Howard County Hearing Examiner: Variance Petition – July 31, 2026

On Friday, July 31, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., the Howard County Hearing Examiner, Joyce Nichols, convened a hybrid meeting to consider BA 26-003V, a residential district variance petition filed by Nicholas Bennett for property at 8250 Mission Road, Jessup, MD. The petition requested four variances related to an existing single-family dwelling (built 1958) and an accessory shed constructed in late 2024. After hearing testimony from the applicant and his engineer, the Hearing Examiner took the matter under advisement, stating a decision and order would be forthcoming.

Discussion Items

• Case Overview: Attorney Adam Baker (Rosenberg Martin Greenberg) presented on behalf of Nicholas Bennett. The property is a 9,626-square-foot lot (RSC zone) improved with a 2,375-square-foot dwelling. The shed, built without permits, triggered a violation notice (March 27, 2025). Subsequent survey revealed the existing dwelling also encroached into required setbacks. The applicant sought to ratify the conditions and obtain legal compliance.

• Variances Requested:

  • Principal dwelling: Front yard setback reduction from 30 ft to 29 ft (1-ft reduction); Rear yard setback reduction from 30 ft to 29 ft (1-ft reduction).
  • Accessory shed: Side yard setback reduction from 7.5 ft to 1.2 ft (6.3-ft reduction); Rear yard setback reduction from 10 ft to 5.1 ft (4.9-ft reduction).

• Testimony of Nicholas Bennett (Applicant):

  • Acquired property in 2009; shed built in late 2024 for storage. Neighbors were notified and expressed no objection; the closest neighbor (1.2 ft side) offered to write a letter of support. The lot is among the smallest on Mission Road, with mature landscaping and fences limiting visibility of the shed from the street and most neighbors.

• Testimony of Paul Sill (Professional Engineer):

  • Licensed PE in Maryland, owner of SIL Engineering Group. He prepared the site plan and described the lot's topography: the property rises approximately 5–7 ft from the front retaining wall to the rear, with drainage ditch and retaining wall at front. The lot is irregular and narrow compared to neighbors (two adjacent lots are twice the size; the rear lot is five times larger).
  • Sill testified that the existing house’s location (1958) and the lot’s shape create practical difficulties for strict compliance; relocating the house would require reconstruction. For the shed, requiring full setbacks would force an awkward, elongated structure near the house. He confirmed the variances are the minimum necessary to legalize existing conditions, that they would not alter neighborhood character, impair adjacent property use, or harm public welfare. The shed is not visible from the road and only visible from one neighbor’s property.
  • Sill further noted that no variances are sought for conditional use criteria, and the property is not in a historic district.

• Closing Argument: Attorney Baker emphasized that the hardships were not created by Mr. Bennett (house pre-dated his ownership; lot subdivision from 1947). The applicant has cooperated with county staff and kept neighbors informed. No objections were presented at the hearing.

Key Outcomes

• The Hearing Examiner accepted Petitioners’ Exhibits 1 through 7 into evidence.
• No decision was rendered at the hearing; the case was concluded subject to a forthcoming written decision and order.
• The Hearing Examiner noted that the shed is not abnormally large and is comparable to sheds on neighboring properties.