Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting – June 16, 2026: Appeals on Maryland International School Expansion
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting – June 16, 2026
On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at 2:00 PM (hybrid meeting), Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols convened a session to hear four administrative appeals (BA 823D, BA 825D, BA 826D, and BA 830D) all related to the Maryland International School’s expansion at 6135 Old Washington Road, Elkridge. The appeals were filed by David Marc and other neighboring property owners challenging various approvals by the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) and related agencies. The meeting included testimony from witnesses, legal arguments, and a motion to dismiss one appeal.
Preliminary Motion – Respondent Naming
- At the start, Christopher DeCarlo, counsel for the applicant (Maryland International School), raised a defect in all appeal petitions: the appellants named the Maryland International School as respondent instead of the administrative agencies (DPZ, Public Works, Office of Community Sustainability). He argued this was fatal and warranted dismissal. Appellants’ counsel (Ms. Votaw) argued custom in Howard County is to name the applicant as respondent. The hearing examiner took the motion under advisement, allowing both parties to file memoranda by a later date (proposed July 10 or July 17). The record was closed on this issue.
BA 823D – Appeal of Alternative Compliance (Specimen Tree and Steep Slope Disturbance)
Witnesses: David Marc (appellant, professional engineer and neighbor) and Robert Vogel (applicant’s engineer).
- David Marc: Testified that environmental features (steep slopes, streams, forest) are not unique to the subject property, as adjacent properties have similar characteristics. He argued the applicant could reduce the scale of expansion to avoid removing specimen tree #6 and disturbing steep slopes, and that the approval was based on economic hardship. He also noted the applicant failed to obtain Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) approval for the site’s location within four miles of BWI Airport, citing a pre-submission requirement.
- Robert Vogel: Testified that the property’s combination of features (85-foot vertical grade, historic school building, stream buffers, and specimen trees) is unique, making development challenging. He explained that the retaining wall and athletic field were designed to minimize disturbance and retain forest buffer for neighbors. The specimen tree #6 already has 46% of its critical root zone compromised by existing improvements. He disputed the MAA requirement, stating it is only needed before signature approval, not at this stage.
- Closing Arguments: Appellants argued the agency erred legally by failing to evaluate self-created hardship and lacking substantial evidence on uniqueness and hardship; they requested reversal. Applicant argued the decision was not clearly erroneous, and the board’s prior findings on uniqueness in the conditional use case should stand. The hearing examiner closed the record and indicated a decision and order would be forthcoming.
BA 825D – Appeal of Design Manual Waiver (Complete Streets)
Key Points: The applicant sought a waiver from the design manual for road improvements along Old Washington Road. The waiver was approved by DPZ’s Development Engineering Division conditioned on constructing a shared use path and curb adjustments.
- David Marc: Testified that the applicant misidentified the road type (town center connector instead of neighborhood street), and that the waiver lacked clear criteria. He argued the improvements (shared use path) would require easements and may not be feasible on private property.
- Robert Vogel: Acknowledged a typo in the submitted letter (referencing Table 1-2 instead of Table 1-7) but stated the substance was correct. He explained that the county determined the road to be “neighborhood street with parking” and that the waiver process allows DPZ to dictate improvements for safety and consistency.
- Legal Arguments: Appellants argued the waiver should have been evaluated under Howard County Code Section 16.104 (waiver criteria for subdivision regulations), not just the design manual’s engineering evaluation. Applicant countered that design manual waivers are different and that the county’s practice is to treat them as engineering decisions. The hearing examiner accepted additional exhibits (design manual section, code section) and closed the record.
BA 826D – Appeal of Necessary Disturbance (Stream Buffer and Steep Slope)
Key Points: The applicant requested approval to extend a stormwater outfall 20 linear feet into a 100-foot priority retention area and 75-foot stream buffer. The county approved the request based on soil conservation comments.
- David Marc: Testified that the actual disturbance area is larger than the 20 linear feet described, encompassing significant portions of stream buffer and forest. He argued the county’s approval was vague and failed to address the full extent of impact.
- Robert Vogel: Testified that the 20 linear feet refers to the width of the stream disturbance, and the limit of disturbance (LOD) shown on the plan graphically indicates the full area. He stated the work was necessary to prevent erosion and was required by the Soil Conservation District and MDE (which granted an authorization to proceed). He also noted that steep slope disturbance was already approved under the alternative compliance case.
- Closing: Appellants argued the approval lacked detailed justification and failed to consider reasonable alternatives. Applicant argued the exhibit and testimony sufficiently justified the action. The hearing examiner closed the record.
