Howard County Board of Appeals Meeting – May 21, 2026

The Howard County Board of Appeals convened on Thursday, May 21, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in a hybrid format (Banneker Room and WebEx) to consider administrative matters and hear Case BA 25-019C – Trotter 5857, LLC. The case is an appeal of a Hearing Examiner’s denial of a conditional use for a 62-unit age-restricted adult housing apartment building on 13 acres at 3173 St. Charles Place, Ellicott City (RED zoning district). During the hearing, the petitioner amended the proposal to 53 units. The board heard testimony from petitioner’s experts, public witnesses, and a neighboring developer. The board deferred its decision to a future meeting.

Consent Calendar

• Meeting Minutes Approval (April 23, 2026): The board unanimously approved the minutes for the April 23, 2026 session. Motion by Ms. Fearcob, seconded by Ms. Phillips. Roll call: Chair Ryan – Approved; Ms. Fearcole – Approved; Ms. Harris – Approved; Ms. McCurdy – Approved; Ms. Phillips – Approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Edwin Avant (Terra Maria resident): Opposed the petition, citing traffic safety on St. Charles Place, increased congestion from employees and deliveries, safety concerns from outside workers adjacent to a community playground, noise and disruption from around-the-clock operations, and the change in community character from single-family to a 53-unit commercial facility. He requested the board deny the petition without condition.
• Denise Geiger (Terra Maria resident): Stated she is “more than 125% against the process” and opposed the project. She noted the property has been unsuccessfully rezoned for similar uses four times, that the building would be visible and cause noise and light pollution, and that it would lower her property value. She argued that suitable locations exist elsewhere in Howard County (e.g., along Route 1).
• Sherry Cummings (Terra Maria resident, adjacent to site): Described her community as a close-knit, traditional neighborhood design. She opposed the development due to light pollution (son’s bedroom west-facing), noise from maintenance vehicles and service trucks, the change from a single-family ruin to a rental apartment building, and potential adverse impacts on her property value. She requested the board deny the petition.
• Joel Cummings (Terra Maria HOA representative, adjacent resident): Testified on behalf of the homeowners’ association. He argued that the adverse impacts (noise, light, traffic) are far above what is expected in an RED zone. He noted the building length exceeds 120 feet and that the architectural mitigations presented were insufficient. He also stated that SHA access to Route 40 has not been approved and that the petitioner failed to meet the condition precedent. He asked the board to deny the petition.
• Jeffrey Blythe (Terra Maria resident, 25-year resident): Raised acoustics concerns, describing the site as an “amphitheater” where noise would be amplified into the neighborhood (citing an Airbnb event and the mansion fire). He argued that under Section 131.0.b.3.a, the impacts (noise, odors, lighting) would be greater at this site than elsewhere in the same district due to the topography. He also noted the historical grotto and the need to preserve community character. He urged denial.
• Jacob Hickmat (owner of adjoining parcel to the west): Testified in opposition, arguing the appeal was untimely (filed 2 days after the 30-day deadline from the December 22, 2025 decision) and that the site lacks frontage and direct access to a collector/arterial road as required by regulations. He claimed the parcel has two density units remaining, not one, and that the intensity (53 units vs. 2 units) is not in harmony with the vicinity. He presented exhibits including the record plat showing access restrictions.

Discussion Items

• Petitioner’s Opening Statement (Mr. Cole): Argued that the proposal meets all criteria, emphasizing the need for senior apartments in Howard County. He stated that access to Route 40 is not being approved by the board – that will be determined later by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) – and that if SHA denies access, the conditional use would be moot. He noted the building was reduced from 62 to 53 units and the building length corrected to under 200 feet.
• Petitioner’s Evidence – Chris Ogle (Engineering Consultant): Testified for over 30 years in Howard County land use. He presented the amended plan (Exhibit 1) showing 53 units, 4.2 units per net acre, 112 parking spaces (exceeding the 1.3/unit requirement), 61% open space (8 acres preserved, exceeding the 50% requirement), and a Type C buffer added to perimeter areas. He stated the proposal is in harmony with the General Plan (HOCO by Design), that the site is ideal for age-restricted housing at a signalized intersection, and that the development right (one dwelling unit) exists per density tabulations. He confirmed that if Route 40 access is not granted, the project cannot proceed.
• Petitioner’s Evidence – Matt Herbert (Architect, Design Collective): Presented Exhibit 3 (site sections, elevations, typical floor plan). He explained that the building length (approx. 195–197 feet) exceeds the standard 120 feet but is within the 200-foot maximum allowable with board approval based on architectural design. He described design features (stepped massing, varied materials, roof angles) that mitigate visual impact. He stated the building is placed in the center of the site, below the topographic elevation of the adjoining community, and set back from Route 40.
• Board Questions and Discussion:
  • Board members asked about the Type C buffer, the existing access easement to the stormwater pond, the difference between condo and apartment (apartments with a condominium association), and the density tabulations clarifying parcels A and B.
  • Chair Ryan raised concerns about potential minor modifications and clarified that only Route 40 access is proposed; no alternative access.
  • Board members questioned the building length approval criteria (Section 131.0.G) and whether architectural design sufficiently mitigates the increased length.
  • Ms. Phillips and others asked about acoustics, light pollution, and the “amphitheater” effect raised by opponents.
• Rebuttal by Petitioner: Recalled Mr. Herbert to elaborate on architectural mitigations. He explained that the building steps in and out, breaking the 200-foot length into smaller facades (some under 120 feet), using material changes to reduce visual mass.

Key Outcomes

• No Decision Rendered: The board did not vote on the case. The hearing was adjourned, and deliberation is scheduled for May 28, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
• Objections: The board heard a motion regarding the timeliness of the appeal (raised by Mr. Hickmat). Petitioner’s counsel argued the decision was issued on December 23, 2025 (not December 22), and the appeal filed January 22, 2026 was within 30 days. The board did not rule on the objection, indicating it would be addressed during deliberations.
• Burden of Proof: The board reminded that the petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditional use meets all standards; the board must apply the law as written.
• Future Meeting: The board will convene on May 28, 2026, to deliberate and issue a decision.