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.
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.