Howard County Board of Appeals Meeting – April 23, 2026

This meeting was a continuation of the hearing for case BA 827D, an administrative appeal filed by Speedfloor Mid-Atlantic LLC against the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) regarding a denial of alternate compliance under Section 16.120B43 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. The board deliberated after the petitioner had rested its case and presented closing arguments at the prior session. The meeting was held hybrid (in-person and via WebEx) and streamed online.

Consent Calendar

• The board unanimously approved the meeting minutes from April 16, 2026. Voting: Chair Ryan (approve), Ms. Fearcomp (approve), Ms. McCarty (approve), Ms. Phillips (approve), Ms. Harris (approve).

Discussion Items

• Framing of the Deliberation: Chair Ryan explained the two-step process for the appeal. Step 1: Determine whether DPZ’s decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law (burden on appellant by preponderance of the evidence). Step 2: If the board finds DPZ erred, it must evaluate whether a waiver under Section 16.104A1 is appropriate, applying four criteria.
• Board Deliberation – Step 1: Members expressed differing views. Ms. McCarty argued DPZ’s rationale (consistent encroachment issues from forest conservation easements on residential lots) was rational and the appellant had not met its burden. Ms. Phillips and Ms. Harris initially leaned toward finding DPZ’s decision arbitrary, citing the appellant’s offer of a split‑rail fence, HOA management, and the existence of similar easements across the street. Chair Ryan and Ms. Fearcomp also voiced concerns that DPZ’s letter did not address the appellant’s mitigation proposals. After discussion, the board voted 4‑1 to find that the appellant had met its burden (Chair Ryan: grant, Ms. Fearcomp: grant, Ms. McCarty: deny, Ms. Phillips: grant, Ms. Harris: grant).
• Board Deliberation – Step 2 (Waiver Criteria): The board then examined the four waiver criteria.
  • Criterion 1 (Deprivation of rights commonly enjoyed): Most members agreed that strict compliance would deprive the appellant of rights others in similar areas enjoy (e.g., the property across the street). Ms. McCarty abstained. Outcome: affirmative.
  • Criterion 2 (Uniqueness of property causing practical difficulty): Chair Ryan and Ms. Harris argued that the unique combination of stream buffers, floodplain, and wetland constraints prevented the appellant from using on‑site forest for conservation credit. Ms. McCarty abstained. Outcome: affirmative (4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain).
  • Criterion 3 (No special privilege): Members agreed that granting the waiver would not confer a special privilege, as other properties have similar on‑site forest conservation. Outcome: affirmative (4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain).
  • Criterion 4 (Not detrimental to public welfare): All members voting agreed the modification would not be detrimental; one noted that preserving trees near a highway (I‑95) provides environmental benefit. Outcome: affirmative (4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain).
• Conditions: The board specified that the waiver is granted with conditions: the forest conservation area must be managed by a homeowners association (HOA), a split‑rail fence must be installed as a physical barrier, and signage as shown in Exhibit 4 must be posted. These conditions were included in the final vote.

Key Outcomes

• Approval of Minutes: Unanimous approval of April 16, 2026 minutes.
• Appeal Sustained: The board voted 4‑1 to find that DPZ’s denial was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious, thus the appellant met its burden (Step 1).
• Waiver Granted: The board voted 4‑0‑1 (McCarty abstaining from all subsequent votes) to grant the requested alternate compliance under Section 16.104A1, subject to the conditions that the forest conservation area be HOA‑managed, a split‑rail fence be installed, and signage be posted as depicted in the record.
• Direction on Fee Refund: Chair Ryan noted that under Board Rules 2.202F, the appellant is entitled to a refund of administrative hearing and filing fees. The appellant’s attorney raised a dispute regarding whether mandatory newspaper advertising costs are included. The county solicitor agreed to discuss the issue further with the board’s attorney, and the matter was left open for resolution without delaying the order.
• Future Waiver Issue: The appellant’s attorney also raised a potential requirement for an additional waiver regarding HOA ownership of forest conservation on infill developments. The board did not rule on this, but the county solicitor noted it would be addressed if a separate application is filed.