BA 830D – Appeal of Technically Complete Letter (SDP-24-2024)
- Motion to Dismiss: Applicant moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a technically complete determination is not an appealable order under Section 130.0.B.4 or 16.301(B). The letter merely allows the applicant to proceed with final approvals and does not interpret or apply zoning regulations.
- Appellants’ Response: Contended that the determination is a decision by DPZ interpreting and applying regulations, and that the hearing examiner has broad authority to hear such appeals. They argued it would be more efficient to address issues now.
- Ruling: Hearing Examiner Nichols granted the motion, finding that she lacked jurisdiction over a technically complete letter. The appeal was premature until final SDP approval. She ordered a written decision (DNO) on the dismissal.
Key Outcomes
- BA 823D, 825D, 826D: Records closed; decisions and orders forthcoming.
- BA 830D: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; written order to follow.
- Preliminary Motion: Taken under advisement; parties to file memoranda on respondent naming issue by a date to be set.
- The hearing examiner dismissed BA 830D and indicated that decisions on the remaining appeals would be issued in due course.
Meeting Transcript
This webinar is being recorded and summarized. All right, good afternoon, everybody. It is the 16th of June. We are here for four cases, which we are going to call six um consecutively. So the first case for this afternoon is going to be 83 823 823D. It is an administrative appeal from the Department of Planning and Zoning in WP 25-076. It is for the property at 6135 Old Washington Boulevard in Elkridge. The appeal is from, as I said, the decision collectively of the Department of Planning and Zoning. It also involves the owner of the property, which is the Maryland International School. And basically the DPC Public Works and the Office of Community Sustainability approved June 23rd, 023, a request for alternative compliance to Section 16-116 B1, and a variance to Section 16-1205 A3. And so it was appealed by the opposition. And appellants, are you ready? Yes. Okay. It's your case. I do just have one preliminary. Sorry, it's a preliminary matter. Yes. So just for the record, um, counsel for Maryland International School, Christopher DeCarlo, um, who is the applicant and I believe an interested party in this case regarding the underlying request. And I just want to note for the record that I believe there's a defect with the um appeal petition itself that is fatal regarding the filing and the naming of the respondent in that petition. So in this appeal petition, uh, administrative appeal petition to the Howard County Hearing Authority, um, as was noted, it is the Department of Planning and Zoning, the Department of Public Works, and the Office of Community Sustainability's decision that is being appealed, and they are the administrative agency that is required, I think, by law to be the respondent in this case. However, in the appeal petition itself, the appellants did not name them at all as respondents. Instead, they named Maryland International School. Um I don't think it could be amended to be corrected at this point. And I would argue that it warrants um dismissal. And I wanted to put that on the record to preserve it in the event that this goes further, obviously. And that's all. Thank you. All right. Ms. Vaucha, do you have a um response? Yeah, absolutely. Um traditionally, when you are appealing a decision, uh uh you name the applicant as the respondent. That's what we've done this now, I don't know, 10, 15 times at this point. Um you don't necessarily name the agency as the uh respondent from an appeal from the administrative agency's decision uh because the agency is the one who receives the notice of that, the agency is the one who sends the notice to the applicant. Um customarily the agency does not have the right to participate in defending its decision unless specifically authorized by uh uh county or state law, and to my knowledge, there's no uh county level ordinance that authorizes uh uh the various departments to participate in that appeal. So you say there's not a local law that that grants that makes them so we juris. Exactly, correct. All right, Mr. DeCarlo? Sure, just in response, I'd say that um you know I filed a number of administrative appeals that have appeared before you, Madam Hearing Examiner, and every one of those the respondent is always the department that made the decision. Um certainly the department has come and appeared in some of those cases, although I think it's a policy decision that they choose not to, but if they would like to, they um or directed to by the administration. I'm not sure of any law that needs to authorize them to come and participate. And I think the parallel um to this is if you look at the um Maryland rules 7200 that deal with the um petitions for judicial review of administrative decisions. Um in those rules, it is the administrative agency that is named as the respondent, they enter in the case, and then the applicant or you know the party, I guess the real party of interest um usually enters as an interested party. And you could not file a petition for judicial review without naming the administrative agency as a party in that case. And what we have here is is we have an appeal of an administrative agency decision in which the agency that made the decision has not been identified or named as a party, and that's a problem. May I be heard? So just so you know, I'm somewhat familiar with administrative appeals, both the old rules and the new rules. And granted, I haven't looked up cases recently, but prior to about seven years ago, the cases all indicated that the agency had to be sui juris in order to defend itself.
openpublica.com