Howard County Board of Appeals Meeting – April 16, 2026

The board convened a hybrid meeting on Thursday, April 16, 2026, at 9:00 am to hear case BA 827D – Speedfloor Mid Atlantic, LLC, an appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s December 23, 2025 decision affirming the Department of Planning and Zoning’s (DPZ) denial of an alternative compliance request for a 2.14-acre property (6474–6496 Lawyers Hill Road, Elkridge). The appellant sought to place a forest conservation easement on four residential lots smaller than 10 acres to preserve existing trees along an I-95 noise wall.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of March 19, 2026 Meeting Minutes: Motion by Ms. Ferrocop, seconded by Ms. Phillips. Unanimous vote (5-0) to approve.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public signed up to testify or become parties.

Discussion Items

• Preliminary Matter: Appellant’s counsel noted that the DPZ file had been posted on the Board site, which they considered procedurally improper for a de novo hearing. The chair acknowledged the concern and stated the board would investigate; hearing proceeded without objection.
• Appellant’s Case: The appellant called Frank Manilanson, a professional land surveyor and principal at Fisher Collins & Carter, who described a six-year review process (2020–2026) complicated by two council bills, pandemic delays, complete streets implementation, and multiple plan revisions. Key points:
  • The property is zoned R20 with environmental features (streams, wetlands, floodplain) on the eastern and northeastern boundaries.
  • An earlier alternative compliance (Petition 2068) required specimen tree #4 to be protected within a forest easement; the tree later died from oak wilt.
  • After DPZ rejected on-lot forest easements due to concerns about encroachment and insufficient usable rear yard, the appellant redesigned to provide 25 feet of unencumbered backyard plus 35 feet of structure setback (60 feet total) before the proposed easement, with a split-rail fence and signage to mark boundaries.
  • The appellant’s obligation is 1.3 acres of forest conservation; only 0.3 acres of on-site easement would count, requiring off-site banking. No banks exist in the watershed, so the obligation triples to 3.9 acres, costing approximately $150,000.
  • Appellant’s counsel argued DPZ’s denial was arbitrary and capricious because: (a) DPZ incorrectly stated environmental features were off-site; (b) the property is unique due to the I-95 noise wall; (c) other properties in the area have forest easements on lots smaller than 10 acres; (d) the denial forces tree removal contrary to community desires expressed in 2019 meetings.
• Appellant Timothy Harmon’s Testimony: He stated he lives in the community and wishes to preserve trees as neighbors requested, contrasting with a nearby development that cleared to the noise wall. He noted that regulations have added about $50,000 per lot in costs, plus $30,000 per house under an affordable housing fee, making the project unaffordable for his children.
• Exhibits Introduced: Nine exhibits, including GIS screenshots, renderings of proposed (Exhibit 4) and denied (Exhibit 5) configurations, a split-rail fence detail (Exhibit 6), DPZ staff recommendation (Exhibit 7), DPZ director’s decision (Exhibit 8), and a prior Board of Appeals decision (Exhibit 9).
• No DPZ representative was present at the hearing.

Key Outcomes

• The board closed the hearing and took the case under advisement.
• Deliberation and decision are scheduled for Thursday, April 23, 2026, at 6:30 pm.
• The appellant is requesting the board find DPZ’s decision clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, and/or contrary to law, and to grant the alternative compliance to allow forest conservation on lots smaller than 10 acres, enforced by an HOA with a split-rail fence and signage.