BA 25-031V Variance Hearing – Shed Setback (April 21, 2026)

On April 21, 2026, at 10:00 AM, Howard County Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols conducted a hybrid hearing (Banneker Room and WebEx) for variance case BA 25-031V. Applicant Sudarshan Chand sought a variance of the full 10-foot side yard setback for an existing shed at 4276 Columbia Road, Ellicott City. The shed, built in 2011 without a permit and later partially enclosed, measures 12 ft by 20 ft (approximately 368 sq ft total including open area) and sits on a concrete slab. It encroaches onto the property line abutting 4256 Columbia Road. The adjoining property owners (new owners as of August 2025) opposed the variance.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Telena Clark (attorney and mother of the new owners at 4256 Columbia Road) testified in opposition. She argued that:
  • The lot (14,636 sq ft, rectangular) is not unusually narrow or topographically exceptional compared to neighbors; the practical difficulties are self-created by the applicant.
  • The shed has been incrementally expanded over 18 years (exhibits A–F), including thinning of trees and addition of a climate control unit (exhibit H) as recently as three years ago.
  • The structure is now visible from the public roadway (exhibit F) and negatively alters the essential character of the neighborhood.
  • The structure impairs use of the adjacent property by obstructing mowing, causing trespass (e.g., basketballs), and reducing visual/acoustic privacy (exhibit I).
  • She asked for denial of the variance and opposed any minimum variance less than the full 10-foot setback. The new owners have landscaping plans (exhibit J) that include planting privacy trees along the shared lot line.
• Applicant Sudarshan Chand testified that he purchased the property in 1997, built the shed around 2011 with no permit, and later enclosed half of it about 8–10 years ago. He noted that previous neighbors (Liz Hobby, who worked for Howard County, and later Ben) had no objections. He offered to remove a movable basketball hoop and to pay for landscaping on the neighbor’s side to mitigate visual impact.

Discussion Items

• Applicant’s Burden of Proof: The Hearing Examiner walked through the four required findings:
  1. Unique physical conditions: Applicant cited narrow lot width and a slight slope (about six inches from front to rear). He could not provide exact lot dimensions or explain why the shed could not be relocated within the house’s footprint (house width ~30.3 ft; shed width ~15.5 ft). He stated the main hardship is that the shed is mounted on a concrete slab, making relocation very difficult.
  2. No alteration of neighborhood character: Applicant argued the shed has existed for many years without complaint.
  3. Hardship not self-created: Applicant acknowledged he built the shed and slab himself, but argued he was unaware of zoning requirements and acted with neighbors’ consent.
  4. Minimum variance necessary: Applicant argued the full 10-foot variance is needed because the shed occupies the entire setback; relocation would be impractical and costly.
• Key Exchange: The Hearing Examiner noted that, based on the site plan, the shed could fit within the same 30-foot width as the house without encroaching on the opposite setback. Applicant admitted he had not measured the area and had not prepared for that question. The Examiner suggested the practical difficulty is the slab, not the lot shape.

Key Outcomes

• The Hearing Examiner closed the evidentiary record with no decision made at the hearing.
• A written decision and order will be issued by Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols at a later date.
• No vote was taken; the case was under advisement.