Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting – April 21, 2026

This hybrid hearing (4:00 PM, Banneker Room and WebEx) considered two conditional use petitions by Howard EcoWorks for property at 14270 Burntwoods Road, Glenwood, MD. The hearing examiner, Joyce Nichols, presided. The petitioner was represented by Sang O. The first case (BA 25‑024C) sought a landscape contractor conditional use on approximately 0.239 acres (barn A and gravel parking). The second case (BA 25‑025C) sought a charitable institution conditional use (office, educational programs) for the remainder of the 16.4‑acre parcel. The hearing examiner incorporated the record of the first case into the second.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Gary Mellick (opponent, adjacent property owner) testified that the existing fence is in disrepair and encroaches on his property (survey showed up to 2.5 ft encroachment). He expressed concerns about traffic (potential 74 trips/day from 37 parking spaces total) and noise from trucks. He stated he is not opposed to the use if proper screening is provided.
• Christy Hill (neighbor) asked that decisions about fencing include all affected property owners (the brown fence also borders her property). She raised concerns about a new well and water usage, though the hearing examiner noted that is not part of this proceeding.
• Marissa Vitamvas (property owner of the driveway easement) testified that she has a shared driveway agreement with Howard EcoWorks, has not experienced safety issues, and finds the current use acceptable.

Discussion Items

• Landscape Contractor Case (BA 25‑024C):
  • Petitioner’s Witnesses:
    • Lori Lilly (founder, former executive director) described Howard EcoWorks’ mission and operational need for space.
    • Alec Lind (executive director) detailed the three workforce programs (EcoAmbassadors, REDI, Uplift) and the types of services (grant‑based and fee‑for‑service). He confirmed that the landscape contractor use involves fee‑for‑service work, and participants would be on site for training or when working at the property.
    • Jamie Frazier (co‑chair of the board, civil engineer) testified that the conditional use plan limits the landscape contractor activities to barn A and a 10‑space gravel parking area (0.239 acres). He explained that the only access is via a 20‑foot easement (not a 24‑foot commercial standard), but a waiver is being sought. He provided sight‑distance analysis showing 500 ft available (required 260 ft for 35 mph). He agreed to a condition that a six‑foot opaque privacy fence be installed along the driveway adjacent to neighboring properties, either on the petitioner’s property or as agreed with neighbors.
  • Staff Report: The technical staff report was largely supportive, noted the need for a design manual waiver for the driveway width, and flagged the 100‑foot setback issue for existing barns.
• Charitable Institution Case (BA 25‑025C):
  • The petitioner adopted all testimony from the first case. The charitable use will be located in the existing house (office, meetings, education). Outdoor areas will demonstrate environmental conservation, consistent with the nonprofit’s mission. The building envelope is compliant with the 50‑foot setback. Parking includes 13 spaces for the philanthropic use, 2 ADA stalls, and 10 for the landscape contractor (total 25; additional existing spaces on the plan bring the total to 37, but the petitioner clarified that the 10 landscape spaces are the only ones for that use).
  • The hearing examiner clarified that the philanthropic conditional use area is essentially the entire property minus the 0.239 acres for the landscape contractor (approximately 16.161 acres).

Key Outcomes

• Evidentiary Hearings Concluded: The hearing examiner closed the record for both cases. A decision and order will be issued later.
• Conditions Proposed by Petitioner and Accepted by Hearing Examiner:
  1. For both cases, the conditional use is personal to Howard EcoWorks and expires if the property is no longer operated by that organization.
  2. For both cases, as a condition precedent, a six‑foot opaque privacy fence must be constructed along the driveway adjacent to neighboring properties. The fence shall be located entirely on the petitioner’s property (within the easement) unless the affected neighbors (Mellick, Hill, Vitamvas) agree otherwise in writing. The fence shall be installed before the use commences.
  3. For the landscape contractor case, the petitioner must obtain a design manual waiver for the 20‑foot driveway width (to allow 24‑foot commercial standard) as a condition of approval.
• Next Steps: The hearing examiner will issue a written decision. The petitioner will continue discussions with neighbors regarding fence placement and maintenance.