Howard County Planning Board Meeting Summary – April 9, 2026

The Howard County Planning Board held a public meeting/hearing on April 9, 2026, to consider ZRA 224, a zoning regulation amendment to permit age-restricted adult housing cottage clusters. The board convened with a quorum of three members (Cecil, Gadzi, Tilburg); members Barbara and Lynn were absent. The main agenda item was the DPZ presentation on ZRA 224, followed by public comment and board deliberation.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the meeting agenda unanimously.
• Approved the minutes of the March 26, 2026 Planning Board meeting as presented via WebEx recording.
• No chair items or executive secretary updates were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Sam Alomar, a civil engineer in Howard County, expressed strong support for ZRA 224 and offered suggestions: reduce the project boundary setback from 50 to 25 feet, increase the height limit from 20 to 26–28 feet to allow second-floor units (for dens/offices), permit stormwater management facilities (including underground) in common areas, waive buffering when adjacent to open space/parkland, and waive excise or permit fees to improve affordability.
• Joel Horowitz, representing Living Columbia, raised concerns about the provision triggering the 20% MIHU requirement when constructed amenity areas (pools, gyms, etc.) are included, questioning why such amenities are allowed if they undermine affordability. He also questioned the 10-acre maximum, suggested capping courtyard clusters at around 12 units to preserve intimacy, and asked how the MIHU requirement would apply if cottage clusters were part of a larger HOA or had shared access to amenities in B1/B2 districts.

Discussion Items

• Justin Tyler of the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) presented ZRA 224. Key elements:
  • Purpose: Permit age-restricted adult housing cottage clusters as "missing middle" housing to align with HoCo By Design and the Housing Opportunities Master Plan.
  • Definition: At least four detached dwelling units with a footprint of less than 900 square feet, arranged around a common courtyard.
  • Permitted districts: RED, PGCC, R20, R12, RSC, RSA 8, RHED, RA15, RAPT, B1, and B2, subject to optional design project (ODP) approval; maximum development area 10 gross acres, minimum 20,000 sq ft; must be within planned public water/sewer service area.
  • Density: 9 units/net acre (RED, RHED, PGCC, R20), 10 (R12), 11 (RSC), 12 (RSA 8), and 20 (RA15/RAPT).
  • Bulk requirements: max height 20 feet, min setback 50 feet from project boundary (proposed reduction to 25 feet), 25 feet from public street ROW, 8 feet between structures, 20 feet from interior road/driveway for units with garages.
  • A 20% MIHU requirement applies if the development includes constructed amenity areas (e.g., gyms, pools, sports courts, clubhouses) sized at least 500 sq ft; cumulative recreational amenity area capped at 3,500 sq ft.
  • No MIHU requirement otherwise, to keep units "naturally affordable."
  • Optional design project process: developer works with DPZ, then Design Advisory Panel (DAP), then Planning Board approval; no conditional use required for cottage clusters.
  • Webinar feedback: DPZ held a public webinar on April 7, 2026, with 200+ registered attendees; received positive feedback and over 20 live questions plus 30 pre-submitted questions.
  • DPZ analysis: 55,651 parcels (32,723 acres) could be impacted, with 921 feasible infill locations (under-improved or unimproved parcels).
• Board members discussed:
  • Setback reduction: Board generally supported 25 feet to allow feasible development on small infill parcels and better blend with neighborhoods.
  • Height: Concerns that allowing higher structures or variances could lead to larger units, increased traffic/parking, and reduced affordability. Board decided to keep 20 feet, though staff noted administrative adjustments up to 20% or variances are possible.
  • MIHU/amenity language: Board debated whether the list of constructed amenities was clear enough; staff agreed to consider explicit language or rely on the ODP process and DAP review.
  • Courtyard clusters: Multiple courtyards are allowed; size of courtyard is indexed to 250 sq ft per dwelling unit; no unit cap was adopted, but ODP/DAP would review.
  • Community meeting: The ODP process will require a pre-submission community meeting as part of the site development plan (SDP) process.

Key Outcomes

• The Planning Board voted unanimously to favorably recommend ZRA 224 to the Howard County Council with suggestions based on the DPZ considerations slide, specifically bullet 1 (reduce the setback from 50 to 25 feet), bullet 3 (remove or reduce additional landscape buffering requirements, subject to DAP and Planning Board review), and bullet 4 (make the ODP process similar to the SDP process, which includes a required pre-submission community meeting). Bullet 2 (required community meeting) was considered incorporated into bullet 4.
• The recommendation will be documented in the board's final decision order.