Foreman (Zoning Council), Sweeney confirmed that access for industrial uses would require more heavy truck traffic and that the property is accessible via Commerce Center Drive. He noted that the adjacent former movie theater parcel is being demolished and replaced with a warehouse, consistent with M-1 zoning.
Testimony of Gabe Chung (HRD Senior Vice President)
Gabe Chung, Senior Vice President of HRD, testified via WebEx. He stated that the parcel has been undeveloped for decades and that HRD's internal marketing efforts for retail uses yielded only sporadic interest that never materialized. He attributed the lack of retail viability to poor access, visibility, and traffic counts, and the absence of nearby residential density or co-tenancy with other retail. He contrasted the 2003 retail environment (big box heyday) with 2026 (e-commerce dominance) and noted that these trends were already apparent by 2013. He stated that M-1 zoning (light industrial/warehouse) would be more suitable because industrial uses do not require the same visibility or co-tenancy. He confirmed that HRD has received inquiries for industrial use but has no current site plan. He argued that rezoning would create jobs, increase tax base, and put the property to productive use instead of remaining a grass field.
Petitioner's Closing Argument
Tom Cole reiterated that the property's prolonged vacancy is strong evidence of a mistake. He argued that the B-2 zoning was retained under a misapprehension in 2013, and that the evidence supports a recommendation to the Zoning Board that B-2 was a mistake and M-1 is appropriate, consistent with surrounding uses and county planning documents.
Key Outcomes
- The hearing was concluded and the record closed on the same day.
- Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols directed that memoranda of law be filed by March 31, 2026, at 4:00 PM.
- A report will be prepared and presented to the Zoning Hearing Board, which will make the final decision on the rezoning petition.
- No decision was made at this hearing; it is a recommendation process to the Zoning Board.
Meeting Transcript
Is being recorded and summarized. Good morning, everybody. It is the 26th of March. It is approximately 10 a.m. We are here for application 1133M, an application from Howard Research and Development Corporation for rezoning from the B2 to the M1 zone for approximately one 11.01 acres of land located at 9121 South Commerce Center Drive, Columbia, Maryland. Good morning, everybody. Mr. Cole, do you wish to give an opening statement? If I could, very briefly. Am I ready to go? Yep. All right, great. Tom Cole, on behalf of the petitioner in this case, uh I only give opening statements when it helps to put a frame around the evidence before the evidence is presented. This is about putting property to its highest and best use. And in terms of the mistake, establishing that the zoning authority failed to take into account uh trends, uh clearly apparent trends, uh, and the failure to correct a mistake made in 2003. Now, what do I mean by that? During the comprehensive zoning of 2003, this property was zoned from manufacturing industrial to B2, which is customer-facing retail. And if you sort of take the time machine back to 2003, you might understand why that would be. That was really right at at the heyday of the best buys, the borders, the big box retail stores. Um the retail environment changed. And this parcel sitting behind a Home Depot, behind a shoe store, behind uh what was a hobby lobby, a borders, it was all sorts of things. It's never been developed. Um as a matter of fact, looking at the aerial photographs for this property, this property has been a grass field for my entire life. And what the case law says on this is that when it comes to establishing a mistake, and I I'm citing now from uh the uh Beechwood Limited Partnership case, and we will certainly provide this to the hearing examiner in our memorandum afterwards, but an error or mistake is established when there is probative evidence to show that the assumptions or premises relied upon by the zoning authority at the time of the comprehensive rezoning were invalid. Error can be established by showing that at the time of the comprehensive zoning, the zoning authority failed to take into account then existing facts or projects or trends which were reasonably foreseeable of fruition in the future, so that the zoning authority's action was premised initially on a misapprehension. It's also important to note in the context of all of this is that when evaluating a rezoning within a category, meaning from residential to residential or from commercial to commercial, there is a more liberal standard. And this is from the Chapman v. Montgomery case. A more liberal standard is applied when the property is being reclassified from one commercial subcategory to another. To wrap this up, in 2003, that might have been a policy mistake. It might not have elevated itself to the level of a mistake to establish a rezoning. But to have retained that commercial retail zoning in 2013, that was a clearly demonstrated mistake. And that is what persuaded the planning board to recommend rezoning in their own evaluation of this case. They agreed with that analysis, saying in 2003, that might have been uh two different minds could have come to two different conclusions on that. However, in 2013, after Amazon has already sucked all of the wind out of retail, and this property had clearly remained a grass field for all of time. That was the time the zoning authority should have noticed that this parcel, different from the surrounding parcels but those to the north, should have been zoned back to warehouse industrial. And the evidence that we're going to put on pertains to that, but then it also is going to pertain to the owner of the property not being able to put this property to any constructive use as retail, but rather finding and hearing from those interested in this property that it would be utilized as warehouse industrial. So with that, I would be ready to call my first witness. Please call your first witness. Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. Dan Sweeney. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the responses given and statements made should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Yes. Please state your name and business address for the record. Dan Sweeney and 3909 National Drive, Suite 250, Burton'sville, Maryland 2086. Thank you. Your witness. Thank you.
openpublica.com