Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting – July 15, 2026: Zoning Map Amendment and PDP for Maple Lawn
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting – July 15, 2026
Overview
On July 15, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., the Howard County Hearing Examiner convened a hybrid meeting at the George Howard Building in Ellicott City to hear two related petitions concerning 2 acres near Maple Lawn in Fulton. The first case (ZB 1134M) was a piecemeal zoning map amendment request to rezone two parcels from B-1 (Business: Local) to RR-MXD-3 (Rural Residential Mixed Use Overlay). The second case (ZB 1134PDP) was an amendment to the Maple Lawn Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) to incorporate the same parcels, adjust land uses, and increase residential density. After hearing evidence and public testimony on the zoning map amendment, the Hearing Examiner closed that record and began the PDP case but recessed it to continue on July 23, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.
Consent Calendar
- None.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Stu Kohn (Protestant): Asked about the developer’s commitment to moderately priced income housing units (MIHUs). He noted a discrepancy between a 10% requirement and a voluntary offer of 15%. Petitioner Michael Book confirmed a mandatory 15% MIHU commitment in writing, regardless of final unit count.
- Alan Schneider (Protestant): Questioned the definition of the “neighborhood” used by petitioners for the change analysis, noting that the green boundary on Exhibit 1 included areas he considered distinct (e.g., Maple Lawn South). He also asked about additional uses permitted under MXD-3; Kevin Foster explained that the specific uses would be determined in the PDP process, but the current proposal is for apartments.
- Vincent Pagan (Protestant, Mooresfield resident): Challenged the inclusion of Mooresfield within the petitioners’ neighborhood boundary, arguing there is no physical connectivity (no through roads or sidewalks) between Mooresfield and Maple Lawn. Foster responded that neighborhood boundaries are geographic, not based on connectivity.
- William England (Protestant, virtual): Asked whether uses other than apartments could be pursued if the rezoning were approved. Foster stated that without a PDP amendment, the property would remain standalone; other residential uses might be possible but are not part of this petition.
- Brianna Pagan (Protestant, virtual during PDP case): Raised concerns about notice to adjacent parcels, particularly the Mooresfield community, stating that many residents did not receive notice and that the sign at the farm was not updated. She also asked about school and traffic studies; petitioners indicated those would be addressed at later stages.
Discussion Items
Zoning Map Amendment (ZB 1134M)
- Petitioner's Case: Attorney Mandy Heinel opened, arguing that the petition is based solely on the “change” prong of the piecemeal rezoning standard, not “mistake.” She stated that substantial, unforeseen changes since the 2016 rezoning—including the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on office demand, a housing shortage, and new planning policies (HOCO by Design)—cumulatively altered the character of the neighborhood.
- Kevin Foster (Expert Planner, ~40 years experience): Defined the relevant neighborhood as bounded by Johns Hopkins Road (N), Pindale School Road (W), MD 216 (S), and US 29 (E). He testified that the 2-acre subject parcels are a “small island of B1 zoning” surrounded by RR-MXD-3 within Maple Lawn’s PDP. The existing B1 zoning is no longer satisfactory because the office market and housing needs have fundamentally changed. He noted the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. He also read from the 2016 technical staff report and decision to show that the 2016 B1 zoning was appropriate based on the facts at that time.
- Michael Book (Property Owner): Explained that in 2016, he sought B1 zoning to build an 80,000 sq ft office building, but post-COVID the office market collapsed, and standalone office is no longer feasible. He now seeks rezoning to incorporate the parcels into Maple Lawn for a multifamily apartment building with 15% MIHUs.
- Michael Greenbaum (Master Developer of Maple Lawn): Described the drastic underutilization of office parking (exhibits 5 and 6 showed 2013 vs. 2026 photos). He noted 70% office occupancy and low utilization. He emphasized increased demand for housing, especially apartments, and the need for affordable units. He testified that an MOU with the Maple Lawn HOA acknowledges these changes (Hearing Examiner admitted it despite relevance objection, noting it had limited probative value for the change argument).
- Dr. Darius Irani (Economist, Towson University): Testified that COVID caused a structural, permanent shift in office demand and increased housing demand. He cited labor force participation declines and a shortage of ~95,000 housing units in Maryland. Mixed-use developments are now more resilient than standalone offices. He stated that these changes were not foreseeable in 2016.
- Jessamine Duvall (Housing Expert, Bridges to Housing Stability): Described the housing shortage in Howard County, referencing HOCO by Design (adopted 2023) and the Housing Opportunities Master Plan (2021). She testified that Howard County now recognizes a need for 31,000 additional housing units. Maple Lawn lacks rental apartments and MIHUs; the proposal would provide both.
- Opposition/Cross-Examination:
- Zoning Council cross-examined Foster on the neighborhood definition and noted no physical infrastructure changes since 2016.
- Protestants questioned the scope of the petitioner’s neighborhood (Exhibit 1) and argued that the proposed apartments are incompatible with Maple Lawn’s existing character.
