Hearing on Conditional Use Application for Age-Restricted Housing Increase (May 6, 2026)

The Howard County Hearing Examiner convened on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 5:30 pm in a hybrid format (Banneker Room and WebEx) to consider Case BA 26-007C – Rock Realty, LLC. The petitioner sought a conditional use approval to increase the number of age-restricted adult housing (55+) units on the property at 12170 Lime Kiln Road, Fulton, from the previously approved 58 units to 63 units. The hearing included testimony from the petitioner's experts, public comments from homeowners, and discussion of amenities and construction issues. The record was left open for a proposed condition on the walking trail.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Richard Robbins (homeowner, 8509 Lolly Brock Lane) testified in favor of the additional five units but expressed concerns about the community's amenities. He stated that the walking trail made of wood mulch is unstable, unsteady, and difficult for residents aged 55 and over to use. He presented photographs (marked as Opposition Exhibits A–D) showing a high step-up onto the trail and debris. He also noted the lack of lighting at the mailboxes and questioned whether the water and sewer permits allowed for more than 58 lots. He requested that the trail be improved to a compacted gravel surface (e.g., crusher-run gravel) to be more usable and ADA-compliant.
• Stanley Surfling (homeowner, 8527 Lolly Brock Lane) supported the additional units but criticized the trail and construction management. He described his experience with a similar wood-chip trail in a previous community that failed and was replaced with crusher-run gravel, which worked well for over 15 years. He also reported a septic backup in his backyard where untreated wastewater had to be removed, and noted poor grading and erosion along the trail. He expressed frustration with construction debris and lack of cleanup.
• Warren Buckalter (online attendee) asked about traffic impact on the single ingress/egress point and later agreed with concerns about the trail's steepness and instability after rain.

Discussion Items

• Petitioner's Case (Rock Realty, LLC)
  • Brandon Rao (civil engineer, Bowler Engineering) testified as the project manager. He explained that the original approval for 58 units was granted on September 22, 2020. The proposed increase to 63 units is possible because additional septic capacity was identified during construction, and the total remains below the maximum density. He confirmed that the technical staff report from the Department of Planning and Zoning found no issues with compatibility, buffering, or architectural transition. He stated the project continues to meet all criteria.
  • Mickey Cornelius (traffic engineer, senior vice president) testified that the five additional age-restricted units would generate only one additional weekday morning peak-hour trip and two additional weekday evening peak-hour trips. He stated this negligible impact satisfies Howard County's adequate public facilities requirements without needing a new traffic study. Under cross-examination by Mr. Buckalter, he acknowledged the minimal traffic effect on the single ingress/egress but deferred on the second access point.
  • Brandon Rao (recalled) clarified that the second entrance (Nicolar Drive) is intended only for emergency egress and construction; the permanent entrance will be off Lime Kiln Road via Lollybrock. He confirmed that a single ingress/egress is legally sufficient for 63 units.
• Petitioner's Rebuttal (Jamie Frazier, developer)
  • Mr. Frazier addressed concerns raised by Mr. Robbins and Mr. Surfling. He acknowledged that the clubhouse would be enlarged from 1,160 to 1,260 square feet to accommodate the additional units, and that building permits were being sought. Regarding the trail, he stated the development is obligated to provide a natural surface trail, and the wood mulch surface will compact over time. He committed to having the contractor remove larger debris and improve the surface, but noted that an asphalt trail would increase impervious surface and require significant plan revisions. He disputed marketing materials that may have shown an asphalt trail, stating they were withdrawn. On mailbox lighting, he said he would explore solar lighting but noted no existing electrical circuit. He expressed a commitment to delivering amenities as the community nears completion (about 65% settled).
• Hearing Examiner's Remarks
  • The Hearing Examiner expressed concern that the trail is not ADA-compliant and stated that the condition for the trail must be addressed. She directed Mr. O (petitioner's counsel) to propose language for a condition that ensures the trail is usable and accessible. She noted the trail appears unsafe for a 55+ community and asked the petitioner to seriously consider an alternative surface like crusher-run gravel, as suggested by Mr. Surfling.

Key Outcomes

• Evidentiary Hearing Concluded: The Hearing Examiner closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.
• Record Kept Open: The record will remain open for 30 days to allow Mr. O to submit a proposed condition regarding the walking trail. The Hearing Examiner requested that the condition ensure the trail is safe, usable, and appropriate for the age-restricted population, with consideration of ADA compliance.
• Decision and Order Pending: A final decision and order will be issued after receipt of the proposed condition and review of the record.
• No opposition testimony: No persons testified in opposition to the application, and no additional public comment was received from virtual attendees.