Hearing Examiner Appeal BA 829D: Gorjon v. DPZ – June 11, 2026

On June 11, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., the Howard County Hearing Examiner (Joyce Nichols) held a hybrid hearing on appeal BA 829D filed by Donna Gorjon, a neighbor of 10450 Waterfowl Terrace, Columbia, MD. The appeal challenged a March 10, 2026 DPZ closure letter (CE 2617) that found no zoning violations and upheld a building permit (B2503489) for an attached garage. Gorjon argued the permit relied on an unverified owner claim that an existing shed was attached to the house, which would allow a reduced 4.8-foot side yard setback under Section 128.0.B.2.A. The county maintained that DPZ’s investigation was thorough and the permit was correct. The hearing concluded with a motion to dismiss taken under advisement; a written decision is pending.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Rex Dalrymple (10422 Green Mountain Circle, neighbor since 1974) testified that the historical photographs presented by Gorjon accurately depicted the property as it appeared since 1974. He stated that in his opinion the shed was not connected to the house, but he could not provide factual certainty on the connection.

Discussion Items

• Appellant’s Case (Donna Gorjon, pro se): Gorjon argued that the entire DPZ approval rested on a single unverified factual assertion—that an existing shed was attached to the principal dwelling. She presented exhibits including historical photographs (1969 and early 1970s from the James Rouse archives), a 2023 survey showing a gap between the shed and house, and photos of the property during construction. She claimed the shed was physically separate, as evidenced by a visible gap, a gas/electric meter on the wall where the shed would have attached, and the absence of any continuous roofline or common wall. She further contended that the prior structures (carport and shed) were demolished, extinguishing any non-conforming condition, and that the new garage is a materially greater encroachment in mass, height, and volume. She criticized DPZ’s use of a rolling tape measure without visible property markers and noted that height comparisons were based on visual observation alone, without measured elevation data. She also argued that no FDP (Fells Development Plan) compatibility analysis was conducted.
• County’s Case (David Moore, representing DPZ): The county called two witnesses. Everett James (DPZ Code Enforcement Supervisor) testified that he reviewed the investigation and issued the March 10, 2026 closure letter concluding no violations. He stated that Inspector Blanding conducted multiple inspections, used a rolling tape measure per standard practice, and that the measurements were consistent with the approved survey and building permit. James stated he was satisfied the investigation was thorough and the decision was correct. Maurice Blanding (DPZ Code Enforcement Officer) testified that he inspected the property three times, took measurements from the garage corner to the property line showing 4.8 feet (consistent with the survey), and visually observed that the garage roof ridge did not exceed the main house clear story. He acknowledged that he used a rolling tape measure on uneven terrain but stated it was appropriate. He also noted that the building permit was not appealed within the limitations period.
• Motion to Dismiss: At the close of Gorjon’s case, Mr. Moore moved to dismiss on the grounds that the appellant had not provided a copy of her original complaint or appeal letter, making it impossible to determine the exact basis of the appeal. The Hearing Examiner took the motion under advisement.

Key Outcomes

• The Hearing Examiner took the county’s motion to dismiss under advisement and did not rule from the bench.
• The evidentiary hearing was concluded; a written decision and order will be issued at a later date.
• No further testimony or evidence was admitted after the close of the county’s case.
• The owner of the subject property (Lawrence Schoen and Laurie Wheal) declined to testify.