- Julia Sauer (DPZ): Confirmed that DPZ prepared a Technical Staff Report (TSR) that analyzed the petition under the change rule. She acknowledged that the neighborhood boundary map was first seen tonight but that the petition’s text description (major roads) had been evaluated. She noted no zoning changes in the area since 2016 except two: a parcel rezoned to RAPT (The Vine apartments) and a piecemeal amendment for a yellow area south of 216 (zoning RSA-8). She stated that HOCO by Design represents a policy change reflecting the housing shortage.
- Closing Arguments: Petitioner argued that the cumulative evidence—changed office market, housing needs, planning policies, and integration into Maple Lawn—clearly meets the change standard. The petitioner requested a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board. Zoning Council reserved closing for a memorandum of law.
PDP Amendment (ZB 1134PDP) – Initial Testimony Only
- The Hearing Examiner opened this case after closing the map amendment record. Petitioner’s opening statement explained the three main amendments: (1) incorporate the book parcels (~2 ac) into the PDP; (2) change a portion of the business district from
Meeting Transcript
This webinar is being recorded and summarized. All right, good evening, everybody. It is the 15th of July. We are here for two cases, and we will call them separately. The first case that we're gonna hear tonight is the map amendment case, which is 134 M, an application by old Skagsville, LLC and G and R Maple Lawn Inc. It's a request to rezone to portions of two parcels of land from the B1 to the RR MXD 3 zone. And I I need to disclose for the record that one of the applicants was a neighbor of mine for several years. And I do not feel we had a close enough relationship that I need to recuse myself, but I just wanted on the record that I know Michael Book. So I moved from that neighborhood many years ago. So okay, all right, let's see. We don't have we don't have Mr. Hurrowitz to make his motions here tonight. Um let's just proceed with the applicant's case. Ms. Heinel. Thank you, Madam Hearing Examiner. Um, for the record, my name is Mandy Heinel. I'm here on behalf of the petitioners on ZB 1134M, the petition for the zoning map amendment, and also the related ZB 1134 PDP, which we'll hear separately, which is the petition for an amendment to the Maple Lawn preliminary development plan. Although each petition is governed by a different legal standard and must independently satisfy its applicable approval criteria, they are part of the same planning effort. We will present each petition separately and establish a distinct evidentiary record for each. At the same time, because they concern the same property and the same proposed development, certain testimony and exhibits will naturally provide factual and planning context in both proceedings, I'll bet for different purposes under their respective legal standards. The petition before is before the hearing examiner tonight, pursuant to section 4-204B of the Maryland land use article, which authorizes a piecemeal zoning map amendment upon a finding of mistake in either the zoning classification or substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. The petition before you requests the reclassification of approximately two acres from B1 to MXD3. Petitioners proceed solely under the change prong. We are not asserting that Howard County erred when it rezoned these parcels to B1 in 2016, nor are we asking the county to revisit that decision. The evidence supported the 2016 rezoning based on the facts and circumstances before the county at that time. We are before you because the facts and circumstances before the county have materially changed. Since the 2016 rezoning, there have been substantial and unforeseen changes in the character of the neighborhood, such that the existing zoning classification no longer reflects the conditions that exist today. Maryland courts have established a framework for evaluating a petition on change. In Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners, Maryland's Supreme Court explained that the inquiry is whether the petitioner had established a reasonably defined neighborhood, identified the changes that have occurred within that neighborhood since the last zoning designation, and have demonstrated that those changes have altered the character of the neighborhood. Equally important is the manner in which Maryland courts require that evidence be evaluated. In Bowman Group v. Moser, the appellate court of Maryland reversed the circuit court because it evaluated the asserted changes individually rather than cumulatively. The court held that the proper inquiry requires consideration of the cumulative effect of all relevant changes in determining whether the character of the neighborhood has materially changed. Bowman also makes clear in a piecemeal rezoning case, the relevant inquiry is whether there has been a change in the neighborhood since the last zoning designation. Here, that is the 2016 rezoning, not the last comprehensive rezoning. However, the record before you tonight will show substantial change from both the 2013 comprehensive rezoning and the piecemeal rezoning in 2016 based on mistake. In other words, the issue before you is not whether one asserted change viewed in isolation independently satisfies the current standard. Rather, Maryland courts require that evidence be viewed cumulatively to determine whether the collective effect of all the changes demonstrates a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. That framework is particularly important here. Because this petition is not based upon one event or one circumstance. It is based on the accumulative effect of a substantial and unforeseen changes in economic conditions, housing demand, planning policy, and the relationship between these parcels and the surrounding neighborhood since the last rezoning. Maryland courts have also recognized that the change analysis is not confined to physical development. Neighborhood character may change through changing economic conditions, land use demand, housing demand, planning policy, infrastructure, rezoning, and changing community needs, not simply new buildings and physical improvements. The evidence before you fall squarely within those recognized categories of change. First, the evidence will establish a substantial and unforeseen change in economic conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. In Murphy v. Liberty Mutual Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Maryland described COVID's impact as fundamentally changing where and how people go about daily life, where they work, where they live, and where they play. In Christos v.
openpublica